Been reading my new pdf, have quesions...

[Sindyr]

I am going to write two separate replies - one re: what's in it for the villain's player storywise, and one re: how can a villain's player get tokens without being allowed to threaten the actual accomplishment of terrible, unallowable things.  This post deals with the former, the post that deals with the latter will come later today.

The answer to this questions depends on the motivations and story goals of the villain's player.
-If she wants to tell a tale where the villain succeeds at really hurting the hero (by making him fall or killing his love) then obviously, she would be blocked.  If I was the hero's player, I would *not* be interested in exploring the that storyline at the actual risk of such a devastating loss.
-If she want to tell a tale with the hero's character believes he is at risk for one of those two nasty possibilities, but the hero's player knows there really is no such risk, then I as the hero's player would go along with it.

It seems to me that you are saying the following:  "If she wants to tell the villain's story, and try to gain success for her character at the expense of mine, that's not cool.  If she wants to support my story, and try to gain success for my character at the expense of hers, that's acceptable."

There's a certain asymmetry there that might seem natural to you after years of "The villains are played by the GM, who isn't like other players," but which looks ... well ... a little strange when all the players are equals.  Yes?

I see what you mean, but I may not be being clear about the intentionality of this.

I cannot partake of a story where the villains have any real success, innocents suffer significant loss, or the good aren't ultimately rewarded and the villains aren't ultimately punished.  If I can't even passively watch that stuff on TV, than I sure as heck can't partake actively in the creation of that kind of story.

This is a hard limit for me.

So if a player wants to tell a pro-villain story, then that player will not want to play with me, nor will I want to play with her. 

On the other hand, if a player want to *use* a villain as a foil, both to help me tell the tale of my hero and to amass story tokens, then she can rest assured that I will be doing the same for her - creating my *own* villain for her to explore storywise with her hero as *I* amass story tokens.

Now if you want to argue that in any game I would partake of, villains are second class citizens that have built-in failure at the story level and therefor players need encouragement to bring them into play, perhaps something could be done like "if no Villain is on the scene, one may be introduced by any player for free.  Additional villains cost one story token each, as normal", or "At the conclusion of a scene, any player who played a Villain and did not play a Hero gets a two story token reward" or something similar.

But let me make no mistake about it.  Without preparation and token-less negotiation, I do not want any of the following to happen in a story I am partaking of:
-Torture, rape, other extreme acts done by Hero's or to Mundanes.
-Significant non-fleeting defeat of a Hero - including emotional..
-Villains achieving significant success that is more than fleeting.
-In general and overall, evil to prosper, good to fail.
-Significant non-fleeting character loss, corruption, or overriding against the owning player's character concept
Such as:
>The Hero is made to look stupid, ineffectual, or unwise in a way that contradicts that Hero's player's character conception.
>The Hero is made to act in ways the Hero's player finds significantly at odds with that Hero's player's character conception.

A Goal like: The Villains defeat the Heroes is NOT prevented by the above.  Neither is the Goal: The Villains take over the City.  Even the Goal: The Villains make the Heroes Look Bad is not stopped - after all, the Villains aren't making the Heroes less powerful or actually clumsy - the Villains are just employing a cunning plan to make it *seem* like the Heroes don't have what it takes - when in fact they really do.

All the above guarantees is that should the Villains accomplish either goal, the effects with be fleeting, and by accomplishing the Goal the Villains will actually reap very little reward - in fact, the will most likely be sowing the seeds of their own defeat.

So maybe the Villains take over the City for a day before the Heroes save the day and put down the Villains.  Maybe the Villains try to engineer a loss of faith in the super team by secretly hitting them with an invisible Clumsiness Ray when the Heroes show up to foil a bank robbery - which is later discovered, fixed, and told to the public.

I won't hide it.  When I bring to the table a group of players to play this game, I will be telling them what my limits are and asking them for *their* limits as well.

Then I expect us to stay within those limits.  So if a player suddenly wants her Villain to have equal success and story line effectiveness as the Heroes, she will be disappointed.  But if she is willing to play the villain as a method to let the Heroes get their storyline told, as well as a nice source of story tokens for her, then she can in turn expect us to play the villain for her so that she gets her time to shine with her Hero as well.

Make sense?

[Glendower]

So if a player suddenly wants her Villain to have equal success and story line effectiveness as the Heroes, she will be disappointed.  But if she is willing to play the villain as a method to let the Heroes get their storyline told, as well as a nice source of story tokens for her, then she can in turn expect us to play the villain for her so that she gets her time to shine with her Hero as well.

Make sense?

Let me try to wrap my head around what you want.  You want a happy ending, every time, without fail or possibility of failure.  Oh sure, there'll be little stumbles along the way, but at no point will there be a doubt in your mind that all will go well in the end.

I'm going to use an anology here.  You want to play "catch" with your friends.  They throw the ball at you, so that you can easily catch it.  If you fumble and drop, no harm, no foul, just pick it up and throw it back.  You fumbling is their fault as much as yours, they need to throw the ball so that you can more easily catch it.

Hey, catch is fun.  Go catch.  It's not for everyone, though.

But Capes is about Baseball.  It's about winning the game.  It's about stealing third and hitting that ball out of the park, so that no one can find it.  It's about challeging the other players and getting them to take risks, risks that could mean winning big or losing big. 

Baseball is fun.  Go Baseball.  It's not for everyone, though.

I sense a conflict here that might not be easily fixed.  You are asking for a lot of hefty restrictions on your gaming group, you are asking for no element of risk at all.  I hope you can find a group that wants to play catch.

[Sindyr]

So what's left as a goal for the villain's player to pursue?  She can't make you torture her.  And she can't make you pay for not torturing her.  What impact does she get to have?

I already addressed the story impact above, so now it's time for me to address the mechanical side of this:

2) <mechanic-wise> Why would the villain's player create for the hero this storyline/group of Goals because she thinks she will not be able to get story tokens off of the hero's player because ultimately, she can't threaten either of two terrible things, so why would he stake debt?

So, given that the basic Capes mechanic is to encourage others to write stories for us by paying them with story tokens, just how is the villain's player encouraged to write such a story:

Example:

For example, a villain may purposefully put a hero into the position where the only way the hero can save his love interest is to torture the villain into revealing the location of the victim.

The villain knows that if the hero stoops to torturing him, the hero may save his love but on a deeper level, the hero's morality is defeated, and the hero becomes a villain.  On the other hand, if the hero does not torture the villain, than the hero will have to live with the fact that he let his love die because his morality was more important.  For the villain, it's a win-win.

This is a scene I would love to see played out, BUT a few things must be true.

The player of the hero should not have the decision made for him whether he chooses to torture the villain or not. Or at least if someone else makes the decision, he should be allowed to veto, nuke or something if he totally disagrees.

No matter what happens, the love interest of the player's hero will not die, again unless the player accepts this story point.  However, the hero must still be portrayed as if he believes she is in immanent danger. But whatever happens, whether saved by luck or cunning, the love interest cannot die.

So, the question boils essentially boils down to, how can we incentivize a player to create such a story for the hero, while protecting the hero and his player from the villain's player taking it too far?

I have two thoughts about this.

The first and more obvious thought is for the villain to create a goal that does not cause either of the two nasty outcomes to occur, but is still something that the hero is willing to fight over.

For example:  Goal: Hero actually considers torturing Villain to save his love.  Or contrarily, Goal: Hero doesn't even pause in choosing the Villain over his love. 

Let's look at this one, Goal: Hero is unable to save his love.  If the Hero fails to prevent this Goal, then he will not be able to save his love.  She still won't, can't die - but she will be saved by luck or some other reason, and NOT by the actions of the Hero.  I personally, would fight for the prevention of this goal, to be able to narrate how my Hero himself, with his own cunning and power, saved his love *despite* the machinations of the Villain.

Just because the player of the Villain cannot either corrupt the Hero nor kill his Love doesn't mean that the player can't threaten other things of value to the Hero's player.

It does mean that the Villain's player has to be *smarter*, has to know his target audience better.  It's easy and no test of Capes skill to put the love interest of a Hero in jeopardy.  Yawn.  It's more subtle, challenging, and frankly *clever* to find out that the player sitting across from you is a liberal and hates the whole red state thing, and then to build a plot where the villains are in collusion with the conservatives of the City and are tyring to get them elected.

Even when certain things are completely prohibited, the storyline can still go in countless divergent directions.  If you learn to know the other players well enough, you can still come up with threats within the boundaries of what's allowed that impel them to stake debt and reward you with story tokens.

Again, as a story teller and listener, there are certain stories that I NEED to avoid (or need to have happen), and other ones that I WANT to avoid (or want to have happen).  The ones I NEED I have to prevent from having any chance of happening.  That still leaves a nigh infinite number of things I want - and would be happy to stake debt on.

It's the job of the other players to figure out what that is - and I will actively help them if they wish.  After all, I have no problems with paying people story tokens to tell the story I want to hear, and in return I do the same for them.

Another secondary option would be to have some "Cross the line" house rule - that when a player feels that the turn the story has taken has "Crossed the Line" and is now instead of being fun a source of pain and anguish for him (the player, not the character) he has some method to punish the player who made this happen - For example, (and ONLY an example off the top of my head):

Crossing the Line:  when a player feels that the turn the story has taken has "Crossed the Line" and is now instead of being fun a source of pain and anguish for him (the player, not the character), he may invoke this rule against the player that caused this state of affairs.  If he offending player does not relent, rolling back and removing the offending piece of the story, then the offending player receives the following detriments:
-He loses all inspirations and story tokens.
-He is ineligible for receiving inspirations or story tokens for the remainder of this play session.
-The character(s) he is playing are removed from play for the remainder of this session plus 2 more.
-He receives 3 Black Marks.  A Black Mark can be invoked by any player other than the one that invoked the Crossing the Line in which it was generated.  By invoking the Black Mark the player can turn all the dice involved in a Goal the Marked player created to any number he chooses.  If the Marked player would receive story tokens because of another player invoking his Black Mark, he does not.  Invoking a Black Mark usesit up.
>Note:  Invoking the Crossing the Line rule capriciously, or as a tactic, is considered extremely bad form, and any player who invokes the Crossing the Line rule where another acceptable option exists should be shunned by the other players from all future games.  If, however, the invocation of the Crossing the Line is sincere and needed to prevent mental anguish, it should be upheld and the above steps taken.
>Note:  If one player invokes the Crossing the Line rule on another player, and the other player relents, changing the narration into one that does not Cross the Line, the relenting player does keep any story tokens and/or inspirations normally earned in the process.
>Note: this house rule accomplishes something that the Comics Code and the Gloating rules do not:  it prevents players from crossing the line and making hurtful stories without rewarding them for threatening to do so.

So, if the above Crossing the Line disincentive is used as a house rule, it would represent the "nuke" one could, if forced into it, pull it as a last resort.  A player that did so too often would simply be kicked out of the group.  A player that forced someone else to invoke it too often would simply leave the group as he would always be at a disadvantage.

So there are two way to make the mechanics of the game support *some* limits in what can be narrated while still leaving plenty open for exploration and story token rewards.

Either
1) Get more creative in coming up with goals that threaten what the other players WANT, but not what they NEED, or
2) Give the players a safety net so that when the game takes a turn for the hurtful they have recourse apart from being forced out of the game.

Or both.

I think the above 2 options sufficiently explain how can we incentivize a player to create compelling stories for the hero, while protecting the hero and his player from the villain's player taking it too far?

[Sindyr]

So if a player suddenly wants her Villain to have equal success and story line effectiveness as the Heroes, she will be disappointed.  But if she is willing to play the villain as a method to let the Heroes get their storyline told, as well as a nice source of story tokens for her, then she can in turn expect us to play the villain for her so that she gets her time to shine with her Hero as well.

Make sense?

Let me try to wrap my head around what you want.  You want a happy ending, every time, without fail or possibility of failure.  Oh sure, there'll be little stumbles along the way, but at no point will there be a doubt in your mind that all will go well in the end.

There will be plenty of doubts:
-What will we have to go through before the day is saved?
-How will we defeat the baddies?
-Will my Hero be instrumental in this?
-How will the story of my Hero progress?  Just because the villains can't destroy the City, that doesn't mean that the Hero won't struggle to become more than he is - to find and keep love, to do good, etc

If you are saying that I know from the beginning that the overall story will never end tragically, that's true.

I think some people have to have a chance at suffering real pain to be able to enjoy the pleasure of victory.

I am not bound by that limitation.  I take pleasure at the unfolding of a good tale itself.

If you require the threat of pain to enjoy victory, than I wish you well during the periods of pain you will inevitably experience, just as sincerely as you wished me luck in finding people to play catch with. (grin)

Ultimately, a storyteller invests much more of himself into the creation of a story than you or I ever invest into any sport.

I respect that.

[TonyLB]

I cannot partake of a story where the villains have any real success, innocents suffer significant loss, or the good aren't ultimately rewarded and the villains aren't ultimately punished.  If I can't even passively watch that stuff on TV, than I sure as heck can't partake actively in the creation of that kind of story.

This is a hard limit for me.

Okay then.  That's interesting.  Let me put my reply as clearly as I can.

Do.  Not.  Play.  Capes.

Capes rewards a specific kind of bravery which you do not possess.  It rewards you for embracing the possibility of big failure, and fighting battles you may not win.

If you really can't do those things then Capes is exactly the wrong game for you.  You will constantly be denied the rewards of the system, because you can't do the things that would let you reach them.  It will make you miserable, and to the extent that your friends don't share your limits, it will make you angry at your friends.

There is no amount of house-ruling that will fix this problem for you.  What you say you can't do is the core of Capes play.  You're not going to root it out.

I hear good things about Exalted.  Also, some modes of cooperative play in Amber would do a good job of playing to your strengths rather than your weaknesses.

[Sindyr]

Capes rewards a specific kind of bravery which you do not possess.  It rewards you for embracing the possibility of big failure, and fighting battles you may not win.

I am sorry, this was such a personal ad hominem attack coming out of nowhere that it drowned out the rest of what you wrote.

I will ignore the attack and simply say that I have I think demonstrated how Capes can be used to create a storyline within certain boundaries.

Now I understand how you, as the creator, may get tweaked by the idea of someone playing your game in a safe way, because you do not want them to be safe - why, I have no idea.

Take solace in the fact that I will, in all likelihood, be enjoying the heck out of Capes, even if you don't get to tell me exactly how to do it. :)

Like I said, I will do you a favor and ignore that uncharacteristic personal attack, and continue to treat you as a decent fellow and creator of a very intriguing game.

I look forward to my continued explorations of Capes, and will keep you (and everyone else) apprised of my discoveries and questions.

Bravery forsooth, lol.

Thanks, in any case, for your past help as well as your future help.

[TonyLB]

I am sorry, this was such a personal ad hominem attack coming out of nowhere that it drowned out the rest of what you wrote.

Uh ... I was repeating what you said.  It wasn't meant as an attack.

Are you saying that you can get excited about fighting a big battle that you may well lose?  Because you were saying that you couldn't.  So how else am I supposed to interpret that?

[Sindyr]

I *can* get excited about fighting a big battle that I can lose.

I thought I was clear.  I as a story creator have NEEDS and WANTS.  Even if I insist that we all respect each others NEEDS to the point of not allowing the story to cross those boundaries, I can still get excited about fighting for my WANTS.

For example, I may WANT to make this new side character my hero's latest sexual conquest.  I may pursue it vigorously.  I may not be victorious if the other players wish it not to be so - of they may get story tokens off of me by allowing me to be successful after staking debt.

Alternatively, I may WANT my hero to be instrumental in saving the city - but he still may well lose the battle.  My hero may be defeated - but I NEED the city not to be defeated - at least not in a non-fleeting way. So maybe the elder gods step in, defeat the villains themselves, and then publicly inform me that I owe them one - or publicly tell me that here was nothing I could have done differently.

Either way, I was defeated in this big battle that I as a player cared enough to strive to win.

What I was trying to illustrate is that there are a nigh infinite possible Goals that cold be created in which I care greatly about vigorously pursuing that still don't cross the line into something that would be hurtful is failed.

And this I think is the proof that Capes and I could be an excellent match - albeit with a house mod or two.

I have to admit I don't feel guilty about proposing mods - since I have seen so many people here that either use some kind of mod themselves or open discuss mods.

I think the question for me is, can the game be modded to respect the needs of the players to have their boundaries respected while still having tons of play opportunities remain?

And I think the answer seems to be yes.

[TonyLB]

Well, you have fun with that.

Are we done with this thread?

[Sindyr]

A tone of questions of mine have been answered, and when I come up with more questions, ideas, house rules and mods, I can start new threads.  For example, its probably true that the idea of what happens when someone Crosses the Line with their narration probably deserves its own thread, but that can wait for another day.

If you are asking if you have answered all the questions I presented herin, I think you more or less have.  Anything else I need to ask, discuss, or present can go in a new thread if that helps.

What I need more than anything is actual play experience.  Hopefully I will find some.

[Tuxboy]

I cannot partake of a story where the villains have any real success, innocents suffer significant loss, or the good aren't ultimately rewarded and the villains aren't ultimately punished.  If I can't even passively watch that stuff on TV, than I sure as heck can't partake actively in the creation of that kind of story.

This is a hard limit for me.

At the risk of reopening this can of worms I have to ask...Do you even bother rolling dice when you game? If so why? If the end result is already decided, even if it is in a "Deus Ex Machina" the elder gods save the world kind of way, why are you even playing? You might as well play through the scripts of you favorite movies week after week.

If never failing in anything important is that crucial to your enjoyment then as Tony says, DON'T play Capes, it is not the game for you. Power must be earned and your boundaries do not allow for you to earn any, and never will in any group of gamers I have ever gamed with or seen gaming. On the otherhand cooperative storytelling does seem to fit your boundaries and requirements perfectly.

[TonyLB]

Hey, Tuxboy, Sindyr's said that he's done here.  Plus, your tone is particularly combative.  Plus you're asking a question that Sindyr has already answered.

I don't particularly want to break out my Moderator-voice this early in the morning.  Let's just not go there, okay?

[Sindyr]

I will respond to tuxboy privately in order to let this thread go... ;)

[Tuxboy]

NP Tony :)