Goal Ownership

[jburneko]

Hello All,

I've been following the many Capes discussions and I find the whole thing interesting.  One thing that has caught my attention recently is the notion of a 'preventative' Goal.  If I don't want my character, say Dr. Fantastic  belittled then I can create Goal: Belittle Dr. Fantastic and people have to fight for the right to belittle my character.

However, that seems to go against the description of goals and the veto rules.

According to the rules it seems that  Goals 'belong' to a character.  That is a goal is more appropriately written as: Susan Tries To Belittles Dr.  Fantastic.  Evidence for this is suggested by the fact that a Goal can only be vetoed if it is being assigned to a character whose player doesn't want the goal and by the fact that Goals are described as a specific character actively trying to achieve something.

Going with this it seems that a preventative goal of Belittle Dr. Fantastiic is largely impossible.  If three characters want to Belittle Dr. Fantastic I would have to create three goals, one for each of them.  Also, all three of them could simply veto the goals since it is another player trying to attach the goals to their characters.

Notes:

1) I understand that anyone can 'Ally' themselves with the, erm, 'proactive' side of the goal.  This just means they are aiding the owning character's efforts to achieve that goal.

2) I understand that anyone who is allied with the 'proactive' side of the goal can claim it.  But I interpreted this to mean that they simply narrate the 'owning' character's success.

Example:

Alice has a Goal for her character X-Ray.  Bob is playing Dr. Q who has been fighting on X-Ray's side.  At the top of a page Bob claims X-Ray and Dr. Q's side of the conflict.  When it resolves Bob describes *X-Ray* succeeding at the goal because it was her goal, maybe with some support action from Dr. Q.

Jesse

[Vaxalon]

This is an incorrect impression, as I understand it.

In the games that I have been in (including with Tony) it was very common to create 'anonymous' goals, that did not name a specific actor.

"Kill the President on Live TV" was one of them.

If you win a goal, there is no limitation on the narrator to feature the character that everyone thinks is the focus of the goal.

[jburneko]

So how does that work in terms of Veto rights?  If I throw down Goal: Belittle Dr. Fantastic, but don't specify whose goal this is does anyone have veto rights?

What if no one is interested in having that as a goal?  I'm just paranoid and throw that down as protection when it hadn't even crossed anyone's mind.   Note: I suppose the simple thing is that ends up being the last conflict on the table, I just claim it myself, roll up one side and and narrate a nod that noone tried to belittle Dr. Fantastic this scene.  Fully within the rules but seems kind of sadly anticlimatic.

Jesse

[TonyLB]

Yes that's how it works in the rules.  And I suppose your hypothetical is possible.  But I don't often see people leave such a rich resource untapped, especially after they've played a session or two.

In my experience, what will happen is that somebody will invent a reason that their character wants to belittle Dr. Fantastic, so that they can get into the conflict with you, knowing that it will be a heated (and therefore profitable) conflict.

Mind you, they would never have thought to do so before you played the goal, but once it's out there the benefits of jumping on it are obvious.

[Vaxalon]

So how does that work in terms of Veto rights?  If I throw down Goal: Belittle Dr. Fantastic, but don't specify whose goal this is does anyone have veto rights?

As I understand it, noone has veto rights over that.

If you throw out an event "Doctor Fantastic is belittled" then Doctor Fantastic's player (of the moment, perhaps) can veto it.

If you throw out "Goal: Kozmik Ray belittles someone" then Kozmik Ray's player can veto it.