[Capes] Free "Capes Lite" PDF for review

[TonyLB]

Well, now I've also got a revised page 6.  I'd be interested to know if, absent the answers I'm about to give, this page does a better job of fielding such questions.

[ Edit:  Whoops... I didn't realize this would be over a page-break in the discussion.  For the benefit of those trying to correlate answers to questions, I have edited to make clear what I'm answering ]

(1) Players want to split dice because of the answer to #5
(2) Yes, Reaction can be used for teamwork, among many other things
(3) No.  Each character gets an action.
(4) The scene is as long as players want to make it (as defined by how long they keep defining Conflicts when old ones get Resolved)
(5) Splitting dice does permit totals greater than 6.  A six is invulnerable to direct alteration (but changeable by splitting, failed Claims and Overdraw) because Abilities only go up to 5.
(6) In Capes, there is a system for who goes first.  In Capes Lite, no.
(7) By Virtues you mean Drives?  They range between one and five.  Mentioned on page 8, but you're right that it needed to be mentioned on page 6 as well.

[Gamskee]

I meant Drives, sorry. So is the setup for resolving conflicts:

1. Player Introduces conflict
2. Sides are claimed
3. Each character gets an action(though only two may be part of the conflict), with reactions for every player.

Actually I'm a little hazy past this point. I realize that the high die controls the conflict, and that the controlling side resolves the conflict at the end of the page. However, it seem as if conflicts can last more than one action for the two sides involved. Does this only occur in the case of a tie or is there another way that the conflict keeps from resolving?

Also, there is something about "otherwise you reduce your die by one" on page two. What is the significance of this?

[TonyLB]

Ahhhhhhh.... I get it.  It's that pesky "Claimed" thing, tripping folks up.  Great, that I can fix.

"Claiming" is not saying "This is my side".  Claiming is saying "I'm going to try to resolve this Conflict at the end of the page".

Anyone can roll on a Conflict.  If you have twelve characters in a scene (happened!) then all twelve of them can roll on the same Conflict, in the same Page.

If, and only if, someone claimed the Conflict, it may Resolve at the end of the Page.  For the first Page (when it's introduced in Actions, after people have had their chances to Claim) that can't happen.  So most Conflicts must go at least two pages (the one where they're introduced, plus the one in which they are Claimed).  Many Conflicts go still further, because people choose not to Claim them, or only one side is Claimed and that side isn't in control at the end of the Page.

One of the reasons you wouldn't Claim is that you get penalized for Claiming and failing (the aforementioned "reduce your die by one").  So if you have 4, and your opponent has 5, and you Claimed then you turn your die from 4 down to 3, and now your opponent's lead is even wider.  If they didn't Claim (and therefore don't Resolve this page) then it will be harder for you to close the gap.  If they did claim then you just gave them a larger Inspiration due to your failure.  Either way, bad for you.


If I could ask... did the revised Page 6 do a better job of getting across the concepts behind Staking and Splitting?  It's not that I object to explaining the rules, but my goal here was to further refine the document so that it explains the rules without my help.

[Gamskee]

Page six clarified many things for me, though this document in general changed the game I saw months ago into something far more playable in my mind.

So, claiming is like a call to wrap things up with an event, demanded by either/both sides of the conflict? In other words, a conflict could potentially go on forever if neither side claimed it. Not saying it would, just want to know on a mechanical note.

[TonyLB]

Yes, that's Claiming exactly.  I have yet another revised page 2, which hopefully explains both that and action-narration a little more clearly.

[Stickman]

Wow, those new pages really help clarify the document. If there's room then a blow by blow acout with a 'conflict watch' showing the relative dice values would be helpful I think.

One area I'm confused by (although this might not be in the 'lite' version, what are the purposes of the values placed against powers, skills and styles? On page 4 the rules mention putting values in, and again on the section detailing the disaster character .. Also, what kinds of values should a starting hero have in thier drives? Maybe I missed the section?

Anyway, looks great and I'm tempted to give it a go at our next session!

[TonyLB]

Right... how to choose values.  I'll explain that, but I'm also mulling where to put tighter explanation in the document.

It's not really about power levels, so starting heroes and veteran heroes could have the same values.  It's about how the powers fit into the motif of the hero in question.

Basically, the higher the value, the further into any Conflict you'll be able to keep using that ability.  An ability of 1 can only roll a die of 1, but an ability of 5 can roll anything that's not a six.

So low abilities tend to get used early, while higher ones tend to get used later.  They all have the same potential to be powerful, since the player can narrate whatever they want when using them.  So a character with Flight 1 can fly to the moon and back in an instant (unless "Race to the moon and back" is a Conflict, of course, in which case the "Not Yet" and "And Then" rules would come into play).  Likewise, a character with Flight 5 can describe puttering along on a kerosene powered jetpack, if that's the way they envision the character.

edit - p.s.  Please do give it a try!  I'm currently thinking through what sort of free gift to give away to the first N people who post Actual Play logs here or elsewhere (I'd be thrilled to get any interest over at RPG.net, for instance).  So you've caught me flat-footed on my gift offer, but I'll catch up quickly.  Maybe cut-out, laminated copies of all of the click-and-lock modules in the main book, so that you can easily assemble characters and use china-pencils to customize them and Block abilities?

[Nathan P.]

A lot of this stuff is little details, but someone has to catch 'em, right?

Page 1 - You might wanna specify d6 the first time you say dice. I mean, it becomes clear with context, but its a little Huh? moment, at least for me, until you read further.

Page 3 - There's a typo in Alex's second-to-last text block ("shoot it?t").

I'm unclear on the difference between white and black dice - it seems that they represent the different sides of the Conflict, but I'm not sure.  
Also, did Alex decide not to keep the 5 because he didn't have any traits that high, or what?

Page 4 - Click n' Lock is awesome.

You might want to be a little clearer about the numbering from one up thing - it took me a little while, and looking at the example, to realize it meant "In each column, assign each trait a number, in ascendent order from 1 - 6, until all traits have numbers". Unless it doesn't mean that...

Is the left-hand column Skills, the center Attitudes and the right-most Styles? This is implied, but it should be clearer, IMO.

Also, by including the "Godling" and "Seducer" in the example, you make them available as choices for actual play. I dunno if this is intentional or not, or a problem or not, just wanted to point it out.

Page 6 - What do Inspirations do?

Page 7 - Ah, you can spend Inspiration to add the amount spent to a die. Is that right? You might want to mention it on page 6.

Page 9 - Ah, Godling is in here. Guess its not a problem.

I think a list, or at least a mention, of the things in the main version that you left out of this version would be fantastic. I.e, after playing this, what am I missing thats worth me paying for?

Looks like good times. I rarely grok a system just by reading it, so I'm not gonna make any comments about whether it makes sense and works or not until/unless I actually play. The current draft seems fairly straightforward, though. Well done.

[hyphz]

A few comments on my read through.

- "You Claim a conflict."  That big capital C on claim suggests there's some additional rules involved with this.  Is this just a matter of saying "I want to Resolve that this Page?"  Or is it an Action?

-  How is contiguity of narration enforced, and to what degree?  (Presumably I can't actually "narrate whatever I like", since if I did that i could ignore everything spoken before about the situation)

-  What is the distinction between an Action and a Goal?  For example, in the EoP, "alert the sentinels of liberty" is presented as a Goal.  Could Alex have instead made the goal "intercept the alien spaceship" and then taken "alert the sentinels of liberty" as an Action?  

-  What happens if you wind up with "Goal: protect the president" and "Event: David kills the president"?  By the rules it seems that in that case, the president cannot be protected, since that Event must resolve sooner or later and when it does David will definately kill the president (the conflict only determines whether doing so has good results or not)

- In the EoP, when Alex uses Science to react to Beth's roll, she says "That's no good.. I'll turn it back to a three."  Presumably she is rolling Beth's dice rather than her own, which is why she wanted a low number - it'd be nice to clarify this.

- Beth gets an "And Then" response.  This conflicts with the earlier description of the "And Then" rule since it is not apparant that Alex attempted to end the conflict.

- How is Action order decided?

- A shade pedantic I know, but on Page 5 it'd be nice to say that "each of these is a category of Ability" (capital A to show you mean Ability as in the rules, not just 'ability' the general concept)

- What happens if no player wants to initiate a Conflict in a Scene?

- How are conflicts with more than two sides dealt with?

- Page 6: top paragraph makes a forward reference to "Drives" ("takes a token and places it on a Drive (??)").  Maybe mention it before hand: "Superheroes have powers, power-based styles, and Drives."

- For overdrawn drives "each player rolls their side's highest die, accepting only lower rolls".  What happens if a roll is "not accepted"?  Do they roll again until they get a lower result or do they set it back to the original value?

- When can you stake debt on a conflict?  Is it at ANY time during my action (ie, I can claim a conflict, take my action, roll the dice, wait for all reactions, and then Stake in the dying seconds of my turn?)  Can debt only be staked when a conflict is claimed?  I can only stake debt "up to my strength" - is that in one action, or in one conflict, or in one scene?

- Staking one Debt doesn't let you split the dice, right?

- What's so great about splitting?  It just lets the other side reroll the dice with their lower-ranked abilities.

- How is "best opposition" determined?

- Page 7, it might be nice to clarify that Beth is reacting to herself.

- Page 7, after Alex reacts with Sizzling Energy she sets the dice back to a 4.  Why does Beth then react again with Desperate Effort when she is already winning?

[timfire]

One quick suggestion: The very first line...

Capes is a superhero game with heart, designed to address the premise that "Power is fun, but do you deserve it?"

(emphasis added)

I wouldn't say "address the premise". Your fellow Forgites know what you're talking about, about the average Joe won't, and will likely confuse them. I might let this slip except its the very first line of PDF. I would try something like...

Capes is a superhero game with heart, that asks the question "Power is fun, but do you deserve it?"

[Andrew Morris]

Tim, I think the average gamer could understand this in context. Still, your rephrasing is certainly less likely to be misconstrued, so I agree with your suggested change.

[TonyLB]

I'm actually at my desk now, working all of these really excellent suggestions into the next, presumably final, version of the document.

I think I'm going to go a step beyond "asks the question" and say "helps you to answer the question".  It just strikes me as a bit more forceful.

But yeah... if even one person were confused by Premise, why not do the easy fix?

[timfire]

Tim, I think the average gamer could understand this in context.

I'll give you that. The only reason I brought it up was because it was the very first line of the PDF. First impressions and all that.

I think I'm going to go a step beyond "asks the question" and say "helps you to answer the question". It just strikes me as a bit more forceful.

Sounds good.