Is Capes a GM Training Game?

[TonyLB]

Jesse:  I still don't get what you're saying.  Are you saying that any conflict (or trend of conflicts over the course of an entire game) can be in service to any CA?  Or are you saying that analysis of conflicts can show you what CA is in play?  And is "content of conflicts" different from "conflicts"?

[jburneko]

I'm saying that analysis of conflicts in play plus analysis of the group interaction over those conflicts can tell us what CA was involved.  I don't think the strategy and tactics play of the Capes rules is sufficient.  I don't think a transcript of in-game events is sufficient.  I don't even think a detailed list of what conflicts were played how the mechanics were employed to resolve them is sufficient.  You need the "And that's when he smiled," or "God, she seemed to take that so personally," or "He seemed really uncomfortable with that idea," on top of all the other stuff.

Jesse

[Mike Holmes]

Jesse is right, there is no such thing as a Gamist Conflict - there's no such thing as a gamist to start. The whole idea misses what CA is about.

I think Capes is pretty strongly supportive of narrativism. Moreso than Universalis, for instance (which is sorta narrativism by default).

The principle here is that tactical play that's used to produce theme is not gamism, but narrativism. Like Jesse says, it's false to assume that narrativism is just about everyone getting their way. Using the classic example, in Sorcerer, combat is dangerous to the player - you can lose your character in theory. And there is a "winning" tactic. Which is to describe your actions in an entertaining fashion, so as to gain dice to win in combat.

Does this make Sorcerer gamism supportive? No, what the players are doing by coming up with the creative narrations are to create theme. The system uses "winning" as an incentive to make decisions that create theme. Not to make decisions that promote your self-esteem against some challenge. You don't gloat when you win in Sorcerer beause you're a better player at defeating opponents than the other players or something, you gloat because you've created the coolest narrative.

I think the same thing happens in Capes. Yes, you compete, but you do so not to lord it over the other players, but to create theme.

That's narrativism. Think about when you're deciding what a character does? Is your choice of his action because you'll beat the other players, or some challenge from the game? Or because you get to create the theme you want by deciding that action?

Mike

[TonyLB]

I agree that there's no such thing as an inherently G or N conflict.  It's all about context and play.

But, that having been said... what if it's both?

At DEXCON, somebody handed me a conflict of "Ryu wants to get into a fight."  And I said to myself "Wow, how do I make her angry about fighting for that?  How do I make it show something about her character, one way or the other?  Oh wait, I got it!"  And then I had the little obnoxious boy-wonder sidekick I was playing say "No, Ryu!  You stay in the house!  Fighting is too dangerous for girls!"

Of course, the moment I said that TJ (playing Ryu) took this deep, hissing intake of breath and said, very low, very dangerous "Oh you didn't just say that..."  To which I responded "Hey, my character is deeply invested in the moral principle of Truth."  TJ's response?  "Oh, it's ON!"

I get really confused about Capes on this level, possibly because I don't know enough about GNS.  In one sense, I'm driving toward "What will offend TJs sensibilities most, causing her to rise to the challenge on a personal level" as a tool for creating theme (about gender identity, toughness, etc.)  On another level, I'm using theme (her character choices, what moral principles her character stands for, etc.) as a tool for more accurately forcing her to step on up.  They don't feel like they're prioritized, one over the other.  They feel like doing one will always lead to doing the other, so it's just all one thing.

[Larry L.]

I've called Capes a "post-GNS design" for these reasons. It has certainly raised issues that, to me at least, seem to exist in an area for which theory hasn't been developed.

There is certainly a level of "Step On Up" that is necessary to enjoy Capes. Something is disqualified from fulfilling a Gamist agenda just because it advances a Narrative? That doesn't seem right.

[Mike Holmes]

In one sense, I'm driving toward "What will offend TJs sensibilities most, causing her to rise to the challenge on a personal level" as a tool for creating theme (about gender identity, toughness, etc.)  On another level, I'm using theme (her character choices, what moral principles her character stands for, etc.) as a tool for more accurately forcing her to step on up.  They don't feel like they're prioritized, one over the other.  They feel like doing one will always lead to doing the other, so it's just all one thing.

Narrativism, narrativism, narrativism. In all cases, the question is what is a cool theme? Yes it forces players to go tactical to oppose your themes. But they still have to care about the theme in the first place for that to happen.

The "You didn't just do that" effect is in every narrativism game. I know that I'm doing well in my HQ IRC game, when the players are saying to me, "Mike you are a bad, bad man" and the like. Because I know that I've gotten them to care about the in-game situation on an emotional level. And hopefully to react in a proactive manner.

Gamism is not simply playing tactically. It's doing so to prove that you're better than the other players or the game at the tactics themselves. Not being better at producing theme.

There seems to be some notion that narrativism has to be all cooperative or its actually gamism. That's simply not true. If the stakes of the competition that's going on happen to be theme, if that's what players are competing to provide, that's narrativism. No different than the much simpler example of, say, trying to get your character to win a fight because you think that'd be the cool outcome in Sorcerer.

Mike

[Eric Provost]

Sooo...

In Narrativism competition serves a purpose while in Gamism competition is the purpose?

-Eric

[TonyLB]

Narrativism, narrativism, narrativism. In all cases, the question is what is a cool theme?

Okay.  How do you know that?  Because I was there, and they were my emotions, and I think you're wrong.

EDIT:  To elaborate, I was thinking "How do I get Story Tokens off of this conflict?"  Which is all about whether I can work the system (including the minds of the other players) better than other players can.

[Mike Holmes]

It's like you're saying, "It's a tree and a bush because it's got branches." I'm not analyzing your emotions, I'm analyzing your logic. I don't know how you feel. So you can say over and over that you feel that it's both, and, well, how can I convince you otherwise?

Eric, that's a simplificiation since it's about the decision-making process, not about purpose. And also competition isn't neccessarily part of narrativism. But where it does exist in narrativism, you have generally the right idea. A player employing narrativism in such a system merely sees the competition as spurring them on in the direction that they intend to go already. The gamism employing player doesn't care about the theme, just about what it takes to win.

Interestingly, such competition may accidentally create themes (sim does this, too). That is, it's not the intention, but a side effect.

I'd be willing to entertain that Capes is more like Pantheon or Primeval. Those are gamism supportive games that produce theme as a byproduct. This doesn't match what I know of Capes, but it does seem to match some of the claims made about it (by people who have actually played - I have not).

Mike

[TonyLB]

Mike, I'm just not getting what you're saying.  You say that I'm making a logical error, and I want to accept that.  What is the logical error?

Seriously, reconstruct my argument (as you see it) if that's what it takes to point out the flaw.  I won't take it amiss, and if I don't think it's what I'm saying then I can point out exactly where we're miscommunicating.

[Mike Holmes]

The simplest problem is that gamism and narrativism are mutually exclusive by definition. Yet you're saying that your play is both at once. So either you disagree with the definitions, or you're making a logical fallacy. Something cannot be what it is not.

I think that from your comments that your notion is that GNS modes are not mutually exclusive, or, rather, that you have your own definition for them that is not mutually exclusive. That competition alone means gamism. But since competition isn't unique to gamism, it can be narrativism as well (the tree and bush thing).

You would be far from unique in assuming that your game did something that somehow makes it the first "bi-modal" game. But you're talking about a different model then than GNS. Using GNS we might say that your game produces decisions that are highly congruent. A functional hybrid, perhaps. Or maybe it's even simply supportive of incoherence.

But to say that the play in question is both gamism and narrativism flies in the face of the definitions in question.

BTW, wasn't it you in another thread that I read saying that when you play, Capes produces narrativism? Remember that a game isn't narrativism, it can only support narrativism. Play itself is what might be narrativism. So, if the other thread is true, then what is it about you that makes you different from other gamers in how it's played?

If you're just saying that some people play it using narrativism, and some with gamism, well, that's potentially true of any game.

Mike

[TonyLB]

The simplest problem is that gamism and narrativism are mutually exclusive by definition.

Cool!  Can you tell me why?

Because I don't get it from the articles.  And, y'know, I've read them pretty obsessively.

[Mike Holmes]

Well, this really has become something that should go in the GNS forum. But seeing as this is your forum here: it comes down to the fact that certain decisions occur in RPGs that are such that one must make their decision one way or another.

My outrageous killing the baby kobolds example is good for this. If in a game, you have a gamism reward for killing baby kobolds, when your character is supposed to be a hero, it becomes impossible to do the winning move and the thematically reasonable move. On killing the kobolds for their EXP, it becomes obvious what the mode of play that the decision is a tell of is.

That's not to say that this is gamism. It means that if we watch play for a while and see players doing this sort of thing regularly, that the play is gamism. Atomically there is no identification of mode per the theory. That is, you can't tell anything from just one decision in isolation. In fact, sans things like social support and the like, you can't even be sure about the mode from killing baby kobolds. Perhaps the player is authoring a theme of cold-hearted brutality...

Also, of course, this is an extreme example meant to show the reasoning. In play most decisions are not so skewed. And when made many decisions are opaque as to mode because one can see how they might be part of an agenda that satisfies more than one mode. In fact it's possible that one watching, say a game of Capes, might not be able to identify the mode because of the congruence of the decisions. That is the extent to which the tells are ambiguous because one can see the action supporting either mode.

The thing is that appearance of satisfaction is important in terms of things like incoherence becoming a problem in play. If a game results in lots of congruent play, the real mode can be hidden. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Players are using some method to make these decisions. Yes, they may alternate in terms of their atomic decisions, or not even be aware of the process by which they're deciding in terms of the congruence of the conflicts. But that doesn't equate to having more than one adenda overall.

Now, this means that it's possible that we can't tell what a particular group's agenda is. It may remain eternally obscured by this. That's unusual to say the least, however, and a determined observer with the help of the observed parties can usually figure out what the underlying mode really is.

So, at best I think you can say that Capes produces reliably congruent play. But I'm guessing that with observation we'd find that it produces narrativism most often. Because I don't think that people are really out to "win" Capes so much as they are to compete cooperatively (like Ron's basketball example) to produce the most interesting theme. But, again, that's just my armchair quarterback assessment from the rules.

Mike

[TonyLB]

it comes down to the fact that certain decisions occur in RPGs that are such that one must make their decision one way or another.

Well, sure, in some games.  But that's not true "by definition."  There's nothing illogical in theory about G and N co-existing.  It's theoretically possible.  It just requires a complete congruence that you think is impossible in practice.

If you posit a game where "Step On Up" and "Address Theme" are always inseparably the same thing then people aren't going to focus on one or the other, they're going to do that one gestalt thing that the game is about, for both reasons.  At which point, by definition, they are engaged simultaneously in Gamist and Narrativist agenda, yes?

What I'm saying is that Capes creates that congruence.  So, am I still making a logic error, or am I just claiming practical results that you think are impossible?

[Mike Holmes]

it comes down to the fact that certain decisions occur in RPGs that are such that one must make their decision one way or another.

Well, sure, in some games.  But that's not true "by definition." 

The definition of GNS modes assumes that such decisions exist in all games. I'm not making that up. You may disagree, but that doesn't change the definition.

There's nothing illogical in theory about G and N co-existing.  It's theoretically possible.  It just requires a complete congruence that you think is impossible in practice.

No, this has nothing to do with my opinion. I actually disagree with the theory in some ways here. But that doesn't change the theory.

If you posit a game where "Step On Up" and "Address Theme" are always inseparably the same thing then people aren't going to focus on one or the other, they're going to do that one gestalt thing that the game is about, for both reasons.  At which point, by definition, they are engaged simultaneously in Gamist and Narrativist agenda, yes?

No. Congruence is the appearance of more than one mode. Not the existance of more than one mode at once. It was specifically created as a term to describe that.

What I'm saying is that Capes creates that congruence.  So, am I still making a logic error, or am I just claiming practical results that you think are impossible?

Well, if your claim is now merely that the game is always congruent, that would be at worst implausible. But certainly theoretically possible. This is the first thing that people speculating about congruence thought about.

That's not the same as there actually being two modes at work simultaneously. If that's what you're saying, then you're saying that you disagree with the definition of GNS. Which is fine, everybody does it. :-)

Mike