[Capes] A little frustrating and a little enlightening.

[Eric Provost]

Tonight Remi, Jason M, Lisa, and I got together for our first Capes session.  Lisa and I had the pleasure of a single demonstration of the game from Tony LB at GenCon last year, but otherwise none of us had any experience with the system.

We had troubles.  The troubles began early in the week when we decided to work out our Comics Code via email, to get things going right away.  We all quickly learned that we were all on different pages when it came to our comic book history.  The problem was powers.  A suggestion was made that we try on characters that had no powers.  As the only one in the group who'd read the book cover to cover, I replied that I thought a no-powers game would have negative reprocussions via the system, I accidentally gave the impression that the game wouldn't operate without super heroes at it's core.  My communication skills being what they are, the issue only managed to snowball.  Eventually we all agreed to just go Click & Lock and explore the system as-is.

When we got together, I'd brung a half-page cheat sheet for everyone that went over the basic play-by-play structure of the game for everyone to look over.  We took the time for a one-page game where Mind-Control Blossom tried to dump pizza sauce over Peeper, the Laser-Eye Boy while The Aztec Mummy tried to flatten the city and the Blue Blipper, teleporter, tried to keep the city safe by teleporting fluffy things into the crevaces in the earth the Mummy was creating.  It was uber-silly, but just an attempt to see how the game moved. 

We took a break for lunch and discussed what kind of setting & situations we'd really like to see.  After a bit of brainstorming over burgers we decided that an alternate 1930's setting with airships and robots and all sorts of crazy tech would be fun.  When we got back to Jason's place I made the horrid assumption that everyone else 'got it' as well as I did.  Mind you, I only made the assumption because, at that point, I had exactly 15 minutes experience over everyone else at the table. 

Over the next few hours much of my frustration came from being able to explain the Whats of the game without having any handle on the Whys.  I knew what everyone could and must do at every given point during the game, but was completely stumped at almost every "Why would I do that?"-question.  When I did know Why, I found myself unable to articulate an answer about 99% of the time.  Mostly, I suppose, because the answer had come to me instinctively and left me without any way to explain what I was thinking.  For example, after explaining how one could invest Debt in a conflict to split their dice, Remi really wanted to know why anyone would do that.  He didn't see any use to it.  And while I totally could see all sorts of great reasons, I couldn't get a single one to come out of my mouth. 

That happened enough to get me into a defensive posture over the game, which sure as hell didn't help.  I really had the fight the urge to get into a silly-ass argument or raise my voice or any of the other things I have a bad habit of doing when I've got three people looking at me like I'm chirping like a monkey.  Somehow I really just have a hard time saying "I don't know." when someone asks me a question about a game that I brought to the table.  I felt really good the few times I managed to get those words out, but they didn't come nearly as often as they should have.

It probably took us another good two hours after we got back from lunch to get comfortable with the game.  And maybe we've become a little spoiled, but it seemed like those two hours were just pulling teeth.  Each of us wanted to jump in with both feet and get some story going, but it just woudn't happen until we got used to the flow of the game and accumulated some Debt.  And even then, it seemed like one or two of us were already burnt out from trying to learn the system and were having a hard time really getting into it.

I think I learned everything I wanted to learn about the mechanisms inside Capes, but the most important thing I think I learned tonight is that I get really frustrated when I'm trying to bring a new game to the group when I don't know the system inside and out.

-Eric

[Bankuei]

Hi Eric,

Recently at Kuei Con, Liam and I tried to couch a group of 4 others through Capes... which wasn't as smooth as we had hoped.  Liam did an excellent job of explaining the procedures, though, in order to really "get" Capes, you have to know why you would do X, Y, or Z, and what value it has for you in the long run.

Next time I try to teach someone Capes, I think I'll start by explaining resources first (Debt, Story Tokens, Inspiration), what it's good for (so you know why you should get it and what you can do with it), then the procedures of play, and character generation last- since chargen for Capes is the least important or complex part of the game.

Chris

[Lisa Provost]

I'm gonna be honest, I think part of the trouble was we worked out the comix code via email.  I seriously think we should have worked that out, face to face before we gamed.  Especially since once we had started playing, about two hours in did we only remember that we had decided on a comix code.  (I think it was when Remi mentioned killing a PC.)

Another part of the trouble was that I think we were expecting too much from the game without knowing a damn thing about it.  Only Eric had ever read the entire book.  I myself have not gotten all the way though.  I'll be honest, it's because it's kind of hard to read.  I don't know if Jason and/or Remi had read it at all.

But I really think the biggest problem was the number of rules.  Holy cow, I think we took on too much too fast.  We should have started simple like Chris suggests.  Then began to add on things like the splits and the inspirations.  It seemed to me I should have been taking notes as the rules were explained.  When I tried to refer to the book, I got no extra knowledge from it.  That could be though because I was always trying to look something up when someone else wanted to look something completely different up.  *shrug*

Any other thoughts Jason and Remi?  I'm sure I've missed something.  Now don't get me wrong, I did have a good time.  Playing a new game and learning something new is always a good time for me. :)

[Jason Morningstar]

Hey!  I'm the guy who hates superheroes and suggested not a powerless game, but a game where are powers were prosaic, like having a knack for fixing photocopiers.  Eric said this was so boring it hurt his head, and we were off to the races. 

I think my concern and reluctance influenced the social dynamic in a negative way - I had the feeling Remi, Lisa, and Eric were being particularly accommodating and alert to my state of mind (I thank you but it was awkward).  Some of that came out in our pre-game email chatter, and some in actual play. 

I made up a character whose powers (great shot, inspire the proletariat masses, keen senses) were pretty dull in play.  It seemed to me that everyone was just pulling in whatever character attributes they could that fit the number they were looking for, which was pretty weak but definitely encouraged by the requirements of the system.  I did get to turn Remi's character into Adolph Hitler's brain, which was pretty cool. 

No one narrated more than a single sentence, barring rare occasions.  Our particular game didn't make any kind of sense and many of the conflicts were insular and uninteresting.  The results of some conflicts were obviated by the outcome of others.  At one point I explicitly tried to craft a conflict that would push the buttons of all four characters, and even that went nowhere - somebody won, somebody lost, nothing changed.

The game dragged painfully until we accrued some resources to throw around, which took most of the time we had.  Early on I suggested we just give everyone some debt and story tokens, and I wish we had done that to kick-start the game.  I disliked being shut out of conflicts by an opponent's lucky role during the first two hours of play. 

I didn't feel we did much "roleplaying" (whatever that is) - there was such intense focus on maintaining the rigid sequence of play, which Eric wrote out in a long list, that we never got around to the fun parts.  It felt, quite honestly, like work. 

I can see how the currency works and I imagine a group of people conditioned to groove on 4-color superheroes and fully trained on how Capes works could have a great time with it.  I think you did a good job, Eric, and I got the feeling you were in command of the material, so don't feel bad that it didn't go as smoothly as you had hoped. 

[Callan S.]

No one narrated more than a single sentence, barring rare occasions.  Our particular game didn't make any kind of sense and many of the conflicts were insular and uninteresting.  The results of some conflicts were obviated by the outcome of others.  At one point I explicitly tried to craft a conflict that would push the buttons of all four characters, and even that went nowhere - somebody won, somebody lost, nothing changed

Did you learn anything about the other characters? I think that's really the only important thing that's supposed to change in the game - the groups understanding of each character.

Were you looking for something about the game world to change?

[TonyLB]

I think I learned everything I wanted to learn about the mechanisms inside Capes, but the most important thing I think I learned tonight is that I get really frustrated when I'm trying to bring a new game to the group when I don't know the system inside and out.

Man, I hear that.  I hate doing playtests for that exact reason:  you have to jump into teaching people a game when you not only don't know it, but it is not yet sufficiently complete that it could be known.

I'm sorry Capes gave you a rough time.

[Jason Morningstar]

Did you learn anything about the other characters? I think that's really the only important thing that's supposed to change in the game - the groups understanding of each character.

Were you looking for something about the game world to change?

Maybe that was part of the problem - there really were no connections between the characters and they didn't change at all (until the final moment of the game, where I decided Remi's robot war machine was, in fact, housing Hitler's brain, which had no material effect on play).  There was a moment where I wanted Remi and my character's to be working together to steal a mcguffin, and I suggested this, but it went nowhere.  I brought in my exemplar, who was also a love interest, and somehow she ended up being a love interest of Eric's exemplar (I think) but that also didn't result in anything interesting or meaningful. 

Some of the conflicts were pretty self-focused - I had "Does my exemplar get eaten by a dinosaur?" and spent all my resources preventing it, across multiple pages.  I can see, in retrospect, that this was a mistake and should have been about somebody elses character.  Eric had "Does my exemplar follow orders?" and did more or less the same.  People threw support into these conflicts (everybody likes to see a love interest devoured by a T-Rex) but ultimately nothing was at stake.  Nobody cared.  For my part, a large reason for this was that every time I had the opportunity to act, I had to verbally re-assess:  "OK, we're at 2.b.iii, so I can either create a new conflict or do something with the white chips, but not the blue chips, and I can't move my nickel, Eric, help!"

[Andrew Cooper]

I've introduced Capes to new players twice now.  I will concur with whoever said to introduce the rules incrementally.  This is definately the way to go.  I started both times by shoving Click and Locks at the players and having them make characters.  I didn't make Exemplars and I didn't bother with Drives (I just went with 1 pool of Debt.  Get over 5 and you're overdrawn).  Then I started the first Scene and the first Page by narrating the opening and immediately plopping down a Conflict.  I passed control to my left and said, "Narrate something and then either roll one of the dice or make a new Conflict."  Rinse and Repeat around the table.  I added one new rule each Page.

This worked really, really well for me and it allowed the players to get into the game while learning the system.  I will note that I learned to teach Capes this way from Tony at GenCon.  I played in a couple of Demos with him and then a good 4 hours session one evening.  I just copied what I watched him do.

[Sydney Freedberg]

....Some of the conflicts were pretty self-focused - I had "Does my exemplar get eaten by a dinosaur?" and spent all my resources preventing it, across multiple pages.  I can see, in retrospect, that this was a mistake and should have been about somebody elses character....

Yup. That's a critical one for any rpg, but especially so for Capes: You've got to find out what the other players (players, not characters!) care about and then threaten it, or give them a chance to get more of it, or ideally both at once.

I've noticed from a lot of these Actual Play posts that people tend to think of Capes as a zero-prep game -- almost as if it were a boardgame or cardgame, which it does certainly resemble if you're coming from D&D. And yeah, there is a hundred times less prep than starting a traditional RPG. But you really do need a group consensus (or a strong leader, like Tony demo'ing) on some basics before you start play -- or else you'll be so in the dark about what the other players want that you can only connect with it after floundering blindly with hit-or-miss Conflicts no one cares about.

And yes, Capes has some fiddly little rules bits. They produce very cool emergent effects in play, but even I, one of the world's three most experienced Capes players (not kidding: I played with Tony twice a month for over a year) can still get lost on subtleties such as, oh, that you can spend a Story Token to introduce a Conflict before the regular actions start, and then immediately Claim it. A one-page turn order cheat sheet, done in the funky graphics style of the rulebook, would be a handy thing for the website.

[Jason Morningstar]

Ah, also interesting that we never really discussed what we as players wanted - only characters.  So at one point I went around the table and "clarified" what each of my fellow player's characters wanted, and built a conflict that incorporated elements that were supposed to be of interest to each of them.  But the players didn't care much.  It sounds like we approached this whole exercise a little wrong-headedly.

[Sydney Freedberg]

Repeat this mantra five times into the mirror each morning:

Characters are not real. What do the players want?

Lotus position and orange robe are optional. (I merely have "R-o-n-E-d-w-a-r-d-s" tattooed across my knuckles, for example).

Seriously: We're all "wrong-headed" about this stuff. We're all trained to say "my character wants..." instead of "I want..." -- it's just safer: If my character wants something unacceptable, or what my character wants doesn't happen, I can pretend I don't care (and, if I'm really all about protecting myself, I really don't care. Boring, but safe). This is something everybody does, not just people "brain damaged" by traditional RPGs. My two-year old daughter now solemnly informs me that her stuffed pink elephant, is upset ("Aiya sad! Aiya cwying!"), or that her plastic baby doll is hungry ("baby wan dinnah!"), or that her best friend up the street is very, very tired ("Maggie sweeping..."), or that I would like to eat some applesauce, her current favorite food ("Daddy eat some!").

Displacing our own anxieties and desires onto someone else, preferably an absent or fictional person, is a useful psychological technique. It's why roleplaying is so attractive, and potentially valuable, in the first place. But it sure helps to know you're doing it.

And, to be absolutely clear, I am in fact recommending that you figure out what the other real, live human being across the table would most like to see happen in the game and then prevent that from happening. Yes, you are in fact denying your friend something they desire and may have explicitly asked for.

This is good! If the thing you could imagine yourself is the thing you would in fact most enjoy, you would not need to be playing games with other people: You could sit at home writing novels all by yourself. But in my personal experience, the stories I cherish most are those when someone else said, "that thing you want to happen? No. This other thing happens instead."  As I experienced in the best Capes session ever, as well as in our recent Prime Time Adventures game (no post yet on the relevant session), I get this little stomach-lurch of "whoa! wait! You can't do that to my character! I want my character to be like this!" But when I get past that flinch -- and it helps to have rules that basically tell you, as Capes does, "you don't like the outcome? Too bad. You're stuck with it" -- then I find that the other person's idea for my character is much, much, much cooler than mine.

Consensus is not true cooperation: It's just avoiding conflict. Challenging each other -- that is truly cooperating with each other.

[Eric Provost]

I've been thinking all this over quite a bit.  Puzzling out the whole thing over and over again in my head.  And it seems to me that there was no individual thing that was at fault for making the game as frustrating as it was.  It was a bunch of little things.  And not little unconnected things either.  No, it was a snowball rolling down a mountain.  It was piddly-shit that got out of hand.

It was the whole authoring fun conflicts thing that brought it to light for me.  Jason, Remi, Lisa, and I all know how to write compelling conflicts.  We've played the Roach together often enough to know that we're all capable gamers in that regard.  But, at the time when we should have been pressing each other with conflicts of the awesome, we were neck-deep in the quagmire already.

I wanna play Capes again.  And next time, I think I'm gonna rock it to the Nth Degree of Awesome.

-Eric

[Sydney Freedberg]

Hoooah.

I look forward to hearing about your impending awesomeness.