[Capes] Polishing

[LordSmerf]

Brainstorm.  Not sure if it is a really good idea, but it is an idea.  Have Goals be the default option for Conflicts and allow players to spend a Story Token to make something an Event.  The advantage of Events is that they will happen.  Goals provide direction, but Events provide a sort of way point.

Without seeing it in play I am not sure what that would look like.  But the idea of being able to impose your will (somewhat) in advance through Events is kind of cool to me.  You could even encourage "recurring" Events by allowing people to state some at CharGen.  These "recurring" Events could be free... so you should see them more often...  Anyway, it's a thought.

Thomas

[TonyLB]

Wouldn't this discourage using Events?

[LordSmerf]

Somewhat yes.  At the same time it would make them more powerful (I think).  The decreased occurance may in fact be a deal breaker.  My thought is that it makes a clear distinction between the Goals and Events...  Again, it may not be a good idea, but I thought it might be worth considering.  I do not have a problem with the rules as they stand, I just have a kind of... I don't know... weird feeling about the dual Goal/Event thing...

Thomas

[Doug Ruff]

As it stands, I don't think there is anything too unbalancing about Events - although an Event states that something will happen, the dice will decide who benefits ffrom the Event.

However, Goals are different. Here's a quote from Tony's solo playtest:

"Tim: Your choice: You can create an Event or a Goal. The Goal would be, like you said, "Clear the street". You'll either do it or be thwarted.

Bob:  And if I'm thwarted, do people get munched?

Tim:  No. There's no immediate downside to losing your Goal. You're just thwarted. There's a long-term downside, because the villain might get an Inspiration out of it."

I think this is unbalanced - by declaring a Goal, the player gets a "no-risk" opportunity.

I would prefer losing a Goal to have more serious consequences. Tony, was there a reason for deciding against this? For example, why shouldn't people "get munched" if the street isn't cleared?

[TonyLB]

I want to maintain active (indeed, rabid) player interest in the Events and Goals on the table.  That is my agenda whether I'm the Editor or another player.  Engaging the competitive instincts of your opposition is how you gain Story Tokens, plain and simple.  They stake, they spend, they win, and you profit from it.

There are two ways to help increase player interest:  First, you can create Events or Goals that you have correctly deduced will interest or provoke them.  Second, you can encourage them to make their own Events and Goals on topics that (one hopes) are automatically of interest to them.

One rationale for the one-sidedness of Goals is to encourage players to create them.  Specifically, it is an encouragement to players who want to win.  It gives them a way to achieve something without risk that their efforts will be co-opted due to bad dice rolls.

One rationale for the narrative strength of Events is to encourage players to create them.  Specifically, it is an encouragement to players who want to tell a story.  It gives them a way to shape the story without risk that their efforts will be wasted due to bad dice rolls.

The other rationale for the one-sidedness of Goals is to provoke player interest in Goals I create.  By having the mechanical outcome radically change the future of the story, you empower players who want to achieve something tangible, increasing their interest in winning the Goal so that they achieve their aim.

The other rationale for the narrative strength of Events is to provoke player interest in Events I create.  By pre-ordaining a visually striking or conceptually important outcome, I empower players who want to have their characters in the spotlight of such events, increasing their interest in winning the Event so that they can make their character central to its narration.


I suspect that Thomas sees Events as "too powerful" because they fit with his style of play, and that Doug likewise sees Goals as "too powerful" because they fit with his style of play.  Did I hit the nail right on the head that time, or did I just bang my own metaphorical thumb?

[Doug Ruff]

I suspect that Thomas sees Events as "too powerful" because they fit with his style of play, and that Doug likewise sees Goals as "too powerful" because they fit with his style of play.  Did I hit the nail right on the head that time, or did I just bang my own metaphorical thumb?

I can't speak for Thomas, but I think you've got me there! I prefer "success or fail" to "success or no success".

However, you made some good points for keeping things as they are. I would be very interested in seeing how this would work out in Actual Play now - and especially, whether different goups, with different styles of play, would tend to prefer Events to Goals, or vice versa.

[TonyLB]

Out of interest, Doug, who do you think (in an ideal world) should decide success or failure?

Personally, I'm all keen to let players decide when they succeed or fail, as long as there's a way to bypass the uninteresting variation where they choose to succeed every single time.  But it's a matter upon which rational people could reasonably disagree.

[LordSmerf]

I suspect that Thomas sees Events as "too powerful" because they fit with his style of play, and that Doug likewise sees Goals as "too powerful" because they fit with his style of play.  Did I hit the nail right on the head that time, or did I just bang my own metaphorical thumb?

So I have been considering this question.  My initial response is... "No!  Of course I'm not biased!", but then reality hits me in the face and I go, "Oh, yeah, well, uh, yeah..."

So, Tony, I believe you may have something there.  My suggestion is that we move over to play testing since at this stage the changes we make are so theoretical that we have absolutely no idea what they will look like on the table...

I still have some ideas regarding dice (and Staking).  This may be for another thread, but as things stand there does not seem to be a use for Drives of 1 since you can not split dice with them...  I would be interested in further discussing the idea of each Character getting one free die that they can move around and then needing to Stake to get more dice (which would be required for handling multiple Events/Goals.  There is a huge downside to this, and some really wierd balance issues, but I would be interested in discussing and/or testing it out...

Thomas

[Doug Ruff]

Out of interest, Doug, who do you think (in an ideal world) should decide success or failure?

In an ideal world (ie a "good" gaming group), and given (in this game, at least) that each player "owns" a character Hero, then each player gets to choose how the hero succeeds or fails. Because a good player isn't afraid to hose themselves in order to make the story more fun.

Then again, in an ideal world, I don't think that this particular game needs an Editor at all. There are very few rules to enforce, and the game encourages (requires even) players to explicitly narrate events, actions and goals.

As for metaplot - I somehow don't see this as being an essential part of the game...

Under the circumstances, the main role for the Editor is to stat out the Villains and supporting cast, roll dice for them, and link between scenes. With enough pregen material (and don't forget "Click-and-Lock!") this shouldn't be that hard to share amongst the players either. And the idea of players taking on the role of the Villains has been there from the beginning.

I don't recall discussing this with you before, but have you ever considered this to bea game with "GM-less" potential?

[TonyLB]

Thomas:  I agree that these rules are primed for serious playtest.  I hope to start up a campaign in the next month or so, to get it consistent exposure and to test the long-term game.

That having been said, I may shy away from making ground-breaking rules changes for a reason that has little to do with the aesthetics of the game:  Simply put, I've assigned myself a deadline.  I'd like to have a finished book in hand to sell at Dreamation, end of January.  That means I really need to put my nose to the grind-stone and start putting out pages at a pretty spectacular rate, especially if I want to finish the planned supporting material (the all-comic-style example of play, the mapped out city with pre-made encounters, pages and pages of Click-and-Locks, charts for instantly naming minor characters, charts for instantly naming villainous inventions and deathtraps, and a tested Quick-start scenario for new groups and demoes).


Doug:  To give credit where credit is due, I know for a fact (though my Search-Fu has failed to turn up the evidence) that Sydney has proposed that earlier versions of Capes were trending toward Editorless play.  Of course I'm notoriously bad about accepting such insight until I come around to it on my own terms... it's an arrogance thing, I think.

So I'll tell you what convinced me:  Over the past few days I've been writing up the One Page Rules Precis, so I was desperately trying to pull out verbiage to make all the rules fit.  I found that anywhere I said "Editor" or "non-Editor-Player", it was just adding words and clouding the actual rules.  I finally pulled out all mention of the Editor, and the rules turned out tighter and clearer.

I plan to do the same thing with the main rules.  The final rules may retain some mention of the word "Editor", but only in discussing one way that a group could be organized.  There will be no rules recognition of any privileged member of the playing group.

[Sydney Freedberg]

(Sydney chimes in from damnably expensive rental broadband in his hotel)

I was myself thinking that Goals having no downside risk was a problem -- it gives victory-minded players an incentive to do something that is less interesting dramatically. My preference would be that, as with Events, losing has a strong downside beyond generating Inspirations for the other side (since Inspirations don't always materialize due to flukes of high die vs. low die comparisons, something that also still needs a little tweaking); perhaps declaring a Goal X puts X at stake in some way that it will definitely come back to bite you in an equal-and-opposite reaction if you fail.

But this may be more a playtest issue than something to write into rules on Tony's deadline.

Thomas:  I agree that these rules are primed for serious playtest.  I hope to start up a campaign in the next month or so, to get it consistent exposure and to test the long-term game.

Yay.

... if I want to finish the planned supporting material [e.g.] the mapped out city with pre-made encounters...

May I suggest rather than The One True City, you make up a generic map and then allow people to fill it in with click-and-lock neighborhoods? This makes for 5-minute player-driven setting generation:

Danny: "OK, I'll put the 'Hell's Kitchen' surrogate here in Area B."
Liz: "Well, let me place the 'Blighted Industrial Park next door in C, then."
Eric: "Hmm. Too straightforward. I'll place 'Yuppie Gentrification Zone' right next door in D."
Sydney: "And 'hillside estates' in A, overlooking it all?"

 To give credit where credit is due, I know for a fact (though my Search-Fu has failed to turn up the evidence) that Sydney has proposed that earlier versions of Capes were trending toward Editorless play.

I probably did...

 Of course I'm notoriously bad about accepting such insight until I come around to it on my own terms... it's an arrogance thing, I think.

Doubt that. I think it's needing to get your hands dirty taking the pieces apart and putting them back together again until you feel the rightness, rather than just accepting a point made in the abstract.

[TonyLB]

I feel compelled to respond quickly, given the expense Sydney's going to!

ince Inspirations don't always materialize due to flukes of high die vs. low die comparisons, something that also still needs a little tweaking

I've been thinking that maybe Inspirations should be counted like this:

[*]Take the high winning die.  Subtract the high losing die, if any.  If the result is greater than one it creates an Inspiration of that value.
[*]Now remove both those dice.
[*]Repeat until you're out of winning dice.[/list:u]This has interesting properties that seem to call for... yes... more playtesting.  Oy.  But what do people think of it in abstract?

[P]erhaps declaring a Goal X puts X at stake in some way that it will definitely come back to bite you in an equal-and-opposite reaction if you fail.

Would saying "You tried Goal X and failed, so now you (personally) cannot possibly achieve Goal X in this Scene" work?  Or is that already implied?

May I suggest rather than The One True City, you make up a generic map and then allow people to fill it in with click-and-lock neighborhoods? This makes for 5-minute player-driven setting generation

Yes, but if you have click and lock neighborhood then why create the whole city in advance?  You can just create the neighborhood you need for this scene, and then next time you create a neighborhood it has to be adjacent to one that has already been created.

[Doug Ruff]

Hmmm, why do you need a map at all?

It's not like this is a game where you need to calculate "travel time" between different locations.

However, if you're going to have a pre-generated setting, a relationship map linking crucial people/places/objects/events would be pretty nice. It would also help players to choose Exemplars.

[TonyLB]

You're right of course.  A cartographic map gives relations like "north of" and "close to" and "bigger than", which are of no use in telling comic book stories.

So I was thinking about what sort of relationships between locations would drive stories.  I tried out standard emotions, and it seemed both unnuanced and uninspiring.  Do Dante's Pantry and the Financial District have "antipathy" toward each other?  I guess, but...

Anyway here's my thought, stop me if you've already heard it:  The relationships between neighborhoods (and between people, and between people and neighborhoods) are objects and past events.

Boston's relationship with New York isn't "Antipathy".  It's "The Yankees".   America's relationship with France isn't "Contempt", it's "D-Day".

This would mean that relationships can often be asymmetric.  Dante's Pantry labels the Financial District with "Landlords", but the Financial District labels the Pantry with "Riot of '73".  That tells us that the relation between them is characterized by oppression and injustice (in the hearts of the poor) and mistrust and fear (in the hearts of the rich).  

If we then add in corporate mogul Victoria West, whose relation with the Financial District is the spectacular West Tower where she lives and works, and whose relation with Dante's Pantry is the Sister Ignatius Orphanage where she grew up, things start to look pretty nuanced.

If this seems like it would work, there are two follow up questions:  One, does it need any rules backing or, like Kickers in Sorceror, can it just work through unstructured Drama?  Two, what should the rulebook provide?  A list of possible neighborhoods, leaving the relationships to be filled in by the group?  A network of relationships, leaving the neighborhoods to be filled in by the group?  Something else entirely?

[Sydney Freedberg]

(don't worry, the "day" of internet access runs from 3pm PDT to 3pm PDT for some reason, so I'm still on the same $10)

So I was thinking about what sort of relationships between locations would drive stories. ....The relationships between neighborhoods (and between people, and between people and neighborhoods) are objects and past events. Boston's relationship with New York isn't "Antipathy".  It's "The Yankees".   America's relationship with France isn't "Contempt", it's "D-Day". This would mean that relationships can often be asymmetric.

Damn, this is cool. As for mechanics, I think it needs as much as Exemplars -- which means, probably a little more than is currently in the rules. What exactly I don't know. Perhaps some Story Token incentives, perhaps a free Event definition when your Exemplar or a neighborhood "relationship" comes up.

Heroes should probably have to choose a neighborhood (to defend, to live in, whatever: defining the relationship is a big deal) -- but neighborhoods shouldn't substitute for human Exemplars.

P.S.: Tony, have you seen what Tobias did for GroupDesign over in this "Index Thread"? It might be worth doing for all the scattered Capes threads too.

EDIT:

P.P.S.: Don't knock cartographic maps, though -- they're a great aid to imagination because they make a fictional place instantly look real. (Heck, even Ron Edwards in Trollbabe -- and you did buy Trollbabe, right? -- provides a map, despite the fact, maybe even because of the fact, that there's almost no other setting information at all).

If we then add in corporate mogul Victoria West, whose relation with the Financial District is the spectacular West Tower where she lives and works, and whose relation with Dante's Pantry is the Sister Ignatius Orphanage where she grew up...

Oh no. Victoria West is Little Orphan Annie? It makes horrible sense.