Why narrate at all?

[Valamir]

Hey Tony, I'm going to try and make this my last post for this latest series of threads because I think my repeated attempts to highlight the issue might be giving the impression that I'm dissing the game.  I'm not (and niether is Mike).  I think Capes is REALLY cool, and to whatever extent Uni may have influenced its design...thats super keen.

So I'll just try and illustrate why I perceive that there MAY be an issue here that you're not seeing.

I've played a TON of Universalis...much of that with new players.  And I've read a lot of actual play posts for Uni...many by first time players giving it a shot (several of which are in the Actual Play forum here).  If there's one trend that I've noticed is that many (very many) of those initial play posts describe very silly, very chaotic, very "all over the place" games -- often to the point of being nonsensical.  The initial conclusion of many of those reports was that the game was "A hell of alot of fun but strangely unsatisfying".

In all of those fun-but-unsatisfying games the clearest trend that I've identified was a decided lack of using Uni's steering and breaking mechanisms.  The first aspects of the game people latch on to is the ability to Create Components and then spend Coins to have them do anything they want.  Often those concepts are enough to keep them busy for the first session and the players go a little crazy stretching the limits and taking those rules out for a test drive.  But the steering mechanisms are much more subtle...more advanced techniques that are only figured out after a couple of sessions.

Interrupting and Taking Control of a Component is not often a part of the first game (or for some groups they are but for more belligerant "screw with your friends" kind of reasons).  People hesitate to Challenge and Complications are almost always engineered by the person whose turn it is.  

With experience comes advanced techniques like:  using an Interrupt to just briefly insert a small item into another player's turn to help guide narration,  Taking Control of a Component at the right time to force the other player to work with you on establishing events rather than narrating unilaterally, Initiating Complications on other players turns in reaction to what they are doing (done right this provides a pretty fine level of influence), and of course knowing when to Challenge and how to Negotiate for those things that are important to you.  Further players learn to define Traits for Components that go beyond the obvious ones into the realm of using Traits to provide guidance for how a character behaves...things other players will then have to account for in their narration.

Now I'm not suggesting Capes needs anything near this degree of "interfere with someone elses turn" capability by any means.  I offer this as background to make the following point.

New players to Uni don't know how to do any of those things.  Because they are not doing those things the narrations of the players tend to be highly unrestrained.  People say anything, narrate anything, create anything because no one is using the tools to suggest otherwise.  The end result of just about every actual play post I've read or demo to new players I've done (that didn't emphasize those tools) is that play is chaotic, bizarre, silly, and inconsistant.  Fun...but ultimately unsatisfying.

Once players start to use the Uni control techniques to subtly steer play and mechanically signal each other where they want play to go...the silliness and chaos go away and some really deep, cool, and interesting stories develop.  Much of the time the tools don't even need to be used, because just knowing that they could be serves to guide players actions.


That's the trend I've noticed in Universalis.  Play without constraints being imposed by the other players -- get nutty, wacky, silly games that are fun but not very fulfilling.  Play with the other players providing some mechanically enforceable contraints...much higher ratio of producing equally fun but much less silly and much more fulfilling games.  That doesn't mean you don't get the Really Unusual extremely creative stuff in play like you've indicated you want in Capes, however.  I think the best examples of Uni actual play prove that pretty decidedly.


So when I see players like Fred and James and Brennan indicate that their games were a little too wacky; and while fun weren't very fulfilling...and I hear in the discussions that Capes has virtually no ability for other players to provide any mechanically enforceable constraints...I feel like I understand the issue pretty intimately.  Because its the EXACT same thing that happens time and time again with Uni.

The difference is that Uni does provide those mechanically enforceable contraints and once players learn to use them they can keep their games from devolving into chaos (if they want to, sometimes chaos is fun).  Since Capes DOESN'T provide any such tools, my worry is that for the majority of players out there (gamer or non gamer I don't think matters because it hasn't with Uni) they'll be stuck in wacky, silly, fun-but-unsatisfying mode with no tools to help them get out.


That's why I raise it as an issue and a concern.  Maybe that problem won't materialize and I'm projecting issues that don't apply to Capes.  Maybe you're perfectly happy with wacky silly fun games and feel no need to have more "serious" play.  But that's where I'm coming from.  That's why I felt like sharing some of the "wisdom" my experience with 3 years of Uni play has provided.

Ultimately, of course, its your game...I won't feel you "screwed it up" regardless.  I just wanted to bring it to your attention.  For what ever reason we seem to have difficulty in communicating with each other, so these threads wound up going around and around much more than they really needed to.

But that's what I wanted to convey...I think I've explained it as clearly as I'm able, and I think you've heard what I'm saying now, so my job here at this point is done unless you have some further points you want to discuss.

[Vaxalon]

Thanks Ralph.  I would add that in the games that I have played, the dynamic was a little different, in that I recognized that the chaos was a definite possibility, and held back from it rather than let the game devolve... and it was unsatisfying in a different way.

[TonyLB]

Wow, cool!  I think I knew all of that stuff about your position, but I didn't have the emotional context that your history provides.  It makes it much easier to read... I went back to a few old posts and I could easily (in hindsight) say "Ah, yes, so this paragraph is the meat of what he's saying, while this one is just an example to make things clear."  Thanks!

I'm tempted to jump on the bandwagon, and explain my own emotional context on this.  But that'll take some time to get clear in my own head.

[Mike Holmes]

Tony, your understanding of our position seems pretty clear from the post you gave summarizing it. But I was pretty sure you were smart enough to understand it, that you did understand it. But you still haven't addressed the position. Other than, previously, to be dismissive (or at least seem that way).

Also, note that if you think that Ralph is just projecting, consider that it's not Ralph's opinion, or mine for that matter, that matter here. It's Fred's. His play of the game is at least one independent verification of what we're talking about. Fred didn't know how Ralph or I "felt" about it. So this is not just a projection on our parts, but Ralph and I observing actual data of the problematic phenomenon in question.

Only one data point, yes. But worth considering.

Mike

[TonyLB]

Okay, Mike, can I ask you to summarize my position, as you see it?  Because I suspect that we have a disconnect, but I can't see quite where it's happening.

[Mike Holmes]

Apollogies for the briefness, but I think we've been over this. It seems to me that your position is:

OK, I see what you guys are saying, but it's just not a problem in actual play if you are just try to accept the play of the other players.

Mike

[TonyLB]

Wow... that's... that's wearying, is what it is.

I don't see how a reasonable, intelligent person could support that position as stated.  Do you?

[Vaxalon]

You seem to be saying that either 1> Mike's description doesn't adequately describe your position or 2> You're not a reasonable, intelligent person.

I doubt 2 is accurate.

[Mike Holmes]

I don't see how a reasonable, intelligent person could support that position as stated. Do you?

This threatens to put me in an untennable position. I now either have to say that you are stupid and unreasonable, or I have to say that I have not tried to understand your argument, or am arguing disingenously.

None of this is true, however. If your position is otherwise than I've stated it, then perhaps I've simply misunderstood. I'm willing to try to understand your point, if you're willing to try to make it again (or point me to what I've missed).

Mike

[TonyLB]

Actually, you don't have to say either of those things.  The question was "Do you see how a reasonable, intelligent person could support that position as stated?"

If you can answer "Yes," then you don't have to make the other choice.  Your summary is your best understanding of my argument, an argument that you think a reasonable person could make.  You respect my opinion, have tried to understand it within the bounds of that respect, and this is the result.  That would be fine.  I'd be thrilled and relieved.  We could talk about how we've miscommunicated, and move forward.

But if you can't answer "Yes"... if you see on the face of it that the summary you gave was the argument of an idiot, then yeah you're in an untenable position.  But I didn't put you there.  I just pointed it out.

[Vaxalon]

Mike might be trying to say this:  "I must be misunderstanding your position, because you seem to feel that the position I stated is an irrational one."

[Mike Holmes]

Yes, Fred, that's the important part. I've very willing to forget the rest of the subtext of this discussion.

Mike

[TonyLB]

Mike, it's not subtext.  It's text.

What I think about your summary is secondary.  What do you think about your summary of my position?  Is it a rational, reasonable position?

[Mike Holmes]

Currently, I think the position indicated by the summary is incorrect (FWIW), but I now think that it must not be your position because you seem to think that it's irrational. Since I think you are rational, and would only proffer a position that you feel is rational, it must not be your position.

So I'm waiting for your correction to my misunderstanding of your position.

What I think about your summary is secondary.

Well, actually at this point it's the only thing that I'm interested in. That is, whether the summary is correct, and, if not, how so.


Mike

[Vaxalon]

I think Mike is trying to be polite, and not say that he thinks it is an irrational position.  

Tony, you seem to be trying to force him into admitting it, but that can't be right, because that would be rude, and I've never known you to act that way.

(edited for increased politeness)