Thoughts and reactions, plus could use some help and advice

[Sindyr]

PS I have gone through your flash Capes example a few times now and I have to say, well done!!

PPS. I am starting to feel strongly that, no matter how our discussion goes, that Capes will be eminently suitable even *if* I choose to make some heretical changes.  I will almost certainly buy it shortly.

-Sindyr

[TonyLB]

Does that sound so terrible?  Why?

No, it doesn't sound terrible.  I've got some personal twitches about it, because it doesn't suit my own play well.  I don't like the status quo.  If you do, that's cool.

But ... and know that this most certainly is motivated by my personal twitches, but that doesn't mean for sure that I'm not about to have an insight by accident ... do you actually want to establish a status quo?  Or do you want a communication channel to say clearly "That stuff that was interesting before?  I don't want to see more of it.  Let's do something else for a while, okay?"  Do you want to say "Things need to stay like X"?  Or do you want to say "Nothing holy about X, but I'd rather stay with X than do Y again.  Z would be cool though!"

Anyway, I was contemplating while I ran out to the storage area and back, and here's what I got:  Sometimes characters, story arcs, issues ... all sorts of story elements ... need to lie fallow for a time.  It's not that they've been retired from the game:  they'll probably be back some day.  But they need to not be around for a while, so that when they return they're fresh and enjoyable again.

Superman publically exposes Lex Luthor, and puts the powerful industrialist in jail.  Lex lies fallow for many issues.  When everyone's all but forgotten him, a mysterious mastermind starts organizing criminals.  Superman tracks down clues, one to the next in a chain.  When he finally finds the ultimate clue and solves the mystery we see him looking down at the document (or kryptonite bullet, or whatever) and grating "Luthor!"  And we're stoked.  Because by now we're keen to go back to Lex.  Lex is the perfect guy to be behind all of this!

Anyway, the simplest way to house-rule this would be to say that any given conflict can have added to it "De-activate X" (where X is a character, or something more abstract in the fiction ... "All these damn questions about my parentage").  Whoever wins that conflict gets to choose to de-activate X or not, the same way they get to choose what to narrate.  While X is inactive nobody gets to use it.  Then, similarly, you can pin "Re-activate X" onto a conflict.

• Goal:  Mary Jane breaks up with Peter (De-activate Mary Jane Watson)
• ... Sessions pass ...
• Event:  Peter and Gwen are about to kiss (Re-activate Mary Jane Watson)

Anyway ... it's a thought.  If it's something you think would help, I'm thrilled.  If not, thoughts are cheap.  I'll have another (maybe two!) tomorrow.

[Sindyr]

That's veru interesting and intriguing.  Let me roll it around a while.  Doing consulting jobs all day tomorrow, but will try to continue this thought provoking thread forward by Wednesday-ish.

Also, props to you for figuring out the base mechanics of Capes in the first place.  Even if I focus on what I perceive as "gaps" it is only because the vast majority of the system is so compelling and beautiful.

-SIndyr

[Sindyr]

Anyway, the simplest way to house-rule this would be to say that any given conflict can have added to it "De-activate X" (where X is a character, or something more abstract in the fiction ... "All these damn questions about my parentage").  Whoever wins that conflict gets to choose to de-activate X or not, the same way they get to choose what to narrate.  While X is inactive nobody gets to use it.  Then, similarly, you can pin "Re-activate X" onto a conflict.

• Goal:  Mary Jane breaks up with Peter (De-activate Mary Jane Watson)
• ... Sessions pass ...
• Event:  Peter and Gwen are about to kiss (Re-activate Mary Jane Watson)

Anyway ... it's a thought.  If it's something you think would help, I'm thrilled.  If not, thoughts are cheap.  I'll have another (maybe two!) tomorrow.

Couldn't help myself - a few questions:
1)  Instead of deactivating Mary Jane Watson, could one De-Activate her romantic relationship with Peter Parker?  IE, keep her potentially in the story, but make sure that any storylines that involve her are not about her romantic relationship with Peter Parker now that they are just friends?
 2)  Once deactivated, using this house rule, it could not be reactivated with consensus or successful resolution of a conflict that includes it's reactivation? Is that correct?

Will continue to think about the deeper implications of your questions and what lies behind the goal(s) I am seeking...

-Sindyr

[TonyLB]

Couldn't help myself - a few questions:

Cool by me, as long as you understand that I'm not pulling these answers from some schema I have, spinning beautiful and crystalline in my mind.  I'm pulling them out of my ... uh ... I'm just making them up on the spot.

1)  Instead of deactivating Mary Jane Watson, could one De-Activate her romantic relationship with Peter Parker?  IE, keep her potentially in the story, but make sure that any storylines that involve her are not about her romantic relationship with Peter Parker now that they are just friends?

I'd certainly think so.  Like, if she got together with Harry then you could De-activate (or whatever you call it) any explicit romance, but leave the door open for angsty smoldering.  Or whatever.  It's mostly a communications tool to get everyone on the same page about what elements you want in the story.

2)  Once deactivated, using this house rule, it could not be reactivated with consensus or successful resolution of a conflict that includes it's reactivation? Is that correct?

Hrm?  Did you mean "could not be reactivated" above, or "could only be reactivated"?

[Sindyr]

2)  Once deactivated, using this house rule, it could not be reactivated with consensus or successful resolution of a conflict that includes it's reactivation? Is that correct?

Hrm?  Did you mean "could not be reactivated" above, or "could only be reactivated"?

Sorry, I meant to type could not be reactivated withOUT (ommission in caps) consensus or successful resolution of a conflict that includes it's reactivation....

Is that the idea?

-Sindyr

[TonyLB]

That's what I was thinking, yeah.

[Valamir]

As one who had vigorously discussed this issue early on, I bowed out pending an opportunity to experience the game in play.  Unfortuneatly Tony was busy demoing to actual paying customers all GenCon (I'd already bought it) and I missed my chance.

But clearly there's a pretty strong case to be made that the feared events just don't happen.  I'm very intrigued by this because its not that they don't happen because of some magic happy place where people are all goodness and light, but that they don't happen because there ARE actually mechanical reinforcements that prevent them from happening.  Its just that instead of being direct, obvious, and to the point mechanical reinforcements (like Facts and Challenges in Universalis) they are indirect, subtle, and round the back way mechanical reinforcements...which not only sounds neat, but sounds like fertile ground for stealing from.


In any case, Tony, I did want to mention that your suggested house rule above is pretty much the same idea as my suggested rule from the way back threads, only I assumed all Conflicts should work like that, and yours makes it optional.  Optional is almost certainly better.

[TonyLB]

In any case, Tony, I did want to mention that your suggested house rule above is pretty much the same idea as my suggested rule from the way back threads, only I assumed all Conflicts should work like that, and yours makes it optional.  Optional is almost certainly better.

Ahhhh ... that's probably why it sprung to mind all fully-formed like that.  I stole it without properly remembering.  Makes sense ... I was honestly sort of wondering.

[Zamiel]

Its just that instead of being direct, obvious, and to the point mechanical reinforcements (like Facts and Challenges in Universalis) they are indirect, subtle, and round the back way mechanical reinforcements...which not only sounds neat, but sounds like fertile ground for stealing from.

More completely, they're methods that make "good play" (note the quotes, as its sort of a generalized term, as I explain here in a mo) come emergently from the interaction between Players in the Scene. Why does good play emerge? Because its not profitable to engage in what the group thinks of as bad play. And because the other Players at the table consider certain modes of play to be more fun / enjoyable / useful in terms of gaining resources to do things with the story, it becomes quickly obvious that to get the chance to gain resources, you have to play to the group's good. It works because that's true for everyone around the table.

If the players find that immediately narrating the reverse of a Conflict irritates some of them, the folks doing the irritating will start finding people won't engage with their Conflicts, thus penalizing them on the game and the social level. If the group as a whole doesn't mind, then they'll have no implicit consequence.

Capes puts the play style of the Players in the center of a set of emergent flocking rules so that actual play ends up circling where the Players want to be. That's good design.

[Hans]

Anyway, the simplest way to house-rule this would be to say that any given conflict can have added to it "De-activate X" (where X is a character, or something more abstract in the fiction ... "All these damn questions about my parentage").  Whoever wins that conflict gets to choose to de-activate X or not, the same way they get to choose what to narrate.  While X is inactive nobody gets to use it.  Then, similarly, you can pin "Re-activate X" onto a conflict.

• Goal:  Mary Jane breaks up with Peter (De-activate Mary Jane Watson)
• ... Sessions pass ...
• Event:  Peter and Gwen are about to kiss (Re-activate Mary Jane Watson)

Anyway ... it's a thought.  If it's something you think would help, I'm thrilled.  If not, thoughts are cheap.  I'll have another (maybe two!) tomorrow.

I love this!  This is going right in to the code for the game we are starting next week.  This idea might allow me to greatly simplify the code I presented in a separate thread, with some tweaking.