[Capes] Wanting to win

[coxcomb]

most RPGers have no problem with being led around by the nose.

I can't understand how someone can have a desire, but not realize it...

I can only generalize based on my own experiences. That said, I have yet to meet someone who, when asked, doesn't have some pretty strong ideas about what he would like to have happen in the game. Under the right circumstances, almost everyone can shelve that desire and go along with a game run by a skillful GM. But then again, as you have said in other posts in this thread, a good GM often picks up on what a player wants without it needing to be said.

The reason why I say that folks might not realize it is because some people, even though they have a creative vision, are also completely opposed to narrating that outcome, or moving from their favorite player stance into a more directoral role. To those folks, the only appropriate way to influence the game is by having their character do things that logically lead to the outcome they want.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who go into the game and never form and creative visions, but I think it's the exception rather than the rule.

But maybe I'm off base about that.

[coxcomb]

Do you think that particular GM would ever participate in a game of Capes?

Not in a million years!

He likes to be in control. I think he classifies "GM-less" play along with "diceless play" as not really being role-playing.

[Eric Sedlacek]

My feeling is that a system like Capes suddenly makes having an agenda not only OK, but essentially required. And I think that is the freedom that Tony is feeling and enjoying. If the players really don't like it, they won't sulk and get pissed--they have recourse in the confines of the system to try to stop it.

(Fistfire here)

An agenda isn't so much required for the mechanics as it is the essential motivator.  If you have no desire to shape the story in your own way, then why would you bother to play the game?  Imposing your will on the story is the whole point of earning those story tokens and really the ultimate goal of the game.

The ultimate irony, however, is that not getting your way all the time is what makes it enjoyable.  As Sydney and I were talking in the car afterwards, he made the point that a problem with a lot of traditional role playing is that GMs try to write a novel through role playing.  This works to varying degree, but one tends to wonder what the point is of having the other players.  Why not just sit down and write the novel if that is what you really want?  

In playing Capes with a good group, the sum is greater than the parts.  The resulting story is better than any of the individuals involved could have come up with on their own, so it couldn't have been just written as a novel.  Somehow this "capitalist" game creates a communal effort.  It's the darndest thing.

[Brennan Taylor]

Somehow this "capitalist" game creates a communal effort.  It's the darndest thing.

It's all a matter of creating the right incentives.

[TonyLB]

Okay, praise for Capes aside (not that I don't appreciate it...  I would revel openly, but it's unseemly) I don't know whether the capitalist thing, per se can be the cause of the experience I also had in Dogs.  I mean, Dogs doesn't have the same "cooperate to be rewarded" mechanic in play.

It does, however, have substantial player control... greater than the GM in almost every instance, in my estimation.  Is that the common element?

[Eric Sedlacek]

I have said on occasion that GMing can be the most humbling of experiences because when a game session goes wrong, it's obvious why it is your fault, but when it goes right, it doesn't seem like you did anything at all.

This system also eliminates that problem by eliminating the GM.  You can have an off night and still have fun because you don't feel like you ruined everything.  The weight of responsibility is lifted.  Your will only becomes reality when you both care enough to enforce it and are on your game mechanics-wise.  So your best ideas are far more likely to make it in than your less spectacular ones.

[Vaxalon]

Do you think that particular GM would ever participate in a game of Capes?

Not in a million years!

He likes to be in control. I think he classifies "GM-less" play along with "diceless play" as not really being role-playing.

There you go.

I stand firm in my position, that the inability to allow meaningful input to the game is an attribute of the GM.

I'm going to take a radical position, here, and state that in this case, rules don't matter.  A game group won't adopt rules if they don't fit in the preexisting social contract.  What matters, as far as the ability of a player to have a say in the direction of the game, is his relationships with the other participants.  That's it.  Anything else, boils down to this.  It's no use whatsoever in having a ruleset that gives power to the players if the GM won't use those rules.  If you're playing a game that has a GM who's willing to take direction from the players, then it doesn't matter whether the game has a nifty economy of reward and price to govern it, it'll happen anyways.

[Vaxalon]

Okay, praise for Capes aside (not that I don't appreciate it...  I would revel openly, but it's unseemly) I don't know whether the capitalist thing, per se can be the cause of the experience I also had in Dogs.  I mean, Dogs doesn't have the same "cooperate to be rewarded" mechanic in play.

It does, however, have substantial player control... greater than the GM in almost every instance, in my estimation.  Is that the common element?

It's my opinion, Tony, that if you and I and a few like-minded people were playing DnD, we could have the same experience.

[Sydney Freedberg]

I don't know whether the capitalist thing, per se can be the cause of the experience I also had in Dogs.  

Ah, but Dogs has its own strong, strong incentive system: "Just escalate a little more, and you'll get the Stakes; just take a little more Fallout, and maybe you can make some advantages out of it." And thus it leads players on the trail to inflict and suffer all sorts of misery, which is what that sub-genre of Western is about.

Capes is about comic books, and it incentivizes picking big emotional fights but also losing them -- which gives you a rollercoaster up-and-down of fortunes, which is what a lot of comics are about.

Dungeons & Dragons -- incentive system is to go kill things and take their stuff. Not sure where that gets you.

(And this thread is driftin' mightily. Should we take this up in theory with a post on incentivization or something?)

[Vaxalon]

Should we take this up in theory with a post on incentivization or something?)

I think we should, given that I have strong opinions to the contrary of Forge mainstream on this issue.

[TonyLB]

Go for it.  I've got a few things to ramble about on resource-incentives (Capes) vs. narratiion-rights-incentives (Dogs), and that's probably a better place to do it than here.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Fred, you might get some mileage out of considering that no one, especially me, has ever said "The Rules Matter."

The line is, System Does Matter. Huge difference. The glossary is quite clear on the difference between the two. Everything you just said about changing the rules supports the point being made about System, and is no challenge whatsoever to the outlook that most of us hold here.

Best,
Ron

[LordSmerf]

Getting back to the topic that Tony kicked things off with: I think that Jay is on to something.  Namely, some games have mechanics that provide overt support for negotiation of what happens.  In other games this sort of negotiation still happens, but it is covert and/or tacit.

When all the negotiation is codified you don't have lingering worries about using social position to dominate play.  You don't feel like you're trampling the other player's contributions.  With a system that allows their contributions to have mechanical support you don't worry about them just not speaking up.  I mean, the rules tell them to do so.

Vax is right though, in a group that doesn't worry about those concerns anyway, the rules won't contribute to that.  It has been my experience that not many groups are at this point though, so the rules are a nice help.

Thomas

[coxcomb]

I think what I have been trying to say is that for people who have a creative vision (to continue using Tony's words for it) to promote, playing a game that lets everyone do that to one extent or another is refreshing.

In a traditional game filled with notions of the Impossible Thing Before Breakfast, you have one of two positions according to the system:

1.) You're the GM and what you say goes, because it's your story.

2.) You're a player and what you say goes if and only if the GM says it goes, because even though you are telling your character's story, you are telling it within the framework of the GM's story.

Here I am just talking about the rules as printed, not about the groups interpretations of those rules at the social contract level.

My assertion is that, because the rules as printed (which are often taken as gospel) set up this situation, a more collaborative minded GM can feel like pushing his own agenda without accouting for the desires of players is a Bad Thing. Maybe even railroading.

That same GM, when put into the context of a system (again, rules as written)that lets all players have input to push their own agendas can feel free to push his agenda, knowing that he is not forcing everyone else to do what he wants--they can push back in a meaningful way that is defined by the system.

I totally agree with Vaxalon that players and GMs using any system can work this out at the raw social contract level. But having it in the system as written is a huge help.

[Sydney Freedberg]

By the way, I just posted on Incentive Systems and Wanting to Lose in RPG theory, to give that discussion a Home of Its Own.