The Capes Mindset

[WiredNavi]

Actually, to clarify:

Gamism is all about achieving a certain state of the SIS and feeling awesome about it.  In Capes, It looks as though there are two ways to achieve anything in the SIS:  The tough, competetive, fun, interactive way, and the way which just wins.  That sorta divides the whole Gamist part of the rules in two - there's this giant framework for competing and looking awesome, but to achieve a certain state of the SIS, the path of least resistance (and thus the 'better' choice from a tactical point of view) is to free narrate and ignore the competeing.  Either way, you're in trouble from that perspective - on the one hand, you did the stupid thing and risked losing and/or expended resources you didn't have to, but on the other hand you didn't look awesome doing it.

If I was playing D&D, and I had a mage character who could cast two spells, one of which was a giant tactical battle of wills with the target and one of which just killed them, which would I cast?  Hard to say, but there's a reason why that choice isn't there (or that each spell would have different restrictions and such).

[Vaxalon]

Some people have a problem with director stance.  It's a pretty wild idea for some people, and if a person can't manage it, he'll have trouble with Capes.  It's not rewarded.

Director stance hard - absolutely. I struggled with it in the Capes playtests.
But director stance not rewarded in Capes -- really?

I misspoke.  I should have said, that NOT playing in Director stance is not rewarded.  You are entirely correct.

people like me can get very detached from their characters. ... That attitude will also cause problems in Capes.  It's not rewarded.

Getting detached from your characters -- absolutely, that can happen in Capes, where the "disposable Undifferentiated-debt bad guy" is a common tactic.
Not rewarded -- really? Being detached enough to sacrifice characters gets you Story Tokens. Now, if you mean that overcoming your detachment is not rewarded, perhaps more of an issue there, although I suspect if you don't care enough then it's hard to make other people care and thus pay you Story Tokens to lose.

That's what I mean.  If you are too detached from your character, you detach from the conflict system.

The Brawler. He just wants to fight, all the time, over anything, so he can win and prove he's better. I think we can stipulate that Capes is actually perfect for this guy?

Nope, because you really can't prove ANYTHING in Capes.  But we've been around and around on that, and it won't do any good to keep going here.

On the upside, since the whole rulebook and all the tangible rewards (the "cues" in Vincent-speak) are about getting into Conflict, there are lots of pointers towards the more fun way to play, even for the Ninja Turtle.

That's how I saw it when I first encountered the game, but since the rewards are only meaningful within the conflict system, I'm not sure they are rewards unless the player DECIDES to treat them as if they are.  The ephemerality of them is a problem, for some people.

[Grover]

Mechanically, you can't prove anything in Capes, but is it really too much to ask the players to respect the SIS?  For example, if it's been established that Captain Stupendous is amazingly strong, don't narrate that Dr. Brain casually beats him in an arm wrestling match.  It's true that there's nothing in the mechanics to stop you, but I don't see what you could propose as a rule to enforce that kind of respect, without moving the game towards Champions.

And I do understand that players can have misunderstandings about what they consider to be an important fact in the SIS, but it seems clear to me that if only one player considers it important, then it should go their way, and if both players care a lot about it, then it'll make an excellent conflict.

[Vaxalon]

Every other RPG in the world has some means by which the group can validate contributions to the SIS before they go in.

[Grover]

In the Capes games I've been a part of, I've seen validation happening, it was just at the social level, and not the mechanical level.  People proposed modifications to narrations as people gave them, either to make it cooler, or to fix something they had a problem with.  I don't think a mechanical validation system would work - like Sydney pointed out there are problems with rewarding people for either producing unacceptable narrations, or finding exception with narrations.

I think the weird thing about Capes is that there are no tactics: if you think of a nifty tactical trick for your hero to do, it won't have a nifty effect on the game mechanics - the only validation you can receive for a trick is from the other players (incidently I think this occured in the Actual Play post you made - Warhawk came up with a cool narration for the conflict, and Dr Trinity didn't come back with an equally cool counter-move, but just negated Warhawk's move.)  This is further complicated by the fact that if you come up with a neat tactical trick for your hero, and you don't control the conflict, your trick won't work - regardless of how cool it is.  So from this perspective, Capes is very hostile to Gamist play.

I think the primary source of competition in Capes is for control of the SIS.  But this is odd, because anyone can narrate anything into it.  On the other hand, if you narrate something stupid or corny into it, you're ruining the prize you're trying to win.  So really, you want to narrate your ideas in a way that preserves the integrity of the space as a whole.  So maybe it would be better to say that the source of competition is control over a cool SIS.   If you don't properly underline significant events (by making them Conflicts) you're screwing with the SIS, and making it more pointless and uninteresting.  If you narrate something contrary to something previously established without giving a good justification, again you're destroying the integrity of the SIS.  While you can still insert your ideas, it's no longer something which is worth controlling.

Steve

[Vaxalon]

I think the primary source of competition in Capes is for control of the SIS. But this is odd, because anyone can narrate anything into it. On the other hand, if you narrate something stupid or corny into it, you're ruining the prize you're trying to win. So really, you want to narrate your ideas in a way that preserves the integrity of the space as a whole.

Capes is unique in requiring this mindset.  It's not something people are used to having to think about... they can trust the other players (or GM) to block or eliminate things they don't like.  In Capes, the player is asked to anticipate what the other players MIGHT not like, and self-censor.

[Jonas Ferry]

Fred and others,

I don't know if it's the only game, but I agree with the last sentence in your post. If someone wants to put something permanently in the SiS, they'll have to phrase so that no one objects. Or perhaps the others don't like it, but they should think it's so cool that they don't change it just because they can.

I would say that one way of enjoying Capes is by adopting a rule from impro theatre:

"Say yes."

This is very important if someone does something that you instinctively don't like. You have to judge peoples' contributions as favourably as possible, and not cut them off as soon as you can. The comics code is very good for removing things that surely will ruin peoples' game, but everything else is fair game.

Everyone agrees that the discussion is not jackass players, but people who try to do their best but sometimes do something you don't like. Capes is just a game, and if everyone adopt the "Say yes" attitude above I can't really see anything that can enter the SiS and ruin their evening.

[Vaxalon]

I would say that one way of enjoying Capes is by adopting a rule from impro theatre:

"Say yes."

You can't adopt a rule that's already tattooed on your forehead.  Capes doesn't give you ANY CHOICE but to say yes.

What people playing Capes need to do (and which many people will find very HARD to do) is "FEEL yes".

[Larry L.]

I've got it.

Capes is a sport.

Fred's etc. recent IRC play log:

# [13] <James> Tony has said repeatedly that I should not care one whit about the SIS, or your enjoyment, or compromise on any ideas that don't interest me.
# [14] <Lxndr> I'm happy to struggle with you every step of the way, James, to give this game a thorough workover.
# [14] <James> In other words, if I come across as a jerk here, I'm not trying to be pathological--I like both of you, I'm just playing the game as its creator insists it should be played.

Whoa! Wait a minute! No rules system gives you a right to be an anti-social jerk to the other players, regardless of what the "authority" of the text may suggest. (Really, I've figured this one out the hard way.) That said, you are expected to play your best; otherwise you're robbing your opponents of a good challenge.

I keep seeing this conflation of "bloodthirsty competitor" with "jerk." To my mind, the difference between the two is sportsmanship. Admittedly a waning virtue (given its dissapearance in actual pro sports), but I think it's essential to understanding Capes.

It's "Step On Up," not "Smack 'Em Down."

[Vaxalon]

It's hard to know what good sportsmanship IS when you're playing Calvinball...

[TonyLB]

Fred, are you implying that Capes is calvinball?  Or are you just making a non-sequiter observation out of the blue?

[Vaxalon]

I'm saying that it's LIKE Calvinball, in that the boundaries can shift around remarkably fluidly, compared to other games of the same broad category.

Capes:Champions::Calvinball:Football

And I'm not saying that sportsmanship is impossible in Capes... I'm saying that it's HARD.

[TonyLB]

Really?  That's fascinating.  I always thought it worked by a few basic principles:

[*]Obey the rules
[*]Accept any legitimate application of the rules without complaint
[*]Congratulate other players when they do well, even when it's to your detriment
[*]Accept such congratulations humbly when they are your due
[*]Remember that the experience of playing the game is more important than the goal of winning the game[/list:u]Do you find those guidelines harder to follow in Capes than in other games?

[Vaxalon]

Yes.

The second one... "Accept any legitimate application of the rules without complaint" is probably the hardest one.

What is "legitimate" is not always clear to me.  Moreso than other games.

What is "without complaint" is not always clear to me.  Moreso than other games.

(I'd say that "without complaint" is too narrow.  "With grace" I think is more appropriate, because going over to the sidelines and throwing a bench out into the field isn't a 'complaint' per se but it certainly isn't good sportsmanship)

[TonyLB]

Can you give a specific example of a situation where what is a legitimate use of the rules is unclear to you?