Been reading my new pdf, have quesions...

[drnuncheon]

I'll just note that proper construction of the Comics Code could address a lot of your problems, Sindyr.

The idea of "spotlight" characters is the first step.  Extend that outward until the Code says what you want it to say, and protects what you want it to protect.  Then, instead of narrating MJ falling for Goblin, Goblin's player will have to gloat instead of winning the conflict.  "Ha ha!  The hypno-ray is controlling her mind, and soon she'll lead Spider-Man into my trap!"

The exact question of whether Capes is an RPG, and who gets to define the latter term and its taxonomy, isn't really all that relevant.  (I think Tony's heard it often enough, too.)  I had the same reaction when I first heard about it, honestly - "The hell? No GM? You don't have your own character?  This ain't no RPG!"  Once I figured it out, though, it all made sense.  (And people lie when they say Capes is a GM-less game.  Capes is a game where everybody is the GM.)

J

[Hans]

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

Hi Sindyr:

First, let me say that your concerns are exactly the concerns I have heard expressed by others who have played the game.  I have had several people tell me they thought Capes was ok, but it isn't really an RPG.

And from your definitions in your post, I will say I agree with you.  Based on your definitions, Capse is not an RPG.  I don't completely agree with your definitions, but that doesn't really matter, because they are not, I think, statements of fact (although you occasionally state them as facts).  Rather, they are asethetic judgements about what you enjoy and don't enjoy about RPG's.  Based on them, I agree with you 100% that what you say you want from PLAYING an RPG is NOT to be found in Capes.  

But, let me add a twist here.  You describe very well the enjoyment you get from PLAYING what you term "real" RPG's.  I, in fact, get much the same enjoyment from playing them as you do.  But here is another question that I think is far more relevant to Capes; what pleasure do you get from GM'ing games?  Assuming you have been a GM and continue to occasionally GM, I must assume you enjoy it.  Why?  I don't know what your answer will be, so I will answer this for myself.  For me, the enjoyment of being a GM is in the creation of storys and story elements that thrill, excite, scare or otherwise engage the people I am playing with.  For me, the best moment as a GM is when someone at the table says "COOL!" and their eyes light up.  That is the thrill.  Also, another question; as a GM, do you feel emotionally involved in the story?  For me, I really can't stand GM'ing unless I am emotionally involved.  Whats the point unless you feel some attachment to the characters in the story?  But the emotional involvement is the emotional involvement of a writer telling a story, not an actor playing a character.  Again, another question; as a GM, you don't have complete control over what the PLAYERS do with their characters.  Does this bother you?  Does it matter?  For me, its part of the fun of being a GM.  I may have a particular vision of what the players are going to do, but sometimes the most enjoyment comes from the surprises the players bring.

Why do I ask this?  Here is why.  I think Tony (God that strides the earth that he is) has done a disservice to his game by saying that it is a game without a GM.  I think he is dead wrong.  Capes is a RPG without players.  Or rather, all the players are GM's; I will henceforth refer to them as GMplayers, and what they do GMplaying.

I suggest to you that to understand what people find enjoyable about Capes, you are better served to think of it from a GM, not a player, perspective.  The best description I have for what GMplaying Capes is like is that it is like a group of writers sitting around a table, writing a comic book as they go.  Each writer has MORE control over one or more characters, but no writer has complete control.  

Moreover, Capes, more than any other RPG I have played, is overtly a GAME.  It allows for clear competition between the player-GM's, and allows them to win or lose.  This is not to say that GMplayers do not cooperate with each other; they cooperate all the time.  But they cooperate like players in a game of Diplomacy, not like players in a game of D&D.  

Therefore, there are two layers of enjoyment to Capes, neither of which really bears any similarity to the enjoyment gained from playing a "real" RPG.  First, there is the GAME enjoyment, of winning, reaping story tokens and inspirations, and bragging rights, from the other GMplayers.  Secondly, and more importantly, there is the STORY enjoyment, the GM enjoyment, which comes from wowing your fellow GMplayers with exciting, dramatic, funny, scary, sad, or otherwise enjoyable story elements you introduce, and them saying "COOL!"

Does this make sense?  I really think it is absolutely crucial to think of Capes as a playerless, not a GM-less.  I think that Capes, at its core, is a game for GM's to play with each other.  The more experienced the GM's the more fun the game will be.  I have some actual play experience to back this up.  The most fun I have had with Capes was at a table where all the other GMplayers were highly experienced GM's in other games.  It is NOT a game for people who have never GM'ed and who aren't really interested in doing so.

I recommend to you the following course of action:  get a few friends together, preferably a few friends with a lot of GM experience, and play three sessions of the game as written.  I suggest three because it takes about three sessions to start internalizing the rules and reach the Story/GM level of enjoyment I describe above.  My hope, since I personally love the game, and because I would hate for you to feel like you wasted $10, is that you will find It is fun for DIFFERENT reasons than the reasons you find playing a "real" RPG fun.  

And if you are ever anywhere near the Greater Toronto Area, let me know, and we can GMplay together!

Hans

[Hans]

(And people lie when they say Capes is a GM-less game.  Capes is a game where everybody is the GM.)

&*&#$*&#$#&$#!  You beat me by seconds to this, you cad!  I was going to make this fantastic point, first (see above) and you stole it from me!  You are dead to me!

:)

[Sindyr]

This is a critical and I think extremely important point.

Capes *is* a playerless game where everybody is the GM.

I think that is the nut of it.  Whether one allows for a playerless game to be considered an RPG or not is left to taste, I suppose.

I guess I am used to achieving one of two pieces of enjoyment from playing RPGs:
1) The largely effort free ability to play one character, have absolute authority over what that character thinks and attempt (the internals), and to try to pursue that character's storyline in conformity with what I want that character to pursue.
2)  The largely work intensive ability to be the GM, who accepts input from all players but ultimately the absolute and sole authority in all matters that are not related to character volition.  Being a GM is mush like being a god, with my personal goal to use my godlike powers to create a multithreaded interwoven reality within which the players can explore being the characters they chose to portray.  As GM and as the sole creator, I am able to achieve all that I can in Capes, without having to worry about competing or being challenged by anybody else.

So what that means is that if I want to GM, I don't *want* to share creative control.  I want to pursue the Vision I have for the world, plot hooks, etc - I want to run with it.

If I want to play and have someone *else* GM, I want to be able to focus on my character and "own" that character completely.  This means only I get to direct the internal thoughts, choices, motivations, and actions of *my* character.

So, as written, Capes is a playerless game, with each participant a GM vying with all the other GM's for control of the direction of the story and the events and happenings therein.

It seems to me, that with a small change, Capes could be made into a game that would support a multi GM format while still allowing each person to play a character the way I described.  That rule change could be:
>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.

I would ask again, perhaps such a house rule 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 - or  would Capes would be irretrievably broken were we to make such a change?

[TonyLB]

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

But ... I don't want to serve both camps.  I want to take people who think they can only enjoy a game where their character is an invincible tower of ultimate authority, and show them that they can have a different kind of fun without that tower.  To do that I want to actively undermine your ability to construct the tower.  Here's a dialogue:

You:  You're selling food?  Great, I'm starved.
Me:  Well good!  I've got a spectacular food here.  I find it delicious, and I hope you will too!
You:  That doesn't look like french fries.
Me:  It's not.  It's sushi.  It's yummy.  Want to try some?
You:  Absolutely!  I love new taste sensations.  But I really, really enjoy french fries.
Me:  That's great.  You might find you like this too, and then you'd really, really enjoy two foods.  Wouldn't that be cool?
You:  How about if we fry it?  It would be more like french fries then.
Me:  I ... suppose it would.
You:  Oh, and that looks like fish.  Is it fish?  There's no fish in french fries.  Can we make it with potatoes instead?
Me:  Well, I suppose you could make fried potato sushi, if you really wanted to.  But you haven't even tried the normal sushi.
You:  Yeah, but if you made fried potato sushi you'd be serving both camps:  people who like sushi and people who like french fries.
Me:  But ... I don't want to serve both camps.  I want to introduce people to sushi.  It's yummy in a different way.  To introduce you to that, I want to actively avoid frying it.

[TonyLB]

I would ask again, perhaps such a house rule 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 - or  would Capes would be irretrievably broken were we to make such a change?

Well ... you're taking the one thing that (apparently) another player cares most about and saying that the game won't be about conflicts involving that.

The "majority of play and strategy in Capes" is about finding things that the other players care about, and making conflicts involving that.  Check out pp. 132-133.  It says (essentially) "Find the soft points in another player, and try to jab 'em with a sharp stick.  He'll defend himself by standing up for the things he finds important, and you'll all profit from the drama, moral statements and fun that ensue."  I don't know that you can say that, and add the rider "... except don't touch that huge, gaping, marshmallow-like underbelly that he's curled around protectively."  I think that once you start having fun poking at the other players it's going to be hard to overlook a soft spot as big as that. 

I think, in fact, that adding the rule will not change the strategy of Capes much at all.  Rather, I think the strategy and game-play of Capes will quickly conspire to grind your house rule into dust.  People will find ways around it ... mind control rays, alien possession, dream sequences ... whatever it takes.  The folks who really get the way that Capes plays will find ways within the rules to jab you in that soft spot.

[Hans]

I would ask again, perhaps such a house rule 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 - or  would Capes would be irretrievably broken were we to make such a change?

It might be enjoyable, but I'm not sure it would be Capes.  I fear that by trying to insert into Capes the feel of what you called earlier a "real" RPG, you will undercut what many of us that enjoy Capes find the truly enjoyable part, and just make it an overcomplicated "real" RPG.  I fear that after making these changes, you will still be dissapointed, and find that you would rather have played some other super-hero RPG (perhaps With Great Power?  I don't know enough about it).  But I really don't know.   I am not personally interested in trying them, but thats just me.  I recommend that you play the game with some friends as written a few times, and then play it with your proposed changes a few times, and see which you enjoy more.  Then, let us know!

I feel like a drug pusher for saying this again, but here it goes...

*queue trippy psychadelic music and strange multicoloured liquid pattern swirling behind Hans's head, camera begins swirling around drunkenly*

"Hey man, try it...you'll love it, man...just one puff, man, its wild!"

*turn off music and effects*

As an aside, I remember very clearly and earlier thread here http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=16641.msg187327#msg187327 (I still haven't figured out how to hide the URL behind text), Fred Wolke said "for this game, actual play is all."  At the time, I thought, "What a rude jerk!" (sorry Fred, its true).  And yet now I find myself saying the exact same thing, albeit in a more long winded fashion.  Fred may or may not be a rude jerk (sorry Fred :) ), but he was certainly wise in the ways of Capes.

[Sindyr]

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

But ... I don't want to serve both camps.  I want to take people who think they can only enjoy a game where their character is an invincible tower of ultimate authority, and show them that they can have a different kind of fun without that tower.  To do that I want to actively undermine your ability to construct the tower.  Here's a dialogue:

Fair enough - I can appreciate that you don't want to help me achieve a goal in conflict with your goal of making people choose to accept Capes as is or not at all, but of course I will still give it a go. 

I think your analogy was an innacurate straw man, although I am sure you meant it sincerely.

Perhaps a better analogy would have been a recipe with ten ingrediants, one of which the customer is allergic to.  They ask you to substitute a different ingrediant, and you reply that if they want this food it must be taken as is, with no substitutions.  Which leaves the customer who is allergic to that one ingrediant out in the cold, but there it is.

I am not sure where the tower image came from, but I will respectfully ask you to accept that I am not one the people you described, "people who think they can only enjoy a game where their character is an invincible tower of ultimate authority".

I am instead a person in search of a game with certain bare minimum requirements that Capes seems almost to meet.  One of which is respect for the ownership of a character.

If I go looking to find a sport to play, someone may try to shoehorn me into playing tennis, despite the fact that I repeatedly tell them I don't want to run around the court that much.  What would be more helpful is someone suggesting Ping Pong - works almost the same way without all the running arround.

I want to achieve one of two things from any rpg I play: ownership of a character or being the sole GM.  Could I have fun playing a game that doesn't have either?  Possibly.  Would I have more fun playing the game that has at least one? In all likelihood, yes.

If you remove both of the above two things from a game, than it is radically different from a traditional rpg.  That's good for thought provoking discussion.  But in terms of having fun, *I* require at least one of those two things in order to have as much fun as possible.

Now it seems that with the addition of that one simple rule, Capes can achieve character ownership.  What I am hearing, Tony, is that you don't like that because you don't want people to have that option - you want to force them to have none of Capes or to have Capes unchanged.

I guess I don't see why you would be so committed to trying to convert people.  If I was in the position of defending a similar cherished aspect of a gaming system, I would probably say:
1) You can play it that way
2) The proposed rule doesn't break the mechanics
3) IMHO, it *does* break the spirirt of my vision of the game, and this is why...
4) But if that's how you want to play, and you and your gaming group is having fun, more power to you.

Or maybe I have it wrong.  Maybe the very nature of the game is about one player trying to hurt another, and competing to see who can be the msot successful.  But the way I hope Capes really is, is an economy of storytelling where each player attempts to create compelling storylines that entice the other players to participate, so that those players do the same for us.

Instead of "let's see how we can threaten to screw over another player by threatening their exemplar once again (yawn)" it can be "Let's create a threat to the very fabric of our existance, and give the other player an opportunity to shine and show that he IS the protector of the people."  Instead of burning down their headquarters, perhaps we tantalize them with odd unexplained observances that draw them in to a deep mystery. Perhaps instead of trying to infect the superhero with a rare blood disease that doesn't kill them but leaves them mute, perhaps their sister is about to get married, and the brother in law to be is in trouble with the wrong kind of people.

Perhaps instead of attacking each other, we open doors for each other to aspire to greatness?

The central question that the game asks: "Power is fun, but do you deserve it?" can apply not only to the characters, but to the players.  The power to narrate, usually reserved to a single authority, a single GM, is awesome, and is fun.  Does each player deserve to be a GM?

If I had a fellow player that was focussed on aggressive PvP play, I would be tempted to answer in the negative.

Creating stories and conflicts that the other players care about, giving them a chance to accomplish something amazing or heroic, is what you should get rewarded with story tokens for.

Torturing another player by repeated abuse of threatening their "soft spots" is unimaginative, petty, mean, and proves that they should never, ever, be given the power of narration, unless the receiver of this abuse is secretly a masochist.

Unfortuntely Capes is wide open to being used to abuse other players.  If we can build in protections to curb the abuse of this power, then it can really shine.  Then stories can be about more than PvP.

It is the difference between a knockdown barroom brawl and competitive dance.  I would rather see Capes be the latter - and would prefer to engage in Capes play on that level.

People who choose former play Capes like its checkers or poker, but *not* like a roleplaying game.

I am not sure what else we can say about this.  I will continue to explore if Capes is suitable for competitive yet non abusive gaming.  I think, with a few changes, it may be. I hope I can feel free to ask future questions regarding mechanics - both about the mechanics as written, and also about the effect of hypothetical variant house rule mechanics.

Thanks for being as involved and available as you all are.  This has been helpful.

[TonyLB]

Torturing another player by repeated abuse of threatening their "soft spots" is unimaginative, petty, mean, and proves that they should never, ever, be given the power of narration, unless the receiver of this abuse is secretly a masochist.

Now that's just not true.  Figuring out just the right way to torture people requires a lot of imagination.  I'll totally cop to "mean" (though I prefer "cruel," as it's less ambiguous).  I don't even know where you get petty from.  I think it was just to complete the set.

As to the "should never ever" bit ... why would you want to stop people from poking your soft spots?  They're doing you a favor.  You want to help your character rise above adversity?  You need the adversity first.  I think you know that.  I mean ... right before the torture quote above, you wrote:

Creating stories and conflicts that the other players care about, giving them a chance to accomplish something amazing or heroic, is what you should get rewarded with story tokens for.

That's what the Capes rules do.  They reward you for creating charged adversity, and then giving the other players a chance to overcome it.

[Sindyr]

It's weird, its like I completely agree with you and completely disagree with you at the same time.

I think it a wonderful thing to hang a nice shiny thing just out of reach, forcing the person who wants the new shiny bauble to work for it.

I think its a mean and worthless act to take away shiny thing that they already have, and make them work to get it back.

Not just in gaming - with any creative works, any sort of fictions I am entirely unimpressed by the story arc that goes a) the protagonist loses something/something he loves is put in jeopardy b) protagonists suffers and works mighty hard c) protagonist succeeds in fixing the problem, leaving us all exactly where we started.

I prefer a) protagonists gets an idea for a way to make things better in some way b) protagonists works hard c) protagonist succeeds, and now things are different from where we started.  The protagonist has a shiny new thing - a love interest he didn't have before, Mr Evil Behind Bars, a new power, a third world despot overthrown...  ultimately in *this* sort of story, something new was gained - its not about something lost restored.

I despise the over use of storylines in which the protagonist continually fights but rarely makes any forward progress.

A new supervillain to be defeated is one thing.  Fighting the same villain over and over again, even though you have successfully imprisoned him half a dozen times - I dont find that fun, no matter how true to comic books it is - I find it frustrating.

On the other hand, a new super villain that helps an old one escape jail, and by the end of the story not only is the old one back in jail but the new one is in jail now too - thats a net plus from where the story started.

Make sense?

[drnuncheon]

"let's see how we can threaten to screw over another player by threatening their exemplar once again (yawn)"

Wow.  I don't know if you intended it or not, but this is very telling.  The difference between you and Tony is (from what I can see):

You: "Oh, no...you're screwing my character, that means you are screwing me."

Tony:  "Yeah!  Screw with my character, because that's where the interesting stuff is!"

Here's a secret: if you don't want people to screw with your character's relationship, don't make your girlfriend an exemplar.  Taking an exemplar is waving a big red flag in front of the charging story bull.  It's saying, "OVER HERE!  THIS IS WHAT I WANT TO TELL STORIES ABOUT!"

it can be "Let's create a threat to the very fabric of our existence, and give the other player an opportunity to shine and show that he IS the protector of the people."

I hope I'm not being dense, but I don't see how stock Capes wouldn't do that.  If that's the kind of story you like, than the other players will get rewarded for putting your character in those kinds of situations.  You will see the goal, you will stake debt, you will fight hard, you will win, and they will get story tokens for it.

J

[Valamir]

I am instead a person in search of a game with certain bare minimum requirements that Capes seems almost to meet.  One of which is respect for the ownership of a character.

Sindyr, I'm just going to throw this out there as food for thought...feel free to respond or not as the mood takes you.

Is it possible that you don't really have these bare minimum requirements?  You just think you do?

i.e. you've got a certain way of playing that you're used to...you know how to do it, you know how to think about it when you do it, you're good at it, you enjoy being good at it...and because of this you have an established comfort zone...a comfort zone of the familiar.  So is it possible you're mistaking habit for preference to some degree?

I ask because, in the end, the vast majority of people I've encountered who've all said nearly verbatim what you've said in this thread (all of your remarks on the nature of RPGs so far fall into the "yup, heard that one a thousand times" category I'm afraid) if they stuck it out and journeyed outside of that comfort zone have been ecstatic about what they've found there and established whole new comfort zones to play in.  Maybe that's not you...but perhaps its worth thinking about. 

Capes (and quite a few other games at the Forge, but Capes moreso than many) is pretty unapologetic about throwing players completely out of their comfort zone and into a whole new world of opportunity. 

Alot of players initially react with understandable fear to that opportunity.  Understandable because time is precious and time to play RPGs in often more precious yet...why risk wasting that precious time on something that could suck horribly when you have ole reliable that works pretty well (at least most of the time).  But given the shear number of regular posters to the Forge who overcame that reluctance and now are happy they did so, the track record would seem to indicate its a risk worth taking.

[Sindyr]

Here's a secret: if you don't want people to screw with your character's relationship, don't make your girlfriend an exemplar.  Taking an exemplar is waving a big red flag in front of the charging story bull.  It's saying, "OVER HERE!  THIS IS WHAT I WANT TO TELL STORIES ABOUT!"

I guess than what I really want is the ability to set a REVERSE exemplar - to be able to set stuff I *don't* want them to screw with.

Although, I wouldn't mind them kidnapping her a couple of times - actually, all I want to to have no actual harm come to my hcar's love interest and to have no one but me decide what she is going to do in any given scene - or at least have veto power if someone else decides something I feel is innaproprite.

That's it

[Glendower]

I guess than what I really want is the ability to set a REVERSE exemplar - to be able to set stuff I *don't* want them to screw with.

Although, I wouldn't mind them kidnapping her a couple of times - actually, all I want to to have no actual harm come to my hcar's love interest and to have no one but me decide what she is going to do in any given scene - or at least have veto power if someone else decides something I feel is innaproprite.

*gets up on a soapbox*

The problem I'm having here is that protecting your exemplars doesn't happen in what you call "traditional" roleplaying.  If you write about your "dearest sister" or "lady love" in your character history, her attitudes, decisions and fate are decided by the omnipotent "God" GM.  He can in fact kill her off or have her end up with the bad guy or do all sorts of terrible things to her.  And there's JACK you can do about it, unless the GM deems you can do something about it (being God and all).

However, in Capes, you can, if you like, say "heck no, I'm not letting her go off with that football team/clown/used car salesman!" and stake against the goal/event/whatever.

Here's the piece I find interesting.  You said that for you to have fun, you either need to have complete control over your character, or a central voice of absolute authority.  So either complete control, or no control at all.  This is my inference here, but you want all the responsibility, or none of it.  Since Capes hands the keys to the kingdom to everyone, I imagine that makes it not a very comfortable place for you.  Everyone has responsibility, but it's shared.  Heck, it's contested.  It's dynamic.  I admit that's dangerous, like everyone having the big red button, but there's something you've dismissed.  the "popcorn tossing" piece that is so essential to not just roleplaying, but social interaction of any sort. 

It's the Social Contract.  If Chuck to your left decides to create the event "Jonny Neutron (your noble hero) kills, rapes, and eats the bystanders", you can turn to him and say "Chuck, what are you doing?".  That's the popcorn tossing piece you're ignoring here.  That piece of social contract stuff.  That little discussion beforehand where you say, "hey, I'm all for freedom of expression, but rape, pedophillia, harm to animals, blasphemy to my God or Gods or spiritual framework, these things are pretty much off limits to me, and I will walk if they are included."  And people respect those borders, or they're not your friends and you shouldn't play with them. 

I've had friends who have been victimized, and find stuff about rape to be completely off limits.  And we discussed that and made damn sure it didn't come up at all in the game.  This is about fun, not about therapy.  I don't have a psychologist license for THAT kind of roleplaying.

I'm trying to say that if you roleplay with people you like and trust, and whom you've had the frank discussion of issues that you are 100% against discussing , you don't get garbage events or goals.  You don't get stuff that offends you.  You get the epic events that make a game great. 

Just because Capes gives you the POWER, doesn't mean that you can abuse it.  Great power, great responsibility.  It applies to the Players as well as the little click and lock paper tools they use.  If someone has the ability to hurt you, but doesn't, that builds trust.  Trust is a cornerstone to friendship, and a cornerstone to great games. 

*steps off of soapbox*

[Sindyr]

Valamir/Ralph -
At the moment I cannot participate in a game of Capes (or any rpg) because I do not currently have a gaming group and do not have the time to form you yet - but will be doing so at some point in the future.

I think one of three things *must* be the case.
Either
A> Capes is not a rpg, albeit a lot of fun in its own right, as a competitive storytelling game.  If this is true, it will probably not fill the need I have to play a character or run a game.  It may be a groovy fun time, but I admit to being addicted to actual RPGs, in either the capacity of GM or PC.  Note: I am not saying Capes isn't a fun game, but it may well not fill the same need that playing RPGs fills for me.
-or-
B> Capes *can* fill the same need if a few small proposed changes are made in support of player owned characters
-or-
C> Capes can, as written, with no changes fulfill the needs that either being a GM or being a PC serves when I play RPGs.

I *think* what you are actually asserting is A.

If what you are asserting is C however, then I am not sure how that jives with the massively negative reaction I have to neither being allowed to own a PC nor being allowed to be the sole director.  I can give up one of those two goals - Capes as written seems to ask me to give up both?

So maybe Capes is a fun storytelling game that is not a RPG (except in the technical sense.)  Maybe I would have a blast playing Capes that way.  But I would still have to find an RPG also to fill one of my two needs above.

RIght?