Why narrate at all?

[Vaxalon]

No, it's not a diversion, I think, that's very germaine.

Capes is far more GMless than even GMless games like Universalis.

[Larry L.]

Tony, -- or maybe Ralph, since he asked the question:

Is this thread concerned with all narration in Capes or just free narration outside the Conflict system?

[Mike Holmes]

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?

Ralph already answered that. I get the feeling you aren't reading through his posts. It's a Forge truism that you can't stop an abusive player, and should not try. So, no, the player does not set out to do something horrendous in this example.

Happens anyhow. All the time. In fact, if there isn't a mechanism to inform players that they should be careful, then they make more mistakes of this sort. In fact, the advantage of such rules, really, is that you rarely have to use them, and they improve everyone's play.

Now, this is the point in your rhetoric where you say, "Well, if the person is doing their best, then you should just accept that, and move on." At least you've said this a couple of times before, or things to that effect. Well, that's akin to playing in a band, and not being allowed to tell another player when his playing stinks, or even give him suggestions on how to do better.

Would you think it unreasonable to not want to be in a band that had such a rule? Consider that, very often, when you inform the player of what they've done, they do change their minds. So they really do want to hear the criticism. But sometimes it happens that two well intentioned players can't come to an agreement on what makes sense. What then?

Ah, that's right, it's never happened to you, so it'll never happen to anyone else. This is simply not true. And even if it were, some players still would prefer to know that there was a court that they could go to. In any case, if they never had to go to it, then what would be the detriment to having it?

I mean, if they never have to use the rule according to you, then why not put it in? Just in case? Anyhow, as I've said, having such a rule is informative. Rules are like the law - some wiseguy named Holmes (no, not me, the supreme court justice) said that the law is the great teacher.

It is very reasonable in a group activity to have group standards. This is why you have the comics code, no? So that the standard gets stated up front. But the way you have it, it's like having a law, but no police to bring potential infractions before the court, and no court to hear the cases.

When playing games like this, people do have disagreements. As Ralph said, they do not neccessarily occur because people mean to do harm, but because they are human and make mistakes. Or because two players have different POVs on some subject. If there is no way to iron this out when it comes up, then you're asking for critical breakdowns to occur. By which I mean events that can cause a game like this to cease being played permenantly.

Less immediately detrimental, you tell some players that they can be careless in their narration. Why not inform them otherwise?

Yes, Capes is missing those, by design.

Is it that you don't want the narration to be fettered in any way by the group standard? Or just that all of the methods mentioned cause problems with other parts of the gameplay?

"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?"

All people have an agenda all of the time. Even if it's just "to enjoy a game that has narration in it that makes sense to me." Ralph, Fred, myself; we're bad people because we have standards? And would like merely to have some way to express them during the game?


I will now relate an annecdote. There once were two designers named Mike and Ralph who were hacking their way through very much the same sorts of rules questions. Interestingly, they were of the opinion that far, far more rules were needed to control the flow of a game sans a GM. So they put out this huge 200 page volume of rules, and got some playtesters. All of the playtesters all told Mike and Ralph the same things, "It's too heavy, most of these rules aren't neccessary!" To which Mike and Ralph replied, "No it's not, you're just not seeing how it's supposed to be played!"

Well, Mike and Ralph were stubborn sunsabitches, and kept arguing and arguing and arguing that they'd got it right on the first time through. Til one day, they tried playing the game using some of the suggestions that the playtesters had come up with. And, lo, they understood what the playtesters were talking about. Ralph went and rewrote the game, and got it down to 86 itsy bitsy pages of rules that really accomplished the goals of the design in a way that satisfied not only their playtesters, but themselves as well.

Hey, who knows, maybe you're just smarter than all of us. But, in the case that you're actually like us, consider what I've said, and get back a couple of months of development time that you'll never get back otherwise. Just sayin'.

Mike

[John Harper]

Holy crap, Mike. That reads like a very snide post. How's about I give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you're not being a jerk? Cuz I really don't think you mean to be.

But damn! "Rhetoric"? Tony disagrees with you and Ralph. That's not rhetoric. That's him stating his position.

And good lord, there's this:

Ralph, Fred, myself; we're bad people because we have standards? And would like merely to have some way to express them during the game?

NO ONE is saying you are bad people. We are disagreeing with you. That's it, brother. I happen to think that you (and the others) are mighty fine people indeed. I'm sure Tony does too.

The cutesy story about how Mike and Ralph designed their game the right way just makes me shake my head. I mean, seriously.

Can we turn this thing down, like, 4 whole notches before moving forward?

[Vaxalon]

Erm... the word "rhetoric" has some negative connotations sometimes, but it can also mean "using language persuasively" which is, I think, the sense Mike is using it here.

[TonyLB]

Now, this is the point in your rhetoric where you say, "Well, if the person is doing their best, then you should just accept that, and move on." At least you've said this a couple of times before, or things to that effect. Well, that's akin to playing in a band, and not being allowed to tell another player when his playing stinks, or even give him suggestions on how to do better.

Actually, this is the bit in my rhetoric where I say "If someone else is doing their best then maybe you need to consider the possibility that their idea is better than yours, and try to figure out why you're all upset about such a cool idea."

Sometimes a contribution is genuinely without merit.  But most of the time it's really cool, but poorly understood.  If your first instinct is to say "Oh, that's lame, therefore it's got to be stopped" then you'll never get to "That sounds lame... therefore I've probably misunderstood it, and need to think harder."

[John Harper]

I'm glad you said that, Tony. It gets right to the heart of an aspect of Universalis that I have found hard to articulate. Several people have brought it up on the Forge before -- the idea of Uni having a kind of "alpha male" vibe going on. And I don't mean that in a derogatory way at all.

I played Universalis with a pool of regular players that was 75% female. And yet the game still had this kind of masculine vibe. I think I get it now.

In Uni, the core assumption is that everything can be challenged. Any idea might have to defend itself at any time, or be tossed aside. This is the Challenge mechanic. If I'm willing to throw in my coins, I am in a position to judge and police everything another player says during the game. My play experiences with this mechanic have been overwhelmingly positive and I think it's a fine piece of work.

But it's just... well, it's very yang. It's aggressive. Dominant. We all tell a story together, but we can fight each other tooth and nail to keep our own vision intact when we want to. It's the yang side of things.

Capes is the yin. It has a totally different core assumption. In Capes, every idea is accepted by default. It's open and receptive -- even passive in a strange way -- and asks players to shift their own perceptions rather than try to dominate.

And so we talk past each other in this discussion. "Capes is yin!" "Why can't it be yang?"

I think this is such a deep-down core feeling that it just seems "obvious" to do it one way or the other. And so we start making value judgements. Dominance is bad. Passivity is wrong. And so on.

What's obvious to me now is that these are two poles of the same issue. They each have their merits and they will not work for everyone. Maybe if we can at least stipulate that there is a yin side, and it's appealing to some players, AND that Tony is clearly going for this goal in Capes -- then maybe we can talk constructively about how it's achieving that goal and where/how to add in some yang elements for those that want them.

[Valamir]

Couple of responses immediately come to mind with that John.  There've been several threads about the Yanginess of Uni and can accept and even endorse that.  But to suggest that Capes is Yin...that seems abit of a stretch to me.  When every aspect of the game promotes pure unadulterated competition...when Tony agrees that you can't play Capes unless you're "out for blood"...that doesn't sound very Yin to me.  

Tony's Actual Play posts are about as far from passive as one can conceive of.  Its far more "fight each other tooth and nail" than Uni is.

So, to use the Yin and Yang idea you've brought up...my concern is (and its only a concern at this point, as I've tried to emphasize several times) that Capes is, in fact, a very Yang game using a very Yin rules set.  


But even allowing that a Yin rules set can be made to work.  Allowing that there are those for whom restraints aren't necessary because they're all about the Yin vibe as players anyway...a few posts up you criticised me for speculating that the market for Capes might be pretty narrow.  But then you turn around and say that Capes is a Yin game and requires Yin sensibilities to play it.  I'm reasonably certain that Yin gamers are in a distinct minority in this hobby...so that would seem to confirm the speculation that you earlier criticised.

[Mike Holmes]

Sometimes a contribution is genuinely without merit.  But most of the time it's really cool, but poorly understood.  If your first instinct is to say "Oh, that's lame, therefore it's got to be stopped" then you'll never get to "That sounds lame... therefore I've probably misunderstood it, and need to think harder."

See, this is the part that causes me to make the snarky response. Your assumption is that we must be being unreasonable. That our "first instinct" is to jump all over people. And that we really just don't take the time to think very hard about these things. That if we just were a little nicer and more thoughtful that there would never be a problem. Well, that doesn't describe myself, Fred, or Ralph all of whom I've seen in action in actual play. All three of us (and others who have joined us in objecting) are actually quite thoughtful and considerate players.

We're not talking about pandering to assholes. We're talking about two rational people on each end of the problem needing a way to arbitrate when they disagree.

You keep trivializing the problem by implying that it's a bad attitude on our part. This is saying that System Doesn't Matter, that it just depends on having players with the right attitude, and all will be well. Don't blame the design, blame the people playing for the problems that they have in play.

It's an easy pit to fall into - as I've indicated, I did it, and Ralph did it. And I've seen lots of others do it, too.

Now that doesn't mean that we're right and that you have to change the design or anything. You may well decide that it's just fine the way it is. But just realize that you may be making a game that doesn't appeal to some group of players. I can't say how large it is (though I suspect it's very large), so you'll have to judge for yourself if it's just three uppity folks making trouble.

But just consider that we're three uppity folks who have decided to take the time to give you feedback. Not because we want to put your game down, but because we believe it has lots of potential, and we think that there's a problem.

So, could you please just give us the benefit of a doubt here that we're not just being unreasonable? Try to understand the problem from our POV, perhaps?

Mike

[TonyLB]

Ralph, not to go all Alex Trebek on you, but would any of that have been difficult to phrase as a question?

I believe that you're in this to try to understand the positions of others.  I think that when you post things that (like the above post) look like "No, you're wrong!  Here's why!", you are in fact hoping that somebody will come back and say "I recognize what you're saying, but I still think I'm right, for the following reasons..." and give you useful information that may even sway your opinion.  Am I correct in that?

If I am correct then I'm a bit confused about your choice of tone.  While I have no trouble translating this:

Tony's Actual Play posts are about as far from passive as one can conceive of. Its far more "fight each other tooth and nail" than Uni is.

... into this:

Tony's Actual Play posts seem very competitive.  I'm sure you are taking that into account in your theory that the game is Yin, but can you please elaborate on the seeming contradiction?

... some people might.  I'm sure that you've taken that into account, in choosing to post as you have, but can you please elaborate on why the statement/rebuttal style works better for you than question/answer?

Who knows... the differences in how we post in this thread might even shed some light on the differences in how we play RPGs.

[Larry L.]

Edit: Deleted.

[Larry L.]

I think I understand (and agree) where Tony is coming from, and I think I understand where the critics are coming from too.

Man, a session of gameplay would be enlightening. I don't know that IRC is the ideal way to do that, but it might get everyone on the same page.

[TonyLB]

So, could you please just give us the benefit of a doubt here that we're not just being unreasonable? Try to understand the problem from our POV, perhaps?

Mike, I'm very sorry that I came across as attacking you guys personally, or your style of play generally.  That was not my intent.

I think that I do see the problem from your POV.  But I could very well be mistaken.  How about if I summarize what I see your position as being, and you can tell me whether I've got it right.  Sound good?

Mike's Position, as seen by Tony

System Matters.  Problems arise in a game, and the system either helps the players in dealing with them, or it does not.

One of the problems that comes up is when players are narrating at cross-purposes.  Capes has no adequate way to address that.  Players can (and will) address the problem, but the lack of System support will make it much harder.  And that's silly, because it's quite possible to change the system in such a way that it will help them address this problem.

Tony's responses have been unhelpful, because he is continually arguing that there is no such problem:  whether because Capes has an adequate way to address it, or because the problem doesn't arise.  His constant switching between those two defenses is a clear indication that neither defense is actually accurate.  The problem does arise, and Capes does not deal with it.

Mike, Fred and Ralph have quite reasonably and helpfully offered solutions to this known problem.  But because Tony denies the existence of the problem, he questions the motives of the people offering solutions.  He argues that only unreasonable, "bad" players would get into the problem in the first place, thus unfairly slandering the very people who are trying to help him, rather than facing the fact that other people have perfectly reasonable styles of play that differ from his.

This inability to adapt will do substantial damage to his game in the marketplace, because it will restrict its appeal to precisely those people who have his exact style of play.  A system that is more robustly tested and adapted for suiting multiple styles of play would make him more money, and have more of a positive impact on the gaming world at large.


Have I missed anything?  Misunderstood anything?

[Vaxalon]

Since Mike seems to be doing a much better job of handling these sorts of situations, I'm going to let him answer this.

[Vaxalon]

Man, a session of gameplay would be enlightening. I don't know that IRC is the ideal way to do that, but it might get everyone on the same page.

Actually, I think IRC is an EXCELLENT way to get actual play information, relative to this discussion.

1> You can log everything that's said

2> With a weakened social contract, you can see what would happen among a FTF group that didn't have the kind of strong social contracts that we here at the Forge are used to.