Is Capes a GM Training Game?

[Jaik]

I was reading the lightbulb thread by Uzzah and was going to respond with something about how I thought Capes was totally narrativist, but it didn't seem pertinent enough to post, so I kept thinking and it led me to this:

Capes is not a GM-free game, rather, all the players unofficially take turns being the GM (probably not revolutionary).

Capes is also totally narrativist, especially when the system is followed as intended.  (has been debated...a bunch)

Assuming my group is using Spotlight characters, I show up for the session with an idea for what story I want to tell about my character.  I have an open mind, though, and am more than willing to include suggestions from the other players and incorporate their ongoing stories into my own.

If I want to tell my story, I need Story Tokens.  The best way to get those is to take a turn Playing Bass to the other players.  If i do that, then they have more fun, and are more likely to Play Bass for me, thus letting me have more fun.  And we all have to get into one anothers' heads to figure out exactly which bass riff to play.  Capes will teach you to be a better Narr GM!

As a side note, I think the Gamism in Capes is something of a red herring.  I want to play in a Narr style.  If I help the others to do this as well, the system will reward me with the resources to make Narr decisions.

[Andrew Morris]

Aaron, I actually think Capes is CA independent, or that it offers support for all CAs. Take this with a grain of salt, however, because I've never been well-versed in the GNS theory. No matter what you're looking for, the system always rewards use of the rules and mechanics.

[Joshua Patterson]

I'll jump in here and use some information I got from Tony in a PM that rang really true to me.  Before I posted my lightbulb thread I asked Tony what his experiences with Capes was as it relates to CAs.  Basically what he told me (and I really hope he jumps in here and elaborates more than I can) is that they started off as Gamist.  However, the more they learned about each others likes and desires, not only for themselves but for their characters, it started shifting to Nar play.  This for some reason immediately formed a picture in my mind...

It's analogy time!  (forgive me, but I love'em.)

Imagine if you will a blank piece of posterboard.  On one side of the board are magnents glue in a specific pattern.  Now, you take someone and set him on the opposite side of the board, throwing magnents at the board.  If he hits  within the pattern he can't see, it sticks.  He keeps throwing them, and slowly the pattern emerges.  Now he's got the ability to make a magnet stick everytime he throws one, because he now knows the pattern.

Now in Capes, conflicts are your magnents, and the pattern is what your fellow players like/enjoy.  What I got from Tony is once they figured out each other's "pattern" then they could start throwing Nar conflict magnents that would hit each and every time.  My only concern though is I can still see how someone would call this Gamist play.  Why?  Because you get better "aim".  Every conflict you throw at someone now sticks, thus ensuring the player cares about it, thus ensuring he spends his currency on said conflict and rewarding you afterwards pending his victory, thus ensuring you "won", thus ensuring me using way too many "thus-es".  :)

I suppose it kinda boils down to the intentions of the player.  Is he starting a conflict so his fellow players can address premise, or he is starting a conflict simply to get story tokens.

I'm sure there's a thread or 2 (million) around here discussing Gamist players/games where the goal is to address premise.

[Joshua Patterson]

Aaron, I actually think Capes is CA independent, or that it offers support for all CAs. Take this with a grain of salt, however, because I've never been well-versed in the GNS theory. No matter what you're looking for, the system always rewards use of the rules and mechanics.

I'm not quite sure I agree with this.  I'm having trouble seeing how a simulationist wouldn't be pulling his hair out while playing Capes.  In fact, I'm not sure if simulationism would thrive at all when everyone in the group has the ability to assume Director stance, though I welcome anyone pointing me to such a game.

Now I'll completely agree that Capes offers support for Gam and Nar play, but if you have a mixture of the two, then it gets kinda wierd.  For optimal play on boths sides, each has to kinda assume the other's CA.  The Nar player would have to make sure he gives out good Gamist goals to the Gamist, while the Gamist player has to make sure he does the opposite.

Can you imagine what it would be like when the Nar player is giving out Nar conflicts because that's what he finds most interesting while the Gamist is doing the same thing with Gamist conflicts.  Talk about frustrating.

[TonyLB]

I'm not sure I see what you're saying here.  Can you give examples of Gamist and Narrativist Goals?

[Joshua Patterson]

I'm not sure I see what you're saying here.  Can you give examples of Gamist and Narrativist Goals?

I'll assume that one was directed towards me.

Also, assume that everything I'm talking about below, relates to conflicts that you start for other players, not conflicts you start for yourself.

A gamist wants to set up a good conflict so his fellow Gamist will award him story tokens, etc, that way he has more "power" to control his own destiny or it could be more simple than that, the Gamist player could simply state "I have 10 more story tokens that everyone else at the end of the night, therefore I won."

A Nar player would be helping his fellow Nar players address premise, while they do the same for them.

The wierdness comes in when you have a Gamist and Nar player sitting at the same table.  Both want the same end result as in a homogeneous group (Story Tokens or Addressing Premise) however since they have to rely on the other, each has to assume the others CA in setting up a conflict.  A Gamist player knows that a Nar player won't really be too keen on Gamist conflicts, so he shifts a bit and sets up Nar conflicts for the Nar player in order to fill his Gamist goals.  The Nar player will likewise do the opposite.

[Andrew Morris]

I think that you'll most often get conflicts that are appealing to both, or neither, equally. Can you give a specific theoretical example of a Gamist conflict and a Narrativist one?

[TonyLB]

Uzzah:  Yeah, but... what is a Gamist Conflict?  What is a Narrativist Conflict?  You say people will do things differently, but I don't grok the specifics.

Say I notice that Fistfire has four Debt Tokens in Love (and, indeed, is overdrawn).  I therefore play his Love Exemplar, Zartanna, in the next scene, and I provide "Goal:  Express my feelings to Zartanna", which I then oppose as hard as I can.

Is this a Gamist Goal or a Narrativist Goal?

[Joshua Patterson]

I think that you'll most often get conflicts that are appealing to both, or neither, equally. Can you give a specific theoretical example of a Gamist conflict and a Narrativist one?

.......

Well crap, you're right.  I've been sitting here for five minutes and I can't think of one for either.  I imagine you could start a conflict that in no way addresses a premise, but the power of Director stance might have a big say so in that.

[Joshua Patterson]

Uzzah:  Yeah, but... what is a Gamist Conflict?  What is a Narrativist Conflict?  You say people will do things differently, but I don't grok the specifics.

Say I notice that Fistfire has four Debt Tokens in Love (and, indeed, is overdrawn).  I therefore play his Love Exemplar, Zartanna, in the next scene, and I provide "Goal:  Express my feelings to Zartanna", which I then oppose as hard as I can.

Is this a Gamist Goal or a Narrativist Goal?

Ah-ha!  No, fair you're using knowledge beyond my meager Capes-lite knowledge.  ;)

Alright, I give, Tony...you get my 10 bucks for the PDF, this damn game is too interesting just by reading and discussing it, let alone playing it.  :)

I think I answered your end question in the post above this one.  You guys are right, they're both.

[Jaik]

Tony, do you think your experience playing Capes with a certain group would help you do a better job running a sesion of Sorcerer (as an example) for the same group?

I ask (in lieue of a much longer post that somehow vanished) because it seems that the dynamics of Capes will increase player drive, GM responsiveness, and overall group trust (assuming a compatible group to begin with).

[TonyLB]

Yeah, I definitely see a differential improvement.  I play with Eric and Sydney in other games, with other groups, and it's very much as if we have private channels of communications going that we don't with other members of the group.

Now I think that this would be the case with any game that really pushed us all to contribute and to honestly (i.e. brutally) evaluate each other's contributions.  Whether Capes (because of its system) does more than that minimum requirement is something I'm harder pressed to give you a definite answer on.  I think it does, but until there's more varied Actual Play evidence I'm honestly not sure.

[jburneko]

Hello,

Capes is definitely an enigma when it comes to CA.  Here's why it's so problematic.

1) It has been acknowledged that Gamism and Narrativism (Step On Up and Story Now) are kissing cousins.  Systems that facilitate one, often facilitate the other or are at least easily driftable to do so.

2) The bigest mistake I think anyone makes, including myself once upon a time, is to think that in order to get a "story oriented" game that adversity must be a straw man.  Players should never be in any REAL danger and that villains should win and lose on cue.  The biggest shock of my life came when I realized that Story Now is best facilitated by REAL, unfettered, rulthless adversity.  A skill I had been deliberately supressing in order to be more "story oriented."  The Demons in Sorcerer are scary, sorcery is difficult and combat is rather unforgiving.  The Master in My Life With Master can not be resisted with out a pretty serious odds-against-you roll.  The idea that players should abide by the outcome of social conflict rolls, upto and including having their characters believe or do things they don't want them to believe or do.

My argument has always been that the strategy and tactics elements of Capes is incentive to provide adversity for your fellow players in the absense of a GM.  The issue is what form does this adversity take?  Is it solely about matching adversity for adversity (Step On Up) or is it about confronting meaningfull choices (Story Now).

I don't think the strategy and tactics element is the telling point of a Capes CA.  I think what matters is the content of the Conflict cards played in the game because the content of the Conflict reveals the form of the adversity being pushed.  Could the content of the Conflicts be solely about adversity with the absense of hard moral choices (or straw man moral choices)?  Perhaps.  But I consider it highly unlikely, especially among groups likely to give Capes a go in the first place.

Jesse

[TonyLB]

Jesse:  Are you taking up the fallen banner of "Gamist Conflicts" vs. "Narrativist Conflicts"?  It seems like you're saying (in your last paragraph) that a Gamist would want one type of conflict (without hard moral choices... which perplexes me from a game-resource point of view, but maybe we'll get back to that) and a Narrativist would want another type.  If that's actually what you're saying can you give some examples?

[jburneko]

I'm agreeing that you can't judge a Capes game's CA without looking at the content of the conflicts.  I'm not so sure it's as simple as "Gamist Conflicts" vs "Narrativist Conflicts."  The problem is that we're running up against Ron's "instance of play", so it's very difficult to provide a concrete example because you could only tell by looking at the Conflicts over multiple sessions.  It gets watered down even further when you take into account the actual interactions of the people over what purpose the Conflict serves on a social level.

Consider this example.  The scene is framed as a bank robbery.  The Hero introduces the Goal: Stop the bank robbers.  The Villain introduces the Event: A wall collapses.

This is where it gets all complicated.  We don't know what these MEAN to the players, even if the in game consequences are roughly the same.  The hero has to choose between stopping the bank robbers and saving some people from being crushed by the wall.  Maybe this really is a tough choice for the player and it's out there because Villain's player really wanted to tug at the heartstrings of the hero player because from past events he knows that the hero player really HATES innocents being harmed.  Or maybe the moral choice is just a bit of super-hero pastiche used by the villain's player who knows that the hero's victory over the bank robbers will be cheapened if he has to let the wall crush some innocents.

In the first case the Villain player is genuinely questioning the Hero player's character (i.e. thematic) priorities.  In the second example the Villain player is leveraging the commonly accepted fact (pastiche) that heroes don't let innocents die to tactically threaten the hero player.  The Hero player doesn't really have any investment in the choice as a character statement, he just knows that things, and therefore his victory, "won't look quite right" if he lets the wall collapse go in the Villain's favor.

We can't know the CA without knowing both the Conflicts and what those conflicts mean to the players...over time.