Where Capes is weak.

[Doug Ruff]

There's no such thing as inapplicable resources.  If they've got the numbers, they should win the conflict.  Anything else is treating roleplaying as a privileged viewpoint, more valid than gaming.  Tony's Standard Rant #1 most definitely applies.

But doesn't this stance ("if they've got the numbers, they should win the conflict") imply treating the gaming as a privileged viewpoint? Help me understand this, because I like the Rant. (And happy to take this over to the Rant thread if that's more useful.)

While I'm at it, I want to make something clear: I do not think that any of what we've discussed in this thread is a weakness with the Capes rules. I think it's a personal preference thing. Some people aren't going to be happy with accepting certain contributions (examples of which posted earlier by Fred.) For those people, having some rules to mediate disputes is a good thing. Other groups aren't going to have this problem. This problem is not specific to Capes. I think that this should be a discussion about where all games are weak; they cannot by themselves enforce a social contract for play.

[Vaxalon]

Whether it's a weakness or not, the difficulty of adjudicating contributions smoothly in a GMless game is always going to be an issue.  I don't think there's any way around it.  By playing a GMless game, you give up a certain amount of efficiency in dealing with those sorts of issues.

[Doug Ruff]

Maybe, but the same issue is there in a 'GM-ful' game; it just gets swept under the table more often. Efficiency of authority does not, in itself, make for balance.

In the short term, I agree with you that it can be a bumpy ride, especially with a group that's used to a GM. But I think that Capes is a great game for taking these players and introducing them to a greater level of authority and responsibility over the game.

[Vaxalon]

Oh, absolutely!  I don't want anything I've said here to indicate that I don't think that Capes is a great game!  It's fun, it's snappy, it's innovative.  I can't really think of any improvements I'd make to the ruleset.  Frankly, if you tried to make a list of games that have only one weak spot, you'd have a really short list.  Capes is one of the best games I've ever played.

And you're right... efficiency of authority DOESN'T make for balance... because that's a tradeoff.  A GMed game loses out in ways that Capes wins!

In a GMed game, there's one person who has the explicit authority to say things like, "Erm, can you explain better, how getting angry is going to make for a pleasant night out with the wife?"  Capes CAN'T have one person with that explicit authority... If it did, it wouldn't be Capes.  That's the price Capes pays to have all the other wonderful things it has.

For MY group, that is, Me, my wife, Bambi and Brenna, I'm going to propose that we put more emphasis on the narration than the book does.  Assigning debt needs a little attention.  Rolling a die needs a little narration.  Winning a conflict needs a good deal of narration.

Capes isn't all things to all people.

I fully plan on playing Capes with Tony again.  It's a lot of fun!

[Doug Ruff]

Nice post, Fred. I think that's a good note to end this particular thread with.

[TonyLB]

Doug:  Actually, I had a comment to slip in, which may incite more comments, or may not.  I've just been taking my time trying to express it correctly.

But doesn't this stance ("if they've got the numbers, they should win the conflict") imply treating the gaming as a privileged viewpoint? Help me understand this, because I like the Rant. (And happy to take this over to the Rant thread if that's more useful.)

Whoops... cue a sheepish grin from me.  Yes, you're quite right, I overcompensated.  This duality stuff is hard.  I'll try again... what should I have said...  

If the numbers work out for them, it is one sign that nobody feels strongly enough to jump in on the mechanics and force a different outcome, which implies to me that their contribution, however weak it might be, should be accepted.  Another sign would be general lack of interest in whether the narration were strong or not.  

If those two signs are out of alignment (i.e. people profess to care intensely, but aren't using the game mechanics) then it means that something is being distorted.  Either (a) people don't actually care, despite their protests, (b) people are gaming the group in a way not reflected by the explicit mechanics, (c) people are gaming poorly because they don't yet realize how to do what they want in the Lumpley-system they've created or (d) the perceptions fostered by the game system are such that the Roleplaying Model and the Gaming Model have a critical disconnect at this point, such that the Models are becoming the agenda.

I think that in this instance the situation falls somewhere between (b) and (c).  And now I'll explain why I think that.

Some people aren't going to be happy with accepting certain contributions (examples of which posted earlier by Fred.) For those people, having some rules to mediate disputes is a good thing.

There is an explicit rule.  And the rule is "Put up or shut up."  It's as straight-forward as I can possibly make it.  If you don't like the narration, do something that lets you narrate it your own way.  

So, I'll give a fully-fleshed out example.  First, the way things work without put up or shut up:

Goal:  Have a Pleasant evening out with the wife
Current standings: 4 Red / 2 Blue.  Joe is allied with Red.  Anne is allied with Blue.  It is going to resolve after this action.

Anne:  Patricia snots "Typical of you to be talking only about work.  Don't you care about my feelings at all?"  Rolling blue with 'abrasive.'  I get a five.
Joe:  I react with angry.  I get a two.
Anne:  That's it?
Joe:  What?  I only get one reaction.
Anne:  I'm asking how you use Angry to make for the pleasant evening.
Joe:  I just want to roll the dice.
Anne:  Well you can't just roll the dice.  It's a roleplaying game!
Joe:  Okay, whatever.  I won't roll the dice.  You win.
Anne:  You have a miserable evening.
Joe:  Yeah, and my character does too.

Now with a "put up or shut up" mechanic in place, understood and internalized by the players:

Goal:  Have a Pleasant evening out with the wife
Current standings: 4 Red / 2 Blue.  Joe is allied with Red.  Anne is allied with Blue.  It is going to resolve after this action.

Anne:  Patricia snots "Typical of you to be talking only about work.  Don't you care about my feelings at all?"  Rolling blue with 'abrasive.'  I get a five.
Joe:  I react with angry.  I get a two.
Anne:  Not much narration.
Joe:  Nope.
Anne:  Okay, I'll fill it in then.  I react with "Crying".  Bob shouts "Why the hell should I care about you, you two-timing little harlot!  I know what you've been up to with Rick Jensen behind my back!"  The restaurant is silent after Bob's terrible outburst.  Patricia sniffles, then starts weeping silently.  "How... >snerk<... how can you say that?  You know Rick can't even... since the war... his wound... How can you think that about your best friend?"  I roll a three.  You get a chance to narrate "And Then" if you want.
Joe:  No, I'm good.  It resolves for me.  Bob has a pleasant evening.
Anne:  So that thing I just narrated...  That's pleasant for Bob?
Joe:  Apparently so.
Anne:  Well that's revealing.

The purpose of the rule is to bring the sub-rosa, social games that usually surround this question into the light of day.

When one player says to another "Oh come on, that narration doesn't make any sense with the mechanics you're using," they are playing the game as well as roleplaying.  Here's my take on what they're doing:

Their Goal:  (Charitably) Maintain a certain level of artistic contribution, or (uncharitably) get my own way.
Method:  Appeal to social conventions in order to persuade the player to willingly forego their action.  This is preferable to the alternative of using in-game resources, because social conventions are infinitely re-usable, whereas in-game resources are limited.

I built Capes to squeeze out as much of that hidden social gaming as possible, and replace it with explicit social gaming.  I think it's much healthier.

[Vaxalon]

Tony, there's no mechanic in the game whereby a player can provide narration for another player who fails to do so.

[TonyLB]

Beg to differ.

p. 38:  The narrator may choose either to have the player of the affected character narrate (under the original narrators direction) or to momentarily take on the role of the character in question themself.

Players have complete freedom to narrate, except where the Conflict rules override that freedom.

[Valamir]

This whole conversation is exactly why there's the Challenge rule in Universalis.  Someone does something out of line that violates the group sense of propriety...there's a mechanism that handles it.  Instead of "put up or shut up" its more "put your money where your mouth is".  This ties in with Uni's requirement that every statement made with Coins and every die added to a Complication be "justified"...with the group consensus and the Challenge mechanic determining the boundaries for what "justified" means.

I think that mechanic is a little more obvious and intuitive than what Capes is doing.  If any player in one of Vax's examples above felt the other player was pulling a narrative fast one, in Uni they'd Challenge...and the winner would be who wanted it more (who's willing to spend the most resources to get their way).

Capes takes a different approach.  Not having played I can only label it very intrigueing...but it is very much intriguing, I'm eager to see it in action.

Capes, like Uni shares ownership of characters among players.  But, unlike Uni, in Capes when you're controling a character...your control is absolute.  In Uni the situation is more like "borrowing" a character.  Even though the rules call it "Control" your role is more like a steward than an owner.  Everything you do with that character is subject to the approval of (via Challenge and choice of Complication) all of the other players...because they have a vested interest in the character as well.

In Capes control of a character goes much beyond stewardship.  In fact, since there is no way for another player / GM to exert any control over you at all (it would seem), in Capes you're the "absolute tyrannical despot" of the character you control for as long as you control him.  No one else has the authority to stop you.  They may have the POWER to stop you by simply being willing to smoke all of your attempts to Claim conflicts and thus deprive you of your "abusive" narration...but this is much more like bombing Libya to get concessions than negotiating at Yalta.

Ideally, if this set up works in practice (for a wide range of players), you should have a situation where the threat of the other players uniting to bomb you should keep the most grievious "gamey abuses" under control (to whatever level your social contract sets as grievious) but you'll have plenty of lesser violations (of the "how much Oil can I secretly sell to the French before someone cares enough to stop me" variety).

Ideally...those violations should provide creative grist for the mill as in Tony's example above where the seemingly ludicrous "gamey abuse" got interpreted as some powerful insight into the nature of the character.


I'm certainly intrigued by that possibility...it actually makes me want to play Capes more to see how well it works in practice.  

I will point out that I regularly field criticism (of varying intensity) for how competitive Uni's rules are (and regularly have to demonstrate why I think they're more cooperative than competitive)...so Capes...which kind of blows past Uni on the competitive scale will likely be hit with even more of that (by those who actually can see what the purpose is and don't consider it simply broken).

[Vaxalon]

Capes is unabashedly competitive, in my opinion... RPG Darwinism.

[Jonas Ferry]

I wouldn't call this a weakness of Capes, I see it as a feature. I think the fact that you don't have to explain how the ability you're using is relevant is very liberating. Since Capes is basically a well-working resource-management betting-game with the add-on of roleplayed scenes and explained outcomes, you don't have to fear that others will use the relevance-thing as a way to stop you.

You might think that games that force people to explain why an ability is relevant before they use it would be more inspiring for the players, but I usually feel like it's the opposite way. I was surprised to see the way Capes ignore relevance, but now I really like it. First of all the players don't have to fear others complaining before they roll and start explaining. The player knows he's allowed to use the ability and that any complaint is basically irrelevant. Secondly, if someone fear that the other would narrate that way, they would have to control the conflict themselves. And thirdly, using "Angry" or "Laser Eyes" for improving the pleasant dinner with the wife is just so cool.

In another game I might think twice before trying to use an ability if I feel there's a large chance of it being vetoed. In capes I would gladly roll "Angry" at the dinner and see what happens. If I control the conflict, I get to narrate how getting angry is useful, and if someone else controls it they can use my anger to hose my character.

The rules support (at least) two different ways to handle narration, I would say. You can either play out what happens with the conflict after the roll with the controller as GM and the others playing their own characters, or you could let the controller describe what all characters are doing and thinking. When we've played, my group have mixed the two. Sometimes you feel that the other players have ideas of what their characters should do, and then you let them play them. If they don't look all that interested, you can narrate what everyone is doing on your own.

I think this makes Capes a good super-hero game. You know that "Invulnerable 5" is always as powerful and relevant as "Talk to ants 5". You don't have to agonize over how to phrase your abilities in order to use them, all super-heroes are created equal. Also, the fact that you might need to cover up the narration of others makes the session seem very comics like. If someone narrates the goal "Goal: Capture villain" and narrates how he rips the arms off the villain, the player of the villain would need to describe how they grow back or how they are later replaced by cybernetics. This kind of discrepancies improve the super-hero comics-feel of the game, and I think it's a feature.

[Vaxalon]

Since Capes is basically a well-working resource-management betting-game with the add-on of roleplayed scenes and explained outcomes...

Don't let Tony hear you say that...

As for the rest of your post, it may be that after more experience with the game, I may come to agree with you more completely.

[Jonas Ferry]

Don't let Tony hear you say that...

But I mean it in a good way. (^_^) The basic mechanics are good enough to stand on their own, without need for the players to pull their punches in order to save the system from breaking. I really like the fact that you create a story almost as an after-thought. You play the game hard, and after the session you look back on what you've done and realize that without the mechanics there's no way you could've dreamed up what actually happened. Since you always try to narrate your way out of this conflict, the big picture emerge only after the session.

But more on-topic.. I think this actual-play report from Tony is very relevant for this thread. One player introduces lizard-men who start attacking people and another player doesn't like it. The second player needs to wait until his turn to create "Goal: Hurt Human Beings". I think what you're asking for in this thread is a way for that player to immediately stop player one from narrating, right?

I've thought about this, about allowing people to create preventative conflicts out-of-order for a story token in order to stop someone from narrating too much, but I haven't found a way to do this without the need to change a lot of stuff. In the two sessions I've played (yeah, that's all the experience I have) I haven't actually found a need for it. If you lose one conflict you just need to win another one to set things straight narrative-wise.

[Vaxalon]

I've come to a conclusion I should have come to earlier; I need more experience with this game before I can argue my point coherently.  As always, it boils down to Actual Play.

[Brennan Taylor]

Capes is unabashedly competitive, in my opinion... RPG Darwinism.

Pure RPG Capitalism, more like. The whole point is that competition pushes everyone to succeed.