*
*
Home
Help
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 19, 2022, 07:25:48 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Search:     Advanced search
275647 Posts in 27717 Topics by 4285 Members Latest Member: - Jason DAngelo Most online today: 83 - most online ever: 565 (October 17, 2020, 02:08:06 PM)
Pages: [1]
Print
Author Topic: Actual Play Post - Comments welcome...  (Read 2925 times)
Jason Leigh
Member

Posts: 13


WWW
« on: January 11, 2006, 11:26:44 AM »

I got a chance to play Capes, finally, and all I can say is...wow.  It's the best narrativist-supporting game I've played.  Still, and all, we had a problem with Conflicts, outlined in Actual Play.  We came up with a local fix...but wanted to get other Capes players' experience: have you experienced a similar issue with specificity in conflicts, and if so, how did you handle it?

The Actual Play post can be found here.

Cheers,

Jason
Logged

"Oh, it's you...
deadpanbob"
Lateral Tangents
Vaxalon
Member

Posts: 1619


« Reply #1 on: January 11, 2006, 11:34:45 AM »

This hasn't been how I have seen Capes played, during the game with Tony.  Ambiguous conflicts are supposed to be part of the fun.

The winner of the conflict has NO restrictions about how he resolves the conflict, except that his narration has to resolve the conflict.

Logged

"In our game the other night, Joshua's character came in as an improvised thing, but he was crap so he only contributed a d4!"
                                     --Vincent Baker
TonyLB
Moderator
Member
*
Posts: 3702


WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 11, 2006, 12:22:12 PM »

Thanks for the kind words!

Fred is right:  the restrictions you are talking about are not built into the system.  Capes is different from many other games in that way.  It's not really surprising that your friend assumed that there were some restrictions ... and certainly, the way you handled it (explicitly talking through what kind of restrictions you want in future) is a perfectly mature and sensible way to do things.  Yeah, I don't love doing game-design (which is what you did ... congrats!) in an emotionally charged situation, but it sounds like you handled it with aplomb.

Believe it or not, I posted about this phenomenon (assumptions about rules) over on RPG.Net just yesterday.  So if you want my real carefully considered, but abstract, thoughts about the general issue you can read there.

But, specific to this actual play, I think it's worth recognizing that you are adding a House Rule to the game.  If you put it that way some of your players might say "Hey, actually, I'd prefer to play without that restriction, so long as we all agree what we can and can't do."
Logged

Just published: Capes
New Project:  Misery Bubblegum
Jason Leigh
Member

Posts: 13


WWW
« Reply #3 on: January 11, 2006, 12:29:59 PM »

Tony:

You know, one of the things I love about playing Forge inspired games is that the game designer is more likely than not to answer questions like these.

Yeah, we recognized that the system in Capes was not designed with these limitations in mind, and as I said in response to Andrew Morris in my actual play post, I think this is local to our play group dynamics and who we are, rather than an overarching 'problem' with Capes.

I just wanted to see if anybody else had experienced this (and it seems from your comments, they have) and how they handled it.

From my read of the rules, the far reaching narration in resolution of a conflict is part of the game, and a potentially fun part of the game with the right attitude.  Someday, I may get to play with a group where such full-on freedom is embraced.

Still, adding the limits and specificity did amp the fun for the group as a whole, so, yeah, it worked for us.

Thanks for designing a great game!

Cheers,


Jason
Logged

"Oh, it's you...
deadpanbob"
Lateral Tangents
Pages: [1]
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Oxygen design by Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!