Ron Edwards explains why Capes freaks some people out

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Sydney, when you see the diagram, you'll see that your comment does not apply to it in any imaginable way. It is not a lineage of influence and descent.

Tony, your conundrum is based on confusing Resolution with any/all in-game events. In most role-playing, the two are blended into one thing, but in Capes and several others, they aren't. In Capes, what's resolved is specifically what happens to the Goal.

Major Victory's dignity was not at stake in this conflict. Hence, resolution does not apply to it. What was at stake? You're not telling me. So I can't tell you how IIEE applies to it, because IIEE concerns resolutions.

Best,
Ron

[Andrew Cooper]

Let me see if I'm parsing this correctly, Ron.

In Tony's example, the player's narration of MV having his pants pulled down in public doesn't involve IIEE at all because for that narration MV's dignity was not at Stake.  There was no resolution because nothing was at Stake.  No Resolution = No IIEE.

When the Goal is plopped down and actually resolved via the system is when IIEE is brought into the equation, right?

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

That's correct.

Your last statement puzzles me a little, though. In the times I've tried Capes (I won't consider myself to have played it until I have Debt/Tokens all humming 'round us at the table), the activity and interactions between putting down the Goal and resolving it are pretty extensive. What I'd look at, for IIEE purposes, goes as follows:

1. How characters' positions are established toward that Goal, which in Capes is when you take sides. This is the first "I," for Intent. Note that Intent only exists, in game terms, relative to that Goal, not relative to other characters involved but who are not in/of the Goal itself.

2. How the Goal turns out, and what sort of fallout/details have been established along the way which matter to us. This is the last "E," for Effect.

As far as I can tell, the middles (Initiation, Execution) are handled essentially as prequels and minor blips of the final E, with little or no actual causal systemic roles. Their in-game causal roles are merely taken for granted.

Overall, we should remember that Capes is very oriented toward scene-level, many-actions resolution. It's way too easy to get blinded by things like "Hulk throws Bug-Man into building!!" and call them actions or events, when in Capes, they are absolutely not anything like a systemic action (how the Goal turns out).

Best,
Ron

[TonyLB]

Okay, I'm going to move to set aside the term "IIEE" in this discussion.  I've split off a thread where I, at least, hope to thrash through some of my confusion about where and when the term applies.

Do we agree that Capes gives players the ability to narrate something and simply have it inserted, without question or negotiation, into the SIS?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Tony,

Yup. But those "somethings" by definition have no effect on the options of the other players. Very much unlike the somethings which can get established in Sorcerer or Dogs in the Vineyard.

Best,
Ron

[TonyLB]

How so?

[Ron Edwards]

Tony, this isn't working, and the medium is disastrous for the level of analysis you want to get to. I would prefer to take it to voice discussion. Get in touch by PM with phone info, if you'd like.

Best,
Ron

[Vaxalon]

IIEE in Capes, as I understand the two, happens both inside and outside of the conflict mechanic.

If, when it's my turn to narrate at any point in the Capes flow of play, I say, "Jonas kicks in the door."  Intent, intiation, execution and effect all happen right there without any further engagement with any rules or other players.  Boom.  The door has been kicked in.

If I want to make it part of the game, then I can declare a goal, but the game never forces me to do that to put something into the SIS.

[Mike Holmes]

This may sound defensive, but I think that Ralph and I have been mischaracterized. We've never said that Capes doesn't work as written (well, not being sure of everything that Ralph has written, I can only absolutely speak for myself, but of what I've seen it's true). In all cases we were suggesting that the introduction of a challenge mechanism or something of the sort would improve play. Furthermore several straw men about our argument are rearing their ugly heads again. Whether or not Ralph and I are correct is not up for debate in this thread as it's not the topic. I'm not here to argue the point (start a new thread if you really want to see that all again). Merely to correct the impression of the argument that's being presented, and the spirit under which it was presented.

I like Capes, or I wouldn't bother commenting on it at all. If Ralph and I have an agenda, it's precisely that since Capes has similarities to Universalis that we'd like it to be the best game that it can be. The games are not in competition in any way, and sales of one support those of the other. So I'd wish that people would refrain from even joking about our potential motives.

Mike