Been reading my new pdf, have quesions...

[Sindyr]

(I am impervious to popcorn)

If you're impervious to popcorn, then gaming can quickly become lonely.  It's all social contract stuff, and if you break the contract you break the game. 

If someone's taken MJ and made her fall for Goblin, then the social contract has already been broken.  Inasmuch as they are impervious to popcorn, so am I.

[Sindyr]

While on this subject, apart from popcorn, what's to prevent a player making my spotlight character, the one I am currently playing (say, Spiderman) fall in love with Harry Osbourne?  By using and Event or Goal or some such?

[TonyLB]

If someone's taken MJ and made her fall for Goblin, then the social contract has already been broken.

I don't see it that way.  They made a goal.  They gave you a fair chance to stop them.  You didn't do it.  They must want it more than you.  Where has the social contract been broken here?

While on this subject, apart from popcorn, what's to prevent a player making my spotlight character, the one I am currently playing (say, Spiderman) fall in love with Harry Osbourne?  By using and Event or Goal or some such?

Oh, hey!  That's a good one!

What prevents it?  You prevent it.  You see that Goal put on the table, and you draw in a sharp, determined hiss of breath, and you start looking to your Debt, Inspirations and Story Tokens to see what sort of support you can put together in order to send that horrible atrocity flaming into the abyss from which it came.

But if you're asking "What external force will protect me from this outcome if I don't prevent it myself?" then the answer is "Absolutely nothing."  If you don't want Harry and Peter to make their loft apartment into a mid-town love-nest then you have to stop it.  This is (to my mind) exactly the same as the notion that if you don't want Doctor Sinister to destroy the United Nations and declare the beginning of the Sinister Empire of America then you have to stop it.  The system doesn't fight for you.  It gives you the tools to fight for yourself.

Does that make sense?

[Hans]

[Alexander introduces "Goal: Goblin begins appearing sexually desirable to Mary Jane." Forget that killing her bit, I want Peter's player to actually throw me some Story Tokens here.]

Ummm...  Why would Peter's player care?  As soon as the Goal is accomplished the next narrator can say "MJ wakes up from a very weird dream..."

Goals have no lasting effect apart from house rules that say they do, right? (I am impervious to popcorn)

Tony already said something about this, but as a player who had the EXACT same concern and expressed it on this forum at some point in the past, I wanted to address it with my new found understanding of Capes.

One of the temptations, I think, of new people reading the Capes rules (I am one of them) is to look at Capes primarily as a GAME.  This is fine, as Capes is a fun game all by itself, I think, and there is so much tactical complexity to it that for the first few sessions its hard to think about anything else but the rules and how they work.

But, after the rules start becoming familiar to you, and you start internalizing them, the whole ROLE-PLAYING thing starts coming back in.  Its not enough just to knock down buildings and fire laser beams out of your eyes and make campy "Biff" "Pow" noises.  It happened around the third time I played for me.  You start to want to care about what happens, and to make other people care as well. 

Thats where the Goal above becomes important.  Sure, the moment the goal resolves, you can narrate it away.  But that isn't enough.  If you are playing a game about Spiderman and M.J., then hopefully you CARE about what happens to them.  So for MJ to get the hots for the Goblin is...icky.  Its creepy.  Its just plain wrong.  Even if you can narrate it away the bad taste will stick in your mouth.  Its something you can't let happen at all!  So you are going to fight to control it, and make it go away before it comes to fruition.  More importantly, you can narrate something about the Goblin.  Why is it so important to the Goblin that M.J. should find him attractive?  It was a Goal, not an Event.  What twist and kink in the Goblin's psychology is at play?

Capes is a fun game, but its even more fun when you use it tell meaningful stories, and not just stream of consciousness ramblings.  Doing that, I think, requires discipline.

[Sindyr]

In order to consider a character to be *mine* and to therefor emotionally invested in what happens to it, I need to have authoritative say over what that character tries to do and things like the character's likes, dislikes, moral compass, etc.

I mean, at the opening of the scene, each player chooses a character to play.  There are also in many games Spotlight Heroes that are reserved and can only be played by their creator.

What is the meaning of choosing to play my Captain Good character?  What is the meaning of having that character by my spotlight character?  **What is the meaning of having that character be in any way *mine* if I do not have authoritative say over his motives, choices, and such?**

In short, if my spotlight character is Spierman/Peter Parker, how is it that any other player should be allowed to usurp the choices and values I choose for my character?

I submit that if I create a spotlight character, other players may be allowed to make events and problems and conflicts befall him, but if they ever under any circumstances narrate behaviour or choices for my character, that because it IS my character, I can VETO.

Therefor, it is wrong (and breaking the social contract) for another player to say "Goal: Captain Good is sexually attracted to Mr. Evil" as that is MY choice - but if they instead wish to set a goal of "Goal: Mr Evil is sexually attracted to Captain Good and tries to convert the Capt.", that is fine.

When saying "this is my character" the "my" has to mean something, or else you are just saying "this is *a* character.

I don't know about you, but I am much more interested in stories involving *my* character.

[Sindyr]

The same could be true of Exemplar's under certain circumstances.

IE.  Captain Good, a spolight character of mine, has as a Love Exemplar Nicole Frank.  I may also take Nicole Frank as a second Spotlight character. Or maybe, with a non shared, non spotlight exemplar, the character to whom it is exemplared to can be assumed to have behaviour/action veto power.

All this means is that another player, should he narrate or use either character in a scene, would be subject to my veto if he narrated any behaviours or actions I felt incompatible with my vision of those characters.  He would not have to worry about my veto with anything he does *to* with (that's what tokens and such are for) but he can be veto'ed with anything he does *with* them.

Of course, this assumes no mind rays or similiar trumping plot devices. :)

[Valamir]

The answer to that one is simplicity itself...the character ISN'T yours and therefore everything you wrote above is some nice musings but has nothing whatsoever to do with playing Capes.

In Capes, if you want it, fight for it.  Put your money where your mouth is, step on up and proove how much you think you ought to control what Spiderman feels.

Capes gives you nothing for free.  You don't get to have all powerful mastery over Spidey's feelings simply because your name is at the top of the character sheet.  Capes doesn't care.  If you want to direct Spidey's feelings on a certain thing you have to put on the gloves and battle it out in a no holds barred cage match of dice rolling brutality with every other player who wants to direct Spidey's feelings on that thing. 

Eventually, you'll lose.  Selecting which conflicts you're willing to lose and which you aren't is pretty much the primary overarching strategy of Capes play.  But there are no conflicts you just win automatically because Spidey is your character...that's some other game.

Its pretty radical*.  There aren't that many games that go there.  But I can say from my experience with Universalis its really damn liberating.


* in fact, I'd go so far to say that the game would have been more consistant in its radical message if there were no "Spotlight Character" language at all.  It strikes me that it must have been a moment of weakness.

[Sindyr]

At the beginning of a scene each player is supposed to choose a character...

Why?  Does having chosen a character give you some ability that not having chosen a charater would not?

[Sindyr]

From the book, on the Scene page, page 20

Players choose characters in order. The scene creator chooses
the first character, and then other players do so proceeding
clockwise. If someone has chosen a character you want to play
before it gets to your turn then you are out of luck.

Out of luck in what way?  What do you get to do that someone who did not get to choose the character does not get to do?

[TonyLB]

Why?  Does having chosen a character give you some ability that not having chosen a charater would not?

Choosing that character gives you access to all of their abilities.  It gives you joint rights to declare the free Exemplar conflicts for any of that character's Exemplars who are in the scene (such rights shared with the player who chose that Exemplar).  It gives you access to the character's debt pools.

[TonyLB]

In order to consider a character to be *mine* and to therefor emotionally invested in what happens to it, I need to have authoritative say over what that character tries to do and things like the character's likes, dislikes, moral compass, etc.

You say that's true for you.  I'll take your word for it.

It's not true for me.  It's not true for lots of people I play with.  My experience indicates that it's not true for pretty much any random person that I pick out of a crowd at a convention and sit down at a demo table.  When I tell them that their character is at risk of (for instance) becoming a cross-dresser they engage with the struggle and emotionally invest in the character more, not less.

I play Major Victory a lot at conventions.  Major Victory is everyone's punching bag.  He's so self-righteous.  I've lost dozens (perhaps hundreds) of conflicts like "Goal:  Major Victory's pedophiliac fantasies are revealed," and "Goal:  Major Victory becomes a psychotic mega-villain," and "Goal:  Major Victory becomes Iron Brain's willing minion."

I have zero problem owning Major Victory, identifying with him and being emotionally invested in what happens to him.  By God, when I get to play him he's my character, and nobody's going to mess with him without a stiff fight! 

So ... is a player who adds such goals breaking the social contract when I'm playing Major Victory?  Or only when you're playing him?

[Zamiel]

I play Major Victory a lot at conventions.  Major Victory is everyone's punching bag.  He's so self-righteous.  I've lost dozens (perhaps hundreds) of conflicts like "Goal:  Major Victory's pedophiliac fantasies are revealed," and "Goal:  Major Victory becomes a psychotic mega-villain," and "Goal:  Major Victory becomes Iron Brain's willing minion."

In my opinion, the relative non-tangibility of things established by Conflicts really enables this style of play. Just because Major Victory's had his paedophillic fantasies revealed this Scene, they can be narrated away as the result of mind control, a horrible momentary aberration, or even as a dream in nearly the next breath. Just as the Comics Code frees the villains to be played like villains should be, the impermanence of Conflict resolution means that its perfectly alright to engage the other Players at this kind of level, because its extremely easy to wipe it out.

I've found that my Players and myself actually have Signature Characters but probably invest way more time into thinking about and playing with the Nemesis, Exemplars, and just the raft of other characters that have entered the character library than our Signatures. Its not that we aren't invested in our Signatures, on the contrary, we're playing an Avatar game, so our Signatures are alternate "us," its just that there's so much else to do, and the fact Characters get played by multiple people actually enhances the investment in the setting itself as a character, in a sense. The story becomes palpable in a way where solitary play-focus on a single character seldom does.

(My biggest problem is letting go of the "my Players" verbiage. I'm a Player just like anyone else at this point. Hard to shake after years and years of being the only one willing to GM, which might explain part of why I'm so taken with Capes.)

[Sindyr]

Please stop, take an actual moment (or four) and consider what I am about to say as if hearing it for the first time, with a new and open mind.

To qualify as a role-playing game, the bare minimum is that it must be a game in which you play roles.  Capes does hit that minimum.

But to qualify for what I think is a *real* roleplaying game, not just technically, but actually, it must do more than that.  To be a true roleplaying game, a player must be allowed to *play* his character, to make his decisions, to be the sole controlling force behind his behaviors and actions. (not including mind control, et al.)  He must be allowed to sink into a character and wrap the character around himself, wearing him like a favorite suit of clothes, that the player alone is permitted to wear.

Just about every gamer I meet also seems to want this.  It is like an implicit contract - an RPG'er hears that so and so is running a game, they know that if they join that game, it may be sci-fi or mystery, may be d20 or indie, may be crunchier or more free flowing, but the one thing that we all expect from a RPG is the ability to not just play roles, but to choose one particular role or character to invest in more than the others, to have authoritative internal control over that character such that this character is OURS, not just from a point of view of resources, but ours to *play* - that is, to ACT - that no one else can tell us what our character thinks, likes, attempts, and only *we* are in the pilot seat for that character.

By your words above, Capes is not intended to be such a game.

Choosing a character in Capes, according to what you seem to be syaing, is a matter of choosing what resources you will have access to, in terms of abilities, etc.  You seem to have explicitly stated that if I choose to "play" Captain Good (although apparently, in your game, I do not play him, I play his resources), any of the other players can narrate actions for him limited only by my ability to defend him.  If I am playing with 3 other players who each think it appropriate that Captain Good deck a mouthy NPC and I, the so-called player of that char, think otherwise, it is unlikely that I will be able to prevent a Goal from being accomplished that has my Capt decking the NPC - no matter how out of character and how much a violation of my so-called char I think that is. (All Comic Codes aside)

And no matter how well I play and strategize, given the resources at our disposal, the sheer fact of the matter is that 3 players that want a goal accomplished can outspend a lone player that doesn't want the goal done.

And this is where I think we part company.  You feel, I intuit, that if three out of four players want something, that it should happen, regardless of any other consideration.  I don't go that far - I believe that a special circumstance must exist.  I believe that the implicit contract needs to be honored - that players should be allowed characters that are truly theirs, and that this means while anything can happen to that character externally (even mind control rays where appropriate) that the owning player, and only the owning player, gets to have absolute authority and control over what the character chooses to think and do.  It seems that Capes throws out this basic principle.

And again, if I know that anyone at the table can put words in *my* hero's mouth that I can't veto; if anyone at the table can don my hero's form while I am still wearing it, if any other player can simply and easily trod all over my relationship with that character – than I will quite simply not *have* a relationship with that character.

I play characters in RPG's not just to tell a story, but to tell the specific story of the character I am playing.  If I have to share ownership of the character, then I have two choices: unwisely continue to emotionally invest in the character – and reap the grief I deserve for doing so when my vision for the character gets repeatedly violated – or *don't* emotionally invest in any character, and play the game from an emotional distance.

Not emotionally investing in the game causes two related problems.  First, a game I am not invested in is a game I don't greatly care if I continue playing.  A "shrug" game. Second, without being invested in the game and its world, I will feel no attachment to any Goal or Event happening or being prevented – without being invested, I don't really care what happens.  This leads to boredom, which leads to me as a player trying to find something interesting yet emotionally safe to do, which can lead to either bizarre surreal games or constantly pushing the game into places that the other players don't like – all for the sake of boredom.

So, yes, this all makes Capes even more revolutionary and interesting thereby.  But while I maintain a keen interest in all games strange and different, I don't necessarily want to play them – or even find them playable as RPGs.

So now the question for me is where to go from here?  By removing the traditional and expected authority a player has over his character you seem to have gutted the fundamental RPG player contract.  While this creates an interesting thought experiment, it is not an actual RPG except in the technical sense.

Having heard of a couple successful groups playing Capes, I submit that the authoritative control a player has over his character is rarely threatened in practice, apparently because that right is so implicit that even though Capes does not appear to support it, most people still play as though it did.

So, if most people are still obeying the implicit RPG player contract, does the game even need to have explicit protections? 

Oh, yes.  Without question.

All it takes in one person with an agenda to start tromping all over the implicit contract.  One player that puts down "Goal: Captain Good is having a bad day and maims the next guy who annoys him" or "Goal: Captain Good realizes his love for cows and starts having sex with them". (yes, I know, hyperbole, but it illustrates a very real point)

If Capes is truly intended to be a system that encourages us to tell stories that make the players want to engage, having  veto power over your character's actions does not prevent Capes from achieving that goal – it simply prevents (pun intended) character assassination.

The only reason to NOT give me, the player of Capt Good,  the ability to veto someone else's narration for Capt. Good's actions or choices, is if you truly believe that anyone at the table has an equal right to decide what my character does, and all that matters is player resources.

If that's what you truly believe, than you also truly believe that apart from characters being a source of resources, no player should consider any character especially theirs.

And if true and if played this way, this ultimately makes Capes *not* an RPG.

I look forward to everyone's response to this, especially Tony's.

Hopefully responses that are more than just flat denials, responses that tackle the issues I raise in a thoughtful and engaging way.

Again, the fact I just spent a couple of hours writing and editing this post certifies my investment and respect for Capes, its author, and the others in this forum.  I am excited to see how much time, energy, and thought is put into considering and replying to the issues that I have raised.

Thanks.

PS.  A easy fix for the above issues would probably be a simple house rule:
>Any narration of an action, behavior, thought, or choice of a character can be veto'ed by that character's player (or owner in the case of Spotlight characters), assuming the character is free and not under external control.

Perhaps those who respond to the above post might also address if they think the above house rule is detrimental or beneficial to Capes, and why.

[TonyLB]

Okay, in all seriousness ... I need some help with framing a response that is not, at least in part, a flat denial.  Here's the specific section I've got issues with:

Having heard of a couple successful groups playing Capes, I submit that the authoritative control a player has over his character is rarely threatened in practice, apparently because that right is so implicit that even though Capes does not appear to support it, most people still play as though it did.

Sindyr:  I see a syllogism of three statements here:

• Hypothesis #1:  Everybody must avoid having their control over their character undercut, in order to have fun
• Known fact:  People play Capes, and have fun doing so
• Hypothesis #2:  When people play Capes and have fun they do not introduce conflicts that would undercut another player's control of their character

You think that Hypothesis #1 is an axiom.  It's absolutely, observably true for all people.  Therefore you feel confident in saying that Hypothesis #2 is proven ... it follows logically from your axiom, plus the known facts.  You believe that you know how people are playing, because it is (in your mind) impossible that they should be doing anything else.

But here's the thing:  I know, from experience, that Hypothesis #2 isn't true.  I've tested it in actual play many times.  People undercut each other's control over their characters all the time and they have a ball doing it.  So I, in turn, feel confident saying that Hypothesis #1 must not be absolutely true for all people.  No matter how strong and elegant the theory, it has to yield in the face of repeated evidence to the contrary.

You haven't seen any of that evidence, so I don't expect you to have drawn the same conclusions.  At the same time, I'm not going to try to erase my memory so that I can be properly open to the possibility that the things I've already seen can not, in fact, ever happen.

So how do we have a fruitful discussion here?

[Sindyr]

Well, I am not sure how to continue... here are some ideas, which may or may not be mutually possible:

1)  We agree for the sake of discussion, that having players have absolute authority of the internal state of the character is important.  We agree to disagree if that's important to just one person in this whole world (me) or to most, or some where in between.

2)  Perhaps the experience in playing capes without the above control is fun for some AND is not roleplaying in the normal sense?  Perhaps Capes as written is a competitive storytelling game, but NOT a roleplaying game (except in a minimalist sense)?

3)  Perhaps while not gainsaying the fun some number of people have playing Capes qua Capes, we find a way to broaden the potential people having fun with it by meeting the RP players' needs and expectations while still including those already having fun with it?

4) Perhaps we discuss way to maximize serving the needs of both camps without doing either a disservice?

5) Perhaps we discuss what sort of house rule, possibly the one I mentioned at the end of my post, would best accomplish the goals of including people who want to truly own a character, while still leaving the majority of play and strategy in Capes untouched.

6) Alternatively, perhaps we discuss how and why Capes would be irretrievably broken were we to make such a change.

Just some ideas, off the top of my head.