Capes Demo at DexCon 8

[Robert Bohl]

Okay, so as promised on my DexCon 8 Actual Play thread, I'm going to try to tackle each of the games I played at DexCon more in depth.  I had a lot of fun in most of these games, and it was some of the best gaming of my RPG career.  So, take as read that I enjoyed each of the games other than In Nomine (and there I could even notice some potential for the game, if not for most of the people I was playing with).  I expect, therefore, that most of what I write will be criticisms and/or concerns.  So, if I'm digging into your game, please do not assume I hated my time with it.  Another disclaimer: I am very nervous that tone might be misinterpreted over the intraweb, which is why I have been hesitant up to this point to get really specific.  I am also worried about my coherency in making these points.  Anyway, this is all a longwinded way of saying that I intend the following to be gently received, and hope you treat me gently in kind.

Finally, while I might start off talking about one game, I might fall into a rabbit hole of related discussion and theory.  Forgive me if this is irksome.

Capes

I love the simplicity of character generation in this, and how much fun you can have with the thousands of possible splat combinations.  I love making characters and it's so easy in this game.

So concerns.  It was probably just because it was a demo, but I didn't feel like I had the opportunity to express/develop/explore my character's personality in any way.  That may be my fault, too.  But it was all, "Bam, here's the action! Bam, do something about this! Bam, now this happens!"  I need to play a scenario rather than a demo and see how it goes.

Capes is one of those heavily turn-focused games that makes me nervous.  I'm not sure why this turn-based issue does make me nervous.  I'm going to ramble and see if I can get to something pointed and coherent.  I really enjoy being able to meander and explore my character, and others' characters, and the setting.  I like to have some in-character byplay that is entertaining (a la Clerks' many "off-topic, in game" conversations).  I guess I feel like when it's someone else's turn, I really shouldn't interpose myself too much.  I don't really like this because it gets in the way of that loose "let's explore each others' personalities" thing.  I worry that the entire game will all become contest and action and I won't have the chance to do the role-playing-game equivalent of pick daisies and look at butterflies or something.

This reminds me of another thing.  It seems like many of the Forge games really really feel like GAMES.  There are often win conditions, turns, rules to cover most in-game happenings.  With some of them it can feel like the pretending to be another guy is in danger of being overshadowed by the mechanics, task resolution, etc.  I wonder whether, in concentrating so much on what role playing games are, what they can do, etc., the fact that they are games has been underlined.  I'm not sure that the out-front-gaminess of them is a problem for me, but I do know that it makes me nervous.  And when I first played My Life With Master I went, "Wow, someone wins this game."  I was bemused.  I still am.

--

But, back to Capes.  In the Capes demo, I didn't feel like I ought to horn in too much on the other player's scenes, and I felt when my turn came, I basically could only do action-stuff.  Again, I think that I am unfit to judge that this is an issue with the game in general, as it was a demo, and the intent may have just been to show you what your character could do.

[Judd]

Rob,

Please describe some daisy-picking from another game so I can be perfectly clear what you are talking about along with any details on what it adds tot he game and your enjoyment of it.

What is making you nervous is the lack of this, so I'd like to know exactly what it is.

[Robert Bohl]

As an example, from my nWoD paranormal-journalists game, one character was a kelptomaniac, and they spent a fun and diverting scene trying to explain to him why it might be problematic for them if he kept stealing.  There was another very fun scene where they had seen several extremely paranormal things, but one guy kept insisting on being a skeptic.  They saw a corpse burst into flames when the sun hit it, and this guy began to theorize on how maybe his body had been chemically treated to react to the sun that way.  He also suggested that the guy had demonstrated an unsual amount of strength which no doubt came from PCP, so maybe it was a strange mix of the drugs he'd taken reacting violently with the sun.  And the other two characters react with apoplexia.

Basically time to sit and chat and be your character when there isn't plot or mechanics or action driving you forward.  Riffing on a theme.  Talking about Big Macs in Amsterdam on your way to the hit.  This was particularly lacking in the Capes demo, though once again that may be a function of the fact that it was a demo designed to show how you play the action parts of the game.

[TonyLB]

That's funny... because both of your examples ("Goal:  Convince Adam to just not steal for ten FREAKIN' minutes" and "Goal:  Bob continues to deny the existence of the supernatural") look like conflicts between players (and, incidentally, between characters), to me.  Whereas the whole thing about quarter-pounders in europe is a classic conflict-less scene of a type that I have very rarely (myself) enjoyed in roleplaying.

Is this distinction just a coincidence of your particular choices, or are the daisy-picking things subtly different in RPG play than they are in movies and other fiction?

[Robert Bohl]

I suppose you're right that they are conflicts, but they were conflicts that didn't have (or in my opinion need) a rule to resolve them.  They argued for a bit, the players had fun with it, and then they moved on.

I value social-resolution mechanics, and I think they are especially good to break a logjam when the game has ground to a halt because of an argument between PCs, but sometimes having some "pointless" character elaboration can be a lot of fun.

With the recent profusion of social resolution mechanics I've seen in a lot of indie games, I've been worried that they might wind up getting overused.  There have been times where I felt I wanted to free-form roleplay something out a little, only to be told, "Okay, that's a conflict, let's resolve it."

Is this distinction just a coincidence of your particular choices, or are the daisy-picking things subtly different in RPG play than they are in movies and other fiction?

It may be a coincidence of my examples.  It's been a while since I've played outside of a con and an even longer time since I was the player (rather than a GM) outside of a con and wasn't playing in a social-conflict-resolution game and got to do something fun that fits in this category*.  I'll go very far back and to a different medium entirely:  When I used to play on MUSHes, I had a slacker werewolf and I used to have a lot of fun roleplaying his bitch-wolf status, doing things that the human thought was right but which offended the werewolves most heartily, being slapped for it, riffing on pop culture and interpeting it as a werewolf ("Oh, Hong Kong Phooey was totally an allegory for the uprising of the working class with the aid of werewolves."), and so on.

* Some history: I have been the GM in my local group for a while and I think that these kinds of examples stick better for me when it's stuff I've done as a player.  Since my local group broke up, I've mostly played in cons and in games with these kinds of strong game-focused, resolution-focused mechanics.

[Judd]

Rob,

There are specific times I can think of in your games in Jersey when a social conflict resolution would have saved you a huge headache.

There were games that were effectively arguments and a quick Duel of Wits or resolution mechanic of some kind with the players stating their intent and going to the dice so the game could move on would help.

In a con scenario and particularly in a demo, it ain't about what they call a Whopper in France or Le Big Mac.  It is about the rules.  In a four hour scenario, when there's a conflict, I tend to pounce on it and go.  The Dogs game had players driving much, if not all of the conflicts.

You like the daisy picking but which games do you have more fun playing?  The games where conflict is accepted, intent's stated and a good system to resolve 'em or the old way, with hours of mind-numbing conflict without anything really being resolved.

I will freely admit, there's a middle ground but if a game has rules to resolve the conflict, let 'em do it to it and get it on.

[dyjoots]

I suppose you're right that they are conflicts, but they were conflicts that didn't have (or in my opinion need) a rule to resolve them.

One of the things that I notice about Capes is, if you can get another player invested in a conflict, even if the conflict isn't important or scene-making, then there is an opportunity to get some story tokens or Inspirations out of it.  Sure, you don't need to use a rule to resolve the conflict, and in many cases the conflict won't be introduced at all, due to other resource restraints.  The fact that it can be introduced, and that there is a strong reason to introduce it, in terms of the game's currencies, means that there is no reason not to introduce it if you feel the game needs some of those conflicts.

[Robert Bohl]

There are definitely many times when having a Duel of Wits would've been very welcome in some of my local games, and I'm very happy to see--in Burning Wheel and a few other games--social-resolution mechanics that work well for me.  My issue isn't with the existence of such mechanics, but rather that they not wind up swallowing free-form role playing so much that I don't enjoy the game as much as I could.

I'm willing to admit that my experience and discomfort may have to do with the constraints of a con game.  I don't know for sure if that's so, but it may be.

You like the daisy picking but which games do you have more fun playing?  The games where conflict is accepted, intent's stated and a good system to resolve 'em or the old way, with hours of mind-numbing conflict without anything really being resolved.

Ideally, the game that included both.  One where you have the time and are encouraged to explore "unimportant" stuff, but where when something is gridlocked, you've got mechanics to unstick it.

There is (rightly) a lot of griping about plot railroading.  What I guess I'm nervous about is rules railroading.

[Robert Bohl]

I suppose you're right that they are conflicts, but they were conflicts that didn't have (or in my opinion need) a rule to resolve them.

One of the things that I notice about Capes is, if you can get another player invested in a conflict, even if the conflict isn't important or scene-making, then there is an opportunity to get some story tokens or Inspirations out of it. Sure, you don't need to use a rule to resolve the conflict, and in many cases the conflict won't be introduced at all, due to other resource restraints. The fact that it can be introduced, and that there is a strong reason to introduce it, in terms of the game's currencies, means that there is no reason not to introduce it if you feel the game needs some of those conflicts.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.  I think you're saying that the imposition of a rule over a conflict doesn't have to be a bad thing.  I suppose that's true, but if you just wanted to spend five minutes having an in-character conversation that is pure flavor and fun, it can interrupt the flow and the fun of it to have to stop talking, write some stuff down, show it to the other guy, throw some dice, decide what happens, then go forward.  It's not always a negative, and sometimes you get some serious fun and later-useful chedder out of doing that kind of thing, but it can also feel like an imposition if it's overused.

Let me inflate this to an absurd level just to make my point.  I am not suggesting any of the games we're discussing here would do this, but imagine if you had to roll, like, everything, as a conflict.  "I want to drive!"  "No, I do!"  Conflict!  "Turn right!" "No, turn left!" Conflict! "I like punk rock better than ska!" "Ska is way better!" Conflict!

So that's an example of it going ridiculously far.  Conflict resolution wouldn't always result in more fun, just like it doesn't always result in less fun.  I guess the issue is balance.  Social contract stuff.  Know if your fellow players want to have the time to riff on something for a while before bringing out the dice.  Know when they're comfortable with making it a conflict.  Know when they're itching for a conflict and can't wait to see what their scripted actions or inspirations will do to the role playing.

[Eric Provost]

I propose that you don't have to choose between solid conflict resolution systems that get right to the conflict and 'daisy picking'.  I think that it's not about having a scene with no conflict, it's about having a scene with a low-key conflict.

Stakes:  Do I impress my friend with my new found trivia knowlege of overseas hamburger labeling? 

With the right system (I'm thinking one that wouldn't draw such a thing out further than you wanted to go with it) then those stakes could be terribly entertaining.  And give the entertainment value of 'daisy picking' without dropping the entertainment of a structured and finite scene.

-Eric

[Judd]

Rob,

The way these conflicts come up is like so:

Player A:  Onions are good.

Player B:  No, radishes are better.

GM: Do we have a conflict here?

Player A: Can we let this develop for a little while, just see how it plays out before going to the conflict?

GM: Player B, you cool with that?

Player B:  Sure...

The two games you are talking about, Dogs in the Vineyard and Capes are about taking those little moments: a Dog deciding to render judgement on the very Dog who brought him into the fold or in Capes, a steampunk robot trying to get a woman to notice her.

I think the GM should let it go for a while in a weekly game with more time and players who know one another well enough to know when they are pissing each other off.  If it begins to eat into time then its time to say, "Roll the dice are shut up about this already."

[Robert Bohl]

Judd,

I'd like very much to see how some of these run in a weekly context.  And each table/group is probably very different.  Like I said, these are concerns, not outrages .   I am perfectly willing to be convinced that in a more "real" setting, these aren't issues to be concerned about.

[Sydney Freedberg]

For what it's worth, my experience in Capes is that the system encourages you to do the "daisy-chaining" stuff as much as, or more than, the Big Adventure stuff, because you can get as much game-mechanical leverage (working off/up Debt, Story Tokens, Inspirations) off a little interpersonal interaction as off a giant epochal conflict -- "Goal: Tell Bob something he doesn't already know" and "Goal: Conquer the Universe" are mechanically identical -- and it's easier, in narration, to justify working the little stuff into the story. Now sometimes this does drag out tiny interactions, because they go from incidental chatter to something you can win and get resources off of.

Also remember that you can use little interpersonal nudges as individual actions in all sorts of conflicts. You can roll up your side of "Goal: Defeat Villain" with "I shoot laser beams from my fingers" or with  "'Onions? Better than radishes? Are you nuts?' I say to my sidekick as, distractedly, I zap the villain with laser beams from my fingers."

[elgorade]

BTW, Hi, I'm Doug.  Kind of fun to recognize some more names on here.

Re: Capes.  I didn't play beyond a 10 minute quicky demo, but it sure looked and sounded like people were having fun.  It seemed almost too "pure roleplaying" to me though.  All characters appeared to be mechanically equivalent.  Not just balanced, or even starting from the same place and evolving in play.  It seemed almost like the whole game was a social resolution mechanic which ran based on implicit understanding from everyone at the table about what was reasonable.  Of course, as I said, everyone playing seemed to be having fun so a little bit of genre can structure a lot of wild ideas.

Re: With Great Powers.  Because it has obvious similarities with Capes.  Down to the fact that characters are mechanically identical.  I think the story structure made that one work for me though.  it still basically came down to some fun riffing on the genre, but we could all get our teeth into the story and use that to keep some focus.  The mechanics seemed to have a bit more tactics to them too.

Re: Social conflict mechanics.  Rob, it sounds to me like the flower picking your describing often isn't really conflict, so why bring out the mechanics.  In BW certainly, and I would guess in DitV outside of a con, you could have the little in character byplay arguments.  But you have a mechanic to fall back on when no player wants their character to cave even though they all know in their minds that the "discussion" is just going in circles.  Which, I guess, is just saying that the dice should hit the table just before people start to repeat themselves.  Which is probably a hard line to judge. 

Re: DitV.  No analysis, pure boosterism.  Thanks for a fun game guys.  I keep thinking of things I wish I had done a bit differently, but that's a good feeling. 

[dyjoots]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.  I think you're saying that the imposition of a rule over a conflict doesn't have to be a bad thing.  I suppose that's true, but if you just wanted to spend five minutes having an in-character conversation that is pure flavor and fun, it can interrupt the flow and the fun of it to have to stop talking, write some stuff down, show it to the other guy, throw some dice, decide what happens, then go forward.  It's not always a negative, and sometimes you get some serious fun and later-useful chedder out of doing that kind of thing, but it can also feel like an imposition if it's overused.

You got it.  I'm not how useful of an observation it was, but I figured it couldn't hurt to be made.  The other part of my comment was that, specifically speaking about Capes, ANY conflict, no matter how large or how small, can be made into a Conflict, and have a significant impact on the currencies floating around the table.  To me, that's really cool, and I think it is a keen way of dealing with the daisy-picking you are talking about.

On the other hand, I agree that it's over use would really impact the game negatively.  It is important to note that, with players choosing to create conflicts, if there is too much of something that people don't like, then you can stop making them.