Why narrate at all?

[Brennan Taylor]

I understand completely that this is how the system has worked for YOU.  You know exactly how its supposed to work and are voluntarily keeping yourself within bounds.  But I submitt that you may be experiencing a key reason why outside playtest is even more important than internal.  Vax and James's experience (on the surface) seem far more likely to represent what actual play will look like much of the time for the average gamer than your play experience because you know the game far better than anyone, have a vested interest in displaying it in its best light, and may be too close to the project to see this as a problem.

Let me toss in some actual play experiences of my own. I am, admittedly, still feeling my way around the system. I also played my first couple of sessions of this with Tony himself, so I have a pretty good idea of how he plays the game.

I have run into this "unlimited" free narration issue in both games I played on my own. Each time, someone contributed narration that seemed to stick or didn't make a lot of sense. Some of the players had extremely negative reactions to the narration, openly grousing that they didn't like how another player was using a power in the narration. This didn't stop play from proceeding the way Tony generally describes it, but it had a significant impact on the SIS. I think everyone had a hard time visualizing what was going on, and several times characters ended up in what seemed like seperate scenes during the same page, bouncing back and forth between conflicts that were becoming farther and farther apart spacially. This did break the suspension of disbelief a bit, and we had a pretty difficult time retrofitting all of these actions into our SIS.

Now, this didn't really happen when I was playing with Tony. Both of the games I tried were short games with no prospects of long-term play, so the players were not that invested in their characters. Honestly, the 9-year-old kid we were playing with in one session was far more constructive in his input than the two other older players. Now some of this might be accountable to my tastes, but I do think it is something that can legitimately be brought up for Capes, and that might need a second rules look. If we had a strong comics code and had discussed what type of story we were after from the outset (which we didn't do, each session being a sort of one-shot knockoff), these problems might have been alleviated. As it was, game play wasn't too satisfying for several players.

[Andrew Cooper]

I preface this with "I haven't played Capes."  But my comments are NOT directly aimed at Capes but instead at the issue of unrestricted narration rights.

The question has been asked why unrestricted GM narration isn't trivial while unrestricted narration on the part of any player at any time is?  The answer is simple, at least it seems to me.  The GM's narration isn't trivial because it CAN'T be immediately un-narrated out of existence.  If the GM narrates something or gives the nod to another player's narration, it becomes a fixture of SIS.  Unrestricted narration rights by all players makes narration trivial because anything and everything can immediately be undone by anyone at their whim.  Nothing is a true fixture of the SIS.

With the right group, unrestricted narration rights probably works great.  But I can see problems arising if you are playing something like a Convention game where your ability to pick and choose the right players is hampered.  Personally, I would be more comfortable with some sort of mechanic that gave some cement to narrated elements of the SIS in play.  I don't think I'd like my SIS to be in that much of a state of flux that unrestricted narration could create.

[Valamir]

Let me see if I'm correctly interpreting your points:[list=a][*]Story Tokens don't reinforce quality play, because there is nothing in the system that provides a meaningful landscape of subjective choices, and
[*]Narration doesn't provide a meaningful landscape of subjective choices, because there is nothing in the system that reinforces quality play[/list:o]Is that about where you stand?  Have I missed something?

Honestly I don't know.  I'm having trouble parsing your summary.


If I were to attempt to summarize my points myself I'd say something like:

1) Since gaining Story Tokens seems to have a very strong tactical element, I'm unsure how effective they are at motivating desired behavior.  They are clearly a reward, but they are not purely a behavioral reward.  They seem to reward clever gamesmanship as much (more?) as catering to the desires of your fellow players.

2) As a general rule there are some very good reasons for players to have the ability to appeal to a higher authority.  In games without a GM and without a book full of details situational rules that higher authority is typically found in some combination of the other players, and / or a game resource, and / or very specific rules that limit a player's choice of actions (like the Violence vs. Villainy choice in MLwM).  Such appeals are not necessary just for dysfunctional groups (they often won't work anyway with dysfunctional groups) but rather to get functional groups smoothly through points of disagreement without disrupting play.

[Larry L.]

My position is a) Capes is hard to learn, b) Capes is not broken. I have seen the mechanisms Tony descibes in action. Works like a charm.

I have noticed in a lot of the play examples where people are experiencing problems, there is no Comics Code in effect. As Doug pointed out, the Comics Code is effectively the only written social contract. I'd suggest that the Comics Code is not optional. Simple things like "You can't kill innocents," and "You can't destroy the world," remove a lot of the more offensive possibilities.

Ralph, the game pays you (in Story Tokens) for letting the other player win the conflict he cares about. How do you know he cares about it? Because he just risked taking double Debt to split the die. Does that explain the economy better?

The paper boy example would probably fail, because non-supers don't get Debt to stake. So any super could trounce his goals if he cared enough to do so.

It seems like a lot of these issues are coming down to "Well somebody could do such and such..." Sure, but they don't. Why would they do something goofy like that? Is that really the story they are interested in telling? (I suppose.) Are the other players also interested in telling that story? (Doubtful.)

(We are all clear here that the game is not about my guy clobberin' your guy, right? )

Winning in Capes means telling the story you want to tell. You can only tell the story you want if the other players do not strongly object. If you go burning your bridges with irritating narration, you're shooting yourself in the foot.

I wanna see how this game plays with non-gamers. I'm starting to suspect a lot of this is ingrained gamer think.

[TonyLB]

The question has been asked why unrestricted GM narration isn't trivial while unrestricted narration on the part of any player at any time is?  The answer is simple, at least it seems to me.  The GM's narration isn't trivial because it CAN'T be immediately un-narrated out of existence.  If the GM narrates something or gives the nod to another player's narration, it becomes a fixture of SIS.

Interesting.  Would that imply that in a game with a (potentially) all-powerful GM, the narration of a player is trivial, until ratified by the GM?

[TonyLB]

Ralph:  Cool.  Pardon my human weakness, but I find that much easier to parse than the longer posts.

I agree in part with #1:  The behavior being motivated is more complex than simply catering to the desires of the other players.  You are being motivated to game the system, as you said.

But, as you've also noted, the decisions of other players are a part of that system.  I'll add that there is mechanical feedback showing the state of each player's mind at most steps.

[*]What conflicts is Player A interested in?  Look where his Debt is staked, and you know.
[*]How much does he want to win it?  Well, is he spending Story Tokens on it?  Inspirations?
[*]What manner of conflict, if created, would secure his interest?  What Drives has he got Debt sitting on?[/list:u]Given that these things are objectively on the table, I don't think it's possible to draw a sharp dichotomy between "strategic thinking" and "creative/interpersonal thinking."  Do you disagree?


I think we're both in agreement that the Conflict system is an attempt to directly address #2, yes?  The ability to define any Conflict, and then use it by way of the Not-Yet rule provides what I like to call "put up or shut up" authority.  You can apply an absolute constraint, and it gives you opportunities, but it costs you something (i.e. your action).  You do it only when (a) it's likely to earn more than it costs or (b) the narrative control is worth the resource-loss.

Before I start going on about the differences between our opinions of Conflicts as a constraint tool, can you tell me whether you also think we're both in agreement on the above point?

[TonyLB]

Simple things like "You can't kill innocents," and "You can't destroy the world," remove a lot of the more offensive possibilities.

I think this is very true.  When we started our time-travel game, we had an interesting little chat about this.  Went roughly like this:

Me:  So, killing innocents is against our Comics Code, right?
Eric:  I don't think so.  Should it be?
Me:  Errr... okay, I guess not, if you'd rather not.  I can adapt to that.
Sydney:  But we can't destroy the entire time-space continuum.
Me:  Well, why not?  It's not that big a step beyond letting an innocent die.
Sydney:  But... but where would we tell the story after that?
Eric:  I'm sure we'd figure something out.
Me:  But we can't kill spotlight characters, right?
Sydney:  Oh no!  Of course not!
Eric:  That would just be wrong.
Me:  Whereas destroying the universe is good clean fun, because we can always get it back.  Got it!

It was quite enlightening.  I would (myself) have wrongly assumed that innocents were protected.  That could have led to some very uncomfortable moments (possibly even hard feelings) when I was disabused of that notion.

So we're playing with a Comics Code that has almost nothing in it.  But we're not playing without a Comics Code.  There's no ambiguity about what is allowed and what isn't.  I know that my character very much can be scooped up by a temporal portal and whisked off to the paleozoic, without anyone so much as asking a "by your leave."

[Valamir]

Given that these things are objectively on the table, I don't think it's possible to draw a sharp dichotomy between "strategic thinking" and "creative/interpersonal thinking."  Do you disagree?

Not sure.  Let me try a slightly different angle.

Premise:  Narration that is reasonable and sensible is preferable to narration that is absurd or ridiculous (for group social contract definitions of those words).

The Story Token mechanic does a very good job of making me as a player interested in the same conflicts that you as a player are interested in...that's where the debt is, so that's where the Story Tokens are to be had.

Therefor, I'm motivated to get involved in that conflict as the opposition and rely on your desire to win to generate Story Coins for me...granted and agreed.

By opposition this means I take a stab at rolling up the other side of the conflict or rolling down your side and when I do so I get to take a turn narrating.

What then are the factors you see in the game that will influence me to choose reasonable and sensible narration over absurd and ridiculous narration?

Now comes the more important question.  I've started with the extreme case (absurd and ridiculous)  because its easier to illustrate, but the real day to day practical application comes not when I'm being a dick with my narration, but when my image of what is going on is so different from yours that what appears reasonable and sensible to me (based on my honest image) appears absurd and ridiculous to you (based on your honest image).  So here we have 2 fair minded, quality players, both committed to mutual enjoyment in the game who have a disagreement on that narration...how does Capes resolve that disagreement in a manner that doesn't alienate you given your distaste for what I narrated?  

Currently what I've heard is that you're stuck with it...tough noogies.  But I find that disatisfying because you had no ability to do anything about it.  Its my turn, you can't stop me from rolling on that conflict.  The best you can do (it would seem) is hope that someone else gets involved on the opposing side that you can award the Story Tokens to instead of me as a way of expressing your disatisfaction with my narration after the fact.

This situation is exasperated if I don't really care about the goal or the narration but just jumped in as a way to snag some easy Story Tokens and gave only a moment's thought to putting together my narration.  That seems to be a perfectly reasonable action for me to take...the game seems to encourage that sort of tactical thinking.  But again, there's no way for you as a player to express your malcontent with whatever I came up with.

I think we're both in agreement that the Conflict system is an attempt to directly address #2, yes?  The ability to define any Conflict, and then use it by way of the Not-Yet rule provides what I like to call "put up or shut up" authority.  You can apply an absolute constraint, and it gives you opportunities, but it costs you something (i.e. your action).  You do it only when (a) it's likely to earn more than it costs or (b) the narrative control is worth the resource-loss.

Well, I can see where its an attempt to do that, but I don't think its a very complete one.  First, the only right of appeal having defined the issue as a conflict gives me is right to prevent the stated goal from occuring until the conflict is resolved, and the ability to fight for the right to resolve it.  But what it doesn't address is the interrim steps.  The rules still don't grant me any ability to appeal to a higher authority over your specific narration


Second it requires me to have a preconceived notion of where I want the ability to appeal and to have had the forsight to define that as a Conflict in advance.  It doesn't give me any ability to react to something you come up with out of the blue that isn't contained within a Conflict.  So yes I could create a Goal for the Hulk that says "The Hulk doesn't get knocked around by anyone"  That would prevent another player from narrating tossing the Hulk into the Sun because he's prevented from resolving the goal (an effective use of contraint).  But that doesn't help me if the absurd ridiculous thing the other player came up with, was something that doesn't fall within the purview of that goal.  Further it means that I'd need to have 2-3 goals like this EVERY single scene just to protect the hulk from being violated in a manner I deem unappropriate.

So, I don't really think the Conflict system (as I understand it) does a particularly good job of addressing #2.  There is only one specific point in the game where it serves as a court of appeals and that is the prohibition of resolving a goal through narration.  That's the only set of circumstances where I have any recourse if you say something I don't like.  

I think of a game like Polaris where 1 player represents the character and the one across from him represents the opposition.  The two other players (called the moons) serve as a modest form of court of appeals.  They have certain aspects of the game over which they have authority (for that particular player/antagonist) including the ability to judge when a trait is appropriate to call upon.

[TonyLB]

Now comes the more important question.  I've started with the extreme case (absurd and ridiculous)  because its easier to illustrate, but the real day to day practical application comes not when I'm being a dick with my narration, but when my image of what is going on is so different from yours that what appears reasonable and sensible to me (based on my honest image) appears absurd and ridiculous to you (based on your honest image).  So here we have 2 fair minded, quality players, both committed to mutual enjoyment in the game who have a disagreement on that narration.

Sure!  It wouldn't be a group activity if everybody thought the same way.

My question in return is this:  Why does it matter that they're doing something that you disagree with?

Now I know... I know... that you can't give a general answer for that.  There is no general answer.  But I would argue that there is always a specific answer.  And that if you can figure out what that specific answer is, in this specific case, your game-play will be much the better for it.

See, for reference, [Capes] The power of explicit conflicts which is about precisely this issue.

Currently what I've heard is that you're stuck with it...tough noogies.

If you can't figure out what you're actually worried about then yes the answer is tough noogies.  Because if you have any other out, you'll use it before taking a good, hard look inside of your own head and figuring out what, specifically, you're upset about.

Does that make sense?

Do you feel that there are actually situations where players cannot agree on a contribution to the game, but where no specific personal agendas of any sort are at stake?

[Vaxalon]

I'd suggest that the Comics Code is not optional. Simple things like "You can't kill innocents," and "You can't destroy the world," remove a lot of the more offensive possibilities.

I am coming to believe that a properly set up comics code is important.

Tony, when you run your ongoing game, do you have a comics code?

[TonyLB]

Yeah, I posted about it up here.  It doesn't have very much in it, but we all know that there isn't very much in it, so that's cool.

[Valamir]

Yeah, I loved that thread.  I had it in mind when I wrote above that I could use a conflict for a preconceived defense the way you did to prevent human slaughter.  BUT having that ability DIDN'T help with the initial slaughter of humans...because it wasn't in play yet.  Instead of narrating just a few deaths the other player could have narrated that he killed every single human in a 20 mile radius.  By the time it got back to your turn...it would have been too late for your defensive conflict to matter.

That's why I suggested earlier the possibility of reaction conflicts.  The very first time he says "I'm killing  a bunch of humans" you say "lets make that a Conflict".  That way there is no occassion where he can narrate something you're completely against without recourse.  If your completely against it you can always make it a Conflict (in reaction) and stake however much debt as you want to make it stick.

A rule change that simple would go miles towards addressing all of the concerns that have been raised about unlimited omnipotent narration...because it would no longer be unlimited.  It would be limited by the degree of tolerance your fellow players have before turning it into a Conflict.

Boom...some weenie decides his 98 pound weakling is going to hurl the Hulk into the sun?  Nope...that just became a conflict.  Now there's a chance to prevent it from happening altogether.  There's a recourse in the system beyond "suck it up and take it".

I think this is completely in line with the whole Put up or Shut up mentality.  It provides an opportunity for a player to decide to Put Up where before his only option was to shut up.


As for your second point, about figuring out exactly what I'm worried about.  In many cases what I'd be worried about is some narration being so horrendously stupid that it makes me grit my teeth and fail my Suspension of Disbelief check.  Like any of a half a dozen scenes from the movie Starship Troopers that made me wonder if the writers had two brain cells to rub together.  It only takes a couple of incidents of shear absurdity to ruin a movie.  It only takes a couple of incidents of shear absurdity to ruin a game session.

When you say "if you have any other out, you'll use it" I'd love more examples of what those other outs are...because its those other outs that I'm suggesting Capes might be missing.

Do you feel that there are actually situations where players cannot agree on a contribution to the game, but where no specific personal agendas of any sort are at stake?

Not at all.  But you made it pretty clear In this post that players aren't allowed to work out their disagreements on a contribution.  That a player doesn't have the right to say "hey that sucks, come up with something different" and even if they tried they've got nothing to pack it up with stronger than "pretty please".

99.9% of the sitatuions I'd have a problem with could absolutely be resolved...that's been my whole point, that Capes doesn't offer any mechanism for this to happen.  Even if every single other player at the table though my narration was way over the top there's nothing they can do to stop me other than simply walk away from the table and not play with me any more.

People keep mentioning the Comic Code...does it have any teeth to it?  If part of the code was "you must restrict all of your narration to activities that are actually within the realm of probability for the characters being narrated for"...is there any mechanics to enforce that on some one who chooses to ignore it?

[TonyLB]

As for your second point, about figuring out exactly what I'm worried about.  In many cases what I'd be worried about is some narration being so horrendously stupid that it makes me grit my teeth and fail my Suspension of Disbelief check.

Out of interest:  In this hypothetical, does the player narrating set out to do something horrendously stupid?  Or are they trying to do their best?

When you say "if you have any other out, you'll use it" I'd love more examples of what those other outs are...because its those other outs that I'm suggesting Capes might be missing.

[*]Appeal to a game master
[*]Appeal to realism
[*]Appeal to consensus
[*]Appeal to "a good story"
[*]Immediate reactive conflicts
[*]Vetoing narration[/list:u]Yes, Capes is missing those, by design.

... players aren't allowed to work out their disagreements on a contribution.  That a player doesn't have the right to say "hey that sucks, come up with something different" and even if they tried they've got nothing to pack it up with stronger than "pretty please".

Quite right.  I mis-worded my question.  Let me try again:  "Do you feel that there is any situation where you, all on your own, cannot be comfortable with another player's contribution, and where you have no specific personal agenda involved?"

People keep mentioning the Comic Code...does it have any teeth to it?  If part of the code was "you must restrict all of your narration to activities that are actually within the realm of probability for the characters being narrated for"...is there any mechanics to enforce that on some one who chooses to ignore it?

No.

[Vaxalon]

The comics code is basically a codified, formalized (that is, structural) "pretty please" that the players agree to ahead of time.

[Andrew Cooper]

Interesting.  Would that imply that in a game with a (potentially) all-powerful GM, the narration of a player is trivial, until ratified by the GM?

I would say yes.  It might not seem that way most of the time because most group employing an "all-powerful" GM also play by the rule that the player's narration stands unless the GM objects.  Silence means approval.  Until the GM implicitly or explicitly gives approval, the player's attempted addition to the SIS can be undone by the GM.

Now the interesting thing here is that GM (as we know) isn't a person but a collection of tasks.  Which means that the rules/mechanics of the game can be the ratifier and that player input to the SIS is trivial until ratified by the mechanics.  I think Universalis would fall into this category as there are mechanical ways for the system to veto the narration.

Sorry if I wandered there.  Just sort of talking to myself. :)