Where Capes is weak.

[Vaxalon]

And just to prove that I am NOT, in fact, uncreative, there are, of course, lots of ways to work to undo the damage that was done with these tactics.

Example one:  Next scene.  "It is six months later.  The Revenger building has been rebuilt, exactly as it was before. ..."

Example two: Next scene.  Jane plays her character.  "Evil Doctor Duplo has, as we saw in the last scene, begun creating exact duplicates of Our Heroes... right down to their mental states! (i.e. minds)"  Play the duplicate of Jane's character, that she was playing last time.  Oppose her at every turn.

Example three:  During the free narration, stop talking.  If the other players don't like what James is doing, they stop talking too.  James's narration becomes a monologue.  When he finally gets around to framing the scene, bring in throwaway characters, and never start new conflicts.  I try to make the whole scene as short as possible.  Resolve, win or lose, should take two pages.  Get on to a FUN scene.

The thing is, though, ALL of these are no different than story token awards.  They are still uses of the system as designed to reward and/or punish play I don't find fun.

[TonyLB]

I just don't get why you'd want to discourage this type of behavior, when it's so easy to make it into something fun.

Example #1:  

"Goal:  Find the bomb shelter with all personnel safely inside."
"Goal:  Travel back in time to avert catastrophe."
"Goal:  Try not to totally break down as you dig Exemplars out of horrific debris."

Example #2:

Just one counter, because it's so obvious:  "Goal:  Prove that Jane's character is actually an evil robotic doppleganger!"  

Then you can have an in-character debate, informed by the rules structure, about whether the action was plausible.

Example #3:

"Hyperion and Blaze look in the asylum door sadly as Johnny Bullseye rants about his great victories.  'Is there... any hope, doctor?" Hyperion asks.  'Doubtful... he's retreated to a fantasy world where anything he wants to have happen happens... it takes a strong mind to break free of such a delusion.  We do, however, have the experimental 'Psychotron-Projector'... it could project you into his delusion, but then you'd be at the mercy of his psychosis.  If you died in his delusion, you would actually be dead.  It's too risky.'  'Doctor, it's Johnny's ONLY HOPE!' "


So, yeah, I agree with you... your examples are exactly the same as punishing people by taking away their Story Tokens.  It's all ways to say "No, I do not accept your right to contribute this, and I will punish you as a consequence."  What I'm recommending is that you get a little bit outside of the mindset that the only thing that can be right is what you like, and figure out how to accept those contributions and make something of them.

[Eric Sedlacek]

What I'm recommending is that you get a little bit outside of the mindset that the only thing that can be right is what you like, and figure out how to accept those contributions and make something of them.

This is exactly the right mindset in Capes and not necessarily the easiest to achieve at first.  I've struggled with it too, and I'm all the better for it.

[Vaxalon]

So, yeah, I agree with you... your examples are exactly the same as punishing people by taking away their Story Tokens.  It's all ways to say "No, I do not accept your right to contribute this, and I will punish you as a consequence."  What I'm recommending is that you get a little bit outside of the mindset that the only thing that can be right is what you like, and figure out how to accept those contributions and make something of them.

There's a difference between taking away story tokens, and failing to award them.  

I distinctly remember you telling us, when you were teaching us about the awarding of story tokens, that one of the benefits of winning a conflict, was to decide who got the story tokens.  What is that for, if not for rewarding fun play?

After all, it's what's going to happen anyways... why not do it consciously?

Now I will admit that I hadn't thought about your solution to example number two...  or at least, I hadn't gone the last step to get there.  What I hear you saying, is that the conflict mechanic is always the best way to resolve disputes like these.   Any time you can bring the dispute into a conflict, that's better than talking it out.

In my opinion, sometimes, it's better to step outside the game mechanics, and talk about the kind of game you want to have, person to person instead of player to player.  Like in example three... sometimes, you have to step out of the game, and say, "Dude... you want to play Capes?  We're not playing Capes anymore.  I'm not having any fun here.  C'mon... here's an index card... let's play Capes."  Look at Miskatonic's post... I'm not the only one who feels this way.

I remember, back when I was helping playtest Capes, that there was a "frames" mechanic.  When you took an action, or won a conflict, you got a particular number of "frames" in which to make your description.  I really liked that mechanic... it had two effects I liked.  

One, it made the game more visual.  The emphasis was on what was depicted, rather than any attempt to dictate facts... which is a very important thing in comic books.  We can THINK something happened, but we only know what we saw.  "Oh no!  The Revengers Building has collapsed!  Oh, the Humanity!"  "Let's hope they could get to the refuge chambers in time!"

Two, it limited the length that any narration could go to.   You could only put so many events into any particular narration.  This prevented the abuses of example number three, and limited the abuses of example one.

Now I'm sure that there are reasons you got rid of the frames mechanic.  I'll probably agree with them... but I think I like the game better when the narrations focus on what is drawn in the comic panels, rather than declare what is happening.  I might campaign for that as a house rule (118).

[TonyLB]

Fred, what do you want from this thread?  What sort of feedback will help to make you satisfied?

Specifically, do you feel that you need more information in order to understand others?  Or do you feel that you need to more clearly convey your own points in order to be understood?  Or something else?

[Vaxalon]

Since this aside was latched onto in another thread, let me elaborate.

Doug Ruff asked me to split this topic off into another thread.  I did so.  My purpose in this thread has always been to more clearly explain why I think Capes is a little weak in the process by which control is maintained over narrative contributions.

You've made it clear that that was a design choice, not an oversight, but I never disagreed with that.  I agree with the choice, in fact, it was unavoidable; Capes wouldn't be as wonderful as it is without it.

As such, my purpose in starting this thread was complete when I made my first post; Doug wanted to know what I meant, and I explained.  Everything else since then has been an elaboration of that idea, and the underpinnings for it.

[TonyLB]

So, how about I summarize, and we'll see whether I've correctly understood you.  And then if I've misunderstood, you'll be better equipped to enlighten me.

You consider it axiomatic that people can make narrative contributions which are destructive to the game.  Not necessarily that the players will do so, but that it is possible.

You therefore feel it would be helpful to have a structure in place that can prevent such contributions, in order to protect the game.  You do not see an effective structure in place to do that in the rules as written.

Responses that ask for and dispute examples of destructive narrative contribution just show that people don't understand you, because it's not about the particular destructive contributions, it's about the always-present potential for them.  The actual destructive contributions will occur uniquely in actual play.  Therefore, knocking down an individual example is irrelevant, because those same techniques will not apply to all destructive contributions.

Your candidates for a structure to rein in destructive contributions include:

[*]Veto power over ability use without adequate narration
[*]The ability to introduce immediate preventative conflicts
[*]Social reinforcement through Story Token distribution
[*]A house rule to break narration into Frames[/list:u]

Have I done a reasonably good job of summing up your position?

[Vaxalon]

Most of that is well summarized.

People can make contributions which spoil my fun.  Whether it destroys the game, depends on how much fun it destroys, not just mine, but the other players as well.

Yes, I would consider it helpful if there were such a mechanism... but I doubt a good one, a formal part of the rules, would ever really work.

The candidates you present are things that came up late in the discussion.    There was one before that, that you missed, that is actually probably the best one in my opinion.

Really, in these sorts of situations, I think the BEST thing to do, to prevent this kind of thing, is to talk to the other players ahead of time, and let them know what kind of things tick you off.  Everyone has them.  Then, if they do them, you know they're doing it on purpose, and can react appropriately.  If I discover that a style of play is problematic, that it "snaps my suspenders," I'll mention it... whether I let that first one go or not probably would depend on how extreme it was.

It could probably be thought of as part of the house rule and comics code process.

[TonyLB]

Okay.  I understand.  And I disagree with you.  Your logic is strong, but it all hinges on your first axiom.  And that axiom is bunk.

People can not make contributions which spoil your fun.  You spoil your own fun in the way you react to their contributions.

Every example you've raised, I've found an easy way to turn it into something fun.  I wasn't just doing that to be annoying.  I was trying to show you a different way of looking at the contributions of your fellow players.  They deserve to be able to contribute to the game without being second-guessed.

If something that another player does makes you unhappy, that is your problem to deal with.  Nobody psychically projected unhappiness into your mind.  You came by it all on your own.  You can deal with it on your own.  The system gives you more than enough power.

Constraining the power of players within the system isn't going to make you any better at accepting the contributions of others.  It's just going to cripple your ability to use the rules to turn those contributions into something you enjoy.

[Vaxalon]

You seem to be saying, that I should be able to find fun in any sort of play that comes up.

You've given examples of how to turn the listed styles of play into fun for you.  

You seem to be saying, that because something is fun for you, it should be fun for everyone.

[TonyLB]

Oh Fred.

You have made your points.  They have been understood.

The first sentence of your post shows that you understand what I, in turn, am saying.

And then the last sentence of your post shows that you are willing to distort what I have said in order to continue what I will term (very charitably, I think) the "discussion."

I ask again:  What is it that you hope to achieve in this thread?

[Vaxalon]

The purpose of this thread has always been to answer questions that are put to me, to respond to requests for information.

[Andrew Norris]

The purpose of this thread has always been to answer questions that are put to me, to respond to requests for information.

Then, respectfully, why isn't the thread called "Things I don't like about Capes?" Because that's not what it's called.

Frankly, I think we all understand your objections, and I don't think any of us particularly share them. And I wish I knew how to say this more politely, but it's gotten to the point where I can't even parse what Tony says about his own damn game anymore, because everything he says gets turned into a Tony-Fred dialectic. In every thread he posts in.

If Capes was a different kind of product, we'd have long since reached the point where support says "I'm sorry we couldn't please you -- here's your money back". Tony's too nice to do something like that, but you have to understand that I, as someone who's just trying to read about and understand a game I bought, am frustrated as hell. He's a saint if he's handling it better than I am.

[Vaxalon]

The funny thing is, I'm pleased as punch.  I love the game.  I'm a huge fanboy.



Warts and all...