The Forge Archives

This thread in reference to Capes.  An earlier revision is available for perusal, as well as development threads here, here, here, here, here and here.

The Big Playtest has completed.  We had a lot of good, chaotic, player-driven fun.

I think that the core rules are within a few short steps of being done.  We only hit one minor snag by the end of the playtest.

I tested charging players (including the Editor) an action to introduce an Event.  This worked like a charm:  In tense, combat situations, where you'll be paying STs to get extra actions each Page, this is the equivalent of charging an ST for the Event.  It discourages the proliferation of Events.  In looser, non-combat scenes, where you're more likely to just call for a new Page than to spend lots of STs, it's the near equivalent of introducing the Event for free.  It encourages a proliferation of lightly contested Events.  Unless someone sees a deadly loophole in that, I'm probably going to stick with it.


The one thing that got really confusing in combat-level conflict was using pure Events.  We wanted to be able to say "Red Queen is trying to get her armor" without declaring that she either would or would not get it.  Now we could technically say that the Event is "It becomes clear whether the Red Queen will get her armor", but that's very unwieldy and counterintuitive.  

I recommend that the rules allow both Events ("Mary Jane falls off the ledge") and Goals ("Green Goblin wants to beat Spiderman to a pulp").  They'd both be dealt with in pretty much exactly the same way, rules-wise.  I think it's just an ease of use feature, but again I worry that there may be a loophole I'm unaware of, or that it might push people away from using unfamiliar Events, or that people would never use Goals when they can just declare that what they want is what happens.  Opinions are desperately sought and will be gratefully accepted.

Tony,

We had the same problem in our last IRC session of Capes.  I like the idea of a dual-structure (Events and Goals) as a solution, but I have absolutely no idea if it would be functional.  I guess I will have to think on it.

Thomas

I'll see what I can do about working up a solo-playtest example this afternoon when the boys are conked out.  That should give me a better sense of the interplay.

Apparent digression which has a point:

We didn't use Frames in the face-to-face playtest, and I think the lack of constraint made it harder to narrate. (Classic paradox that limits inspire creativity by giving structure to the "blank page"). When I did think of things in Frames (typically for Shell's "flashback" sequences) I found them much easier to visualize.

So perhaps the solution for Events is to think of them as Frames that will appear (and are possibly featured on the cover of this issue). In other words, the Event is a visual image (comics = visual medium, right?) with an ambiguous interpretation.

To take the seminal Complication that inspired Events, "Victoria West Friendship" is the frame of West shaking hands with one of the heroes -- we know we're going to get to that image, but not what it means.

To take the problematic question of "how to depict Clarissa Sever trying to get her Red Queen armor back," you have the Event be an image of Clarissa, still in her prison clothes, in the evidence room reaching out for a piece of her armor -- "Clariss lays hands on her armor" -- but that image doesn't say whether she gets to don it or not, or whether it's been sabotaged/decomissioned, or whatever.

Actually, much as I like the Frames mechanic, I've found that I like being able to get two to three times more action done in the same period of time much better.  The Frame mechanic inevitably pulls people from the "This is happening, this is our shared imaginary space" mentality to the "This isnt' really happening, we're portraying it" mentality, which causes a stumble in game momentum.

That's why it hasn't been in recent rules editions.  Consider it a victim of streamlining.

Tony,

Firstly, congrats on a successful playtest - I enjoyed reading the report in Actual Play.

Re: the Red Queen and her armour - I've been so spoilt by the IRC transcripts that I tried to find one for this Scene! I'm guessing that at some point, the Red Queen was separated form her armour, and that, later on, she got an opportunity to grab it back.

If so, I suspect that the relevant Event is the appearance of the armour.

Which leads me to think, if I were a Hero or Villain and I had been deprived of my costume/gear/whatever - is it fair play to bring it back within reach as an Event? I'd still need to Resolve the Event to actually get my stuff back, but it seems like a reasonable way to spend an Action.

Re: Frames - Even if they don't make the core rules, I think there is a lot that is good about Frames - can they be retained as an optional rule?

Frames or no Frames -- and I can see the argument that they can feel very artificial -- I think the key question is giving players (including the GM) the incentive and structure to create vivid images.

Obviously you can't have a rule that says "roleplay well" or "narrate well," but there should be some way to encourage "strong visuals."

Sydney:  I agree with the strong visuals, and I agree that there is some connection between them and Events (possibly even with Goals).  I'm not exactly sure how to describe it.  It may be easiest to instill the idea through a good Example of Play, but that seems a cop-out.

Doug:  The Red Queen was being sprung from prison, and Sydney (playing her) reasonably complained that most of her gadget powers were inaccessible because she didn't have her gadgets.  So we decided they were in a nearby armory/evidence-room and that she wanted to go get them.

The question became this:  Do we create an Event that says "She puts on her armor" and say that if the heroes win it then they've somehow booby-trapped the armor (which we considered, given the presence of her ex-partner Chessmaster and his technical skills), or otherwise changed the situation so that her donning it is to their advantage rather than hers?  It looked (to me) clumsy and forceful to aim it in that direction but there wasn't a clear-cut way to simply say "Red Queen wants her armor" and leave it to the dice whether she could fulfill that goal or not.  There was, essentially, no rules support for a hero standing in her way and saying "You shall not pass!"

Quote from: TonyLBDoug:  The Red Queen was being sprung from prison, and Sydney (playing her) reasonably complained that most of her gadget powers were inaccessible because she didn't have her gadgets.  So we decided they were in a nearby armory/evidence-room and that she wanted to go get them.

Right, much clearer. In which case, my point is that you decided that the gadgets were in a nearby room (and that, presumably, that she knew where they were). IMHO, that's your Event, right there - "Gadgets in nearby room."

But how can either side meaningfully contribute to control of that Event by way of their proxies, the heroes and villains?

Good question, I suspec this links with an earler statement you made:

Quote from: TonyLBThere was, essentially, no rules support for a hero standing in her way and saying "You shall not pass!"

I guess a lot depends on the actual play circumstances, but why can't a Hero with an appropriate Attitude do exactly that?

For Example: "I use my Commanding Attitude to roll up the Armour Event" which gets narrated in Frames as the Hero standing in front of the Red Queen and saying "You shall not pass!"

Alternatively, use an Entrap Opponent power to stop her from moving towards the Armour.

(You may notice that I've nicked both of these abilities form your "click-and-lock" sample sheets.)

Similarly, the Red Queen could use travel powers to move towards the armour, mayhem powers to fight her way through, or mind-control powers to make someone else get the Armour. Or just invoke a Determined ("You cannot stop me!") or Greedy ("I want my toys back") Attitude.

This doesn't seem difficult to me, which probably means I'm missing the point!

'kay... I'll throw up a quick hypothetical.  I'm not trying to be a pain in the hindquarters, just to help illustrate where the problem can arise in play.

Let's assume that a hero uses some Attitude or Power and narrates a "You shall not pass!" moment.  They are now between the Red Queen and the armor.  Mechanically, they Control the "Red Queen Dons Armor" Event and Resolve it.  So... now the hero has to fail, right?  Because the "Red Queen Dons Armor" Event is resolving, which means that the Red Queen has to don her armor, by definition.  Despite the fact that he controls the Event, the player cannot choose to prevent the Red Queen from reaching her armor.

A player, knowing that "You shall not pass!" can't work on this Event, is forced to do more creative stuff.  This is great when you want the more creative stuff, but it blocks out classic superhero things like just punching the other guy until he gives up what he was trying to do.  For such tactics to make sense you need a situation where someone is trying something and can either succeed or fail.

If you want that effect you sometimes have to word it much more carefully, like "It becomes clear whether the Red Queen will or will not reach her armor".  That's a very clunky and unintuitive way to express something by comparison with "Goal:  Red Queen wants armor".  If such goals will be common then it's probably worth formalizing the short-hand.

One thing to note is that anyone can veto an Event.  So if not all of the players are cool with the Red Queen grabbing her armor then it just will not happen.  On the other hand, this seems like it would have been a perfect place to Moralize...

Now, even with group veto power you end up with a number of Events with absolutley no suspence (not knowing what the outcome will be) or tension (not knowing how the outcome will come about).  I think that loss is rather telling, which is why I like the idea of Goals.  On the other hand, having two types of things that you can introduce seems kind of clunky.

Thomas

Quote from: TonyLBLet's assume that a hero uses some Attitude or Power and narrates a "You shall not pass!" moment.  They are now between the Red Queen and the armor.  Mechanically, they Control the "Red Queen Dons Armor" Event and Resolve it.  So... now the hero has to fail, right?  Because the "Red Queen Dons Armor" Event is resolving, which means that the Red Queen has to don her armor, by definition.  Despite the fact that he controls the Event, the player cannot choose to prevent the Red Queen from reaching her armor.

Oops, cross-purposes here. The Event I'm thinking about is "Armour is within reach". Hence my previous post suggesting that the appearance of the Armour should be the Event. However, I think I'm stuck in the wrong type of Event (one which has already happened) and I forget that the current definition of an Event is based upon something that will happen.

So, if your Event is "Red Queen Dons Armour" then you've already decided that she's going to get it. If that is what you want, then Thomas' Moralize suggestion is a good one. Sabotaging the Armour is also an option.

But if you want the possibility, but not the certainty, that the Red Queen will don the Armour, then perhaps you want "Red Queen Reaches Towards Her Armour" as an Event. This leaves open the possibility that the Heroes will be able to restrain her, so all she cen do is reach out feebly. Or maybe they browbeat her down, so she reaches out towards the Armour... and then surrenders.

Of course, if you want to add in Goals, I'm going to be the last person to disagree with you... Goals are sometimes going to be more intuitive to apply, which is one of the things I liked about them in the first place.

Okay, I have done my solo playtesting / example of play thing, and it has shown me a few things.

First:  Despite what I feared, it seemed (to me) that there was a pretty clear place for Goals and a pretty clear place for Events.  I can't really see one dominating play at the expense of the other... they both do such useful and different things.  I'm open to other opinions, though.  Obviously I can only stretch my own mental mindset so far.

Second:  Having Goals makes it easier for players to veto Events they don't like.  They are no longer saying "You cannot attempt to introduce that story element into the SIS", they are saying "You can't do it without a fight".  That's a much less provocative statement.  We're all used to the idea of thrashing out contributions to the SIS by way of the rules.

Third:  It is hard to get an Event that directly contradicts a Goal.  I aimed for it pretty specifically with the "Orphanage Collapses" Event being in play at the same time as the "Rescue the Orphans" Goal.  And, frankly, I thought that the resolution implied by the "broken" order in which they resolved was actually cooler than a more obvious order (i.e. Rescue the Orphans and then the Orphanage can collapse) would have been.


Anyway, I'd gone about as far as I could go in purely theoretical terms.  Here's some practical grist for the mill.  Does it change anyone's opinions?