capes lite questions/tweaking

[jenasolian]

I learned Capes lite (never played capes "hevi") at Terpcon, and got the handout.  I'd like to try a couple of scenes with my friends this week, but there are a few things I seem to recall that are not adequately explained in the handout I got.

First, I like the handout in general.  I like the schpiels, and their numbered format with the explanatory text.  But there seem to be some things I think you missed.

First, in the "things you'll need" section, you don't mention little colored bits (in the games I played trivial pursuit wedges were used).  These were used for claiming goals for a given character.  I can't see how you'd play without something like this.

On the very first round (er "page")(shpiels 6-8b), you have the brick (the "brick" = the person who reads and groks the rules of a new game and explicates them to everyone else)... ahem... you have the brick explain to players that they can do one of two things for their action, make a new goal, which is fresh and unclaimed (1,1 on the dice, no claims) OR you can change a die face, by using an ability to roll a die.

But no-one has claimed any goals yet, so what's the point of my rolling any dice?  (and for that matter, what's the point of anyone's reaction rolls?)  All of the sides are unclaimed, so when we finally get to our first claiming round (in this example game, at the beginning of the second "page") someone else could claim that nice 6 I rolled, or whichever side already has a decent roll.  Sure, I rolled it, but there's nothing on that side to claim it as mine in any way.  Or was one color die supposed to mean "generally good guys" and the other one "generally bad guys"?  Not every goal has such clear "sides"...

It seems to me that you should have everyone create a goal if they wish, and then go around and give everyone the chance to claim a side, and THEN have people do the goal/roll thing.  Or say that when you choose to roll an unclaimed die, you automatically claim it (by putting a token next to it -- remember, you don't mention claim tokens in this text, but I don't see how you could play this game without them!)  It sure sounds like that's what you're telling people to do when you talk about "taking control of conflicts."  (but then you also say you're only allowed to put out one new claim per round/"page")

Come to think of it, I kind of had this problem in one of the games I played (after we split up, and the game designer went with the other group.)  I used my debt to double a claimed side, so as to free up a third stake, and on the next claiming round, someone else took it.

And I don't see any mention of that: creating three (or more?) sides to a conflict.  Is that something that's in the "hevi" rules that we were inadvertently playing with, or did you just forget to mention it in the "lite" rules?  Or were we totally doing it wrong?

And do you resolve a goal if one of the sides is unclaimed?  Seems like you should leave it open, but then again, maybe not.  It would be an easy high number for an Inspiration...  And if there are too many goals out, and you're only allowed to put one claim out per round, you might have a number of goals which are only half-claimed as it were.  And if I stake debt on that, and no-one opposes me, those are story tokens that don't get handed out -- basically wasted.  (bad for the fun-factor of the game, I would think.)

I saw someone's question about whether you can cross off three things in the same column, but I didn't see the answer.  If you're really competitive, it could potentially make a difference, you know.  If you're dealing with limited resources (all checkboxes, no super powers) you'll want two 5's available to you, (columns, with 1,2; 1,2,3,4,5; ,1,2,3,4,5 are going to be nominally better than columns with 1,2,3; ,1,2,3,4; 1,2,3,4,5) and if you have a super power, why cross off any of those -- cross off all checkbox powers -- hey, it just makes sense.  I see this as a flaw in the game design iteslf, but kind of a minor one.

Since you only get story tokens if you lose against someone who has staked debt, doesn't that kind of hose you story-token-wise if none of your opponents happen to double/triple down?  I mean if it's all one-on-one, and you lose.  Well, you just lose...

And the "having over 5 debt" thing was explained badly to me when I played, I think.  (We quit just when it would have become applicable.)  Does it matter how many you have over 5?  At what point do you re-roll that highest die of yours?  Any time you have a high die in any conflict?  Just the highest single die among all the goals that are being resolved at a given time (so you'd re-roll just before you resolve?)  Or what?  This is unclear.

Sigh... I really didn't mean for this to get so long (and kinda whiny? hope not...) I REALLY should be in bed...  But I just thought of some MORE questions...

When I learned by playing the other night, people were allowed to keep their reaction roll if they liked it, or keep it the same as it was (higher or lower, depending on which way you were trying to change it.)  So, let's say I roll a 4 for my action.  One of my opponents reaction-rolls a 5... and chooses to let it stay a 4.  Is that how it works?  'Cause I don't see anything about that in the handout...

At one point someone wanted to put out a goal that was "kill superheroX" And it was mentioned that "killing" goals were not allowed, just "harming" goals.  Or that they were, but there were some other more complex consequences that went with them.  Is this some stuff in the "hevi" rules?  How should I explain this to my potential new players.  No killing allowed, just harming?  Because I said so?

Also, someone chose to veto a goal "because it had to do with [his character] directly"  (A villain put out something like "reprogram Bob to be my eternal slave".  We kind of moderated it to be "reprogram Bob to be a villain" which worked out.  But what's the official word on vetoing of goals?

Okay, I think that's it for now.  I'd love to try this out with people but then I realized I didn't have confidence in my understanding of the rules, and the handoud didn't adequately clear up my questions.

Thanks,
"jenasolian"

PS: nothing like a newbie trying to learn/teach your game from scratch from the written rules for uncovering missing data...

[TonyLB]

Okay, I don't really love to respond line-by-line with quotes, but I think the density of questions here calls for it.  I hope people will forgive me if it comes across as argumentative.  That's not the intent.

First, in the "things you'll need" section, you don't mention little colored bits (in the games I played trivial pursuit wedges were used).  These were used for claiming goals for a given character.  I can't see how you'd play without something like this.

I use them because con-games are confusing.  In practice I've found that people can most often remember who Claimed which side.  But if you want to use some markers, feel free.

All of the sides are unclaimed, so when we finally get to our first claiming round (in this example game, at the beginning of the second "page") someone else could claim that nice 6 I rolled, or whichever side already has a decent roll.  Sure, I rolled it, but there's nothing on that side to claim it as mine in any way.

Mmm... yeah.  That's pretty much true.  There are more detailed rules for which sides a person can claim in the full rules.  The general sequence is this:

[*]If you roll a side and accept a raised value, or reject a lowered value, you have allied with that side.[*]If you roll a side and accept a lowered value or reject a raised value, you have allied with your choice of opposing sides.[*]If you are allied with a side in a Conflict then you may only Claim or Stake on that side.[*]If you are not yet allied with anything then you may Claim or Stake on any side.[/list:u]Sort of dense to be putting into the seven-page introductory document, I suspect.

But to answer your question of "What happens if you roll a nice six, then somebody wholly opposed to your cause poaches it?"  You would split off a third side using these rules (which, yeah, need to go into the Capes Lite rules):

[*]You must be allied with an existing side.[*]You stake one or more Debt Tokens to create the extra side.[*]You then split a die on the side you're leaving into enough dice to cover each of your Staked Debt, plus leave a (smaller) die in place of the one you split.[*]If you have already used stakes to split dice then you may take the dice on your story tokens to form a new side at any time.[*]Therefore your third side is practically unpoachable... you can always move it away from somebody who tries to claim it ("Now it's a fourth side, and the third side has no dice any more").[/list:u]

Or say that when you choose to roll an unclaimed die, you automatically claim it

You're mistaking Claiming for being on a side of a conflict (which is a common misconception).  A conflict can be hotly contested for pages without anyone deciding to claim either side.  Claiming is how you declare when you want the conflict to end soon.

And I don't see any mention of that: creating three (or more?) sides to a conflict.  Is that something that's in the "hevi" rules that we were inadvertently playing with, or did you just forget to mention it in the "lite" rules?  Or were we totally doing it wrong?

I forgot to mention it in the Lite rules.  That will be corrected.

And do you resolve a goal if one of the sides is unclaimed?

If one side controls the conflict at the end of the page, and that side is claimed, then you resolve.  If either there is no controller (i.e. a tie) or the controlling side has not been claimed this page, then the Goal does not resolve.

And if I stake debt on that, and no-one opposes me, those are story tokens that don't get handed out -- basically wasted.  (bad for the fun-factor of the game, I would think.)

On the contrary.  It's precisely the fact that those story tokens won't be handed out that inspires people to get off their duffs and provide some conflict (even if it's only a token) on Goals that don't immediately grab their attention.

I saw someone's question about whether you can cross off three things in the same column, but I didn't see the answer.

There's nothing in the Lite rules against it.  It is, actually, against the full rules.  I think that it's not so much unbalancing as it is poor strategy.

Many people feel, when they first play, that super-powers are inherently better than non-powered abilities.  I assure you that when everybody's debt starts working its way upwards, the value of non-powered abilities comes to the fore.

Since you only get story tokens if you lose against someone who has staked debt, doesn't that kind of hose you story-token-wise if none of your opponents happen to double/triple down?  I mean if it's all one-on-one, and you lose.  Well, you just lose...

Yep.  You provided adversity that didn't interest them enough to stake debt.  You lose.

And the "having over 5 debt" thing was explained badly to me when I played, I think.  (We quit just when it would have become applicable.)  Does it matter how many you have over 5?

No.

At what point do you re-roll that highest die of yours?

Start of each page.

When I learned by playing the other night, people were allowed to keep their reaction roll if they liked it, or keep it the same as it was (higher or lower, depending on which way you were trying to change it.)  So, let's say I roll a 4 for my action.  One of my opponents reaction-rolls a 5... and chooses to let it stay a 4.  Is that how it works?  'Cause I don't see anything about that in the handout...

Yes, that's how it works.  It's described first in shpiel 7 (where it tells you that you can choose to accept or not when using an ability) and then shpiel 9 later says "Reacting is just using another ability on the same die."  I should probably clarify that this means it's subject to all the same rules as were in place at shpiel 7.

At one point someone wanted to put out a goal that was "kill superheroX" And it was mentioned that "killing" goals were not allowed, just "harming" goals.  Or that they were, but there were some other more complex consequences that went with them.  Is this some stuff in the "hevi" rules?  How should I explain this to my potential new players.  No killing allowed, just harming?  Because I said so?

In full Capes there are rules that let people avoid such unpleasant outcomes.  Capes Lite hasn't got those rules.  You can kill heroes there, unless they stop you.

Also, someone chose to veto a goal "because it had to do with [his character] directly"  (A villain put out something like "reprogram Bob to be my eternal slave".  We kind of moderated it to be "reprogram Bob to be a villain" which worked out.  But what's the official word on vetoing of goals?

The official word is that you can veto a Goal if it is your character meant to pursue it.  i.e. if I'm playing villainess Vanessa Faust, and I make "Goal:  Rescue Hostages" for heroine Comet Girl then she can say "No, rescuing the hostages isn't Comet Girl's priority right now."  If, however, I make "Goal:  Control Comet Girl's mind" then she has no right to veto it.

PS: nothing like a newbie trying to learn/teach your game from scratch from the written rules for uncovering missing data...

Absolutely!  Thanks!  It's been very helpful to me.

[Jonas Ferry]

Great questions and answers, but this...

If you have already used stakes to split dice then you may take the dice on your story tokens to form a new side at any time.

... was a bit confusing. Could you elaborate a bit here? How do story tokens enter the picture when splitting?

And on splitting.. Let's say you've already staked 2 debt points on a conflict and not used them for splitting. Can you at any time break off 2 dice to a new side, or do you have to spend the splitting dice at the time of the split?

[TonyLB]

Ack... debt tokens, not story tokens.  Of course.  Duh.  Good catch.

When you've Staked on something, and already split, you can take those debt tokens and their associated dice away to make a third side at a later time.  It's not a "split now or forever hold your peace" thing.