Been reading my new pdf, have quesions...

[Sindyr]

I understand a lot of your nervousness, because I've been in the same place.  Sometimes with a character there are things you want to have challenged and changed, and things you don't (because changing them would mean changing the things you find fun about playing the character.)  Whenever you play a character you have to worry about the GM changing the fun things instead of the things you want to have challenged.

I think that their are two categories: things that one NEEDS to have happen or have avoided and things that one WANTS to have happen or have avoided.

I may want my character to defeat the bad guy, but I NEED him not to be maimed or killed by the bad guy.  I may want my char to not be impotent to stop a murder or a theft, but I NEED him NOT to be impotent to stop a rape or torture.

Simarly, I may want the protagonists to be successful, but at the end of an arc I NEED them to be successfull.  I may want to avoid an unpleasant scene or setback, but the overall story itself I NEED to be not unpleasant or depressing.

The WANT categories I think are rife for other players throwing goals on.

The NEED categories I think should be respected by all, and no player, no matter how in the minority, should have their NEEDs overrun.

Obviously, the best thing to do is gets from each player what their needs are before starting play, and write them in as house rules (not comic's codes, which actually encourages almost-conflicts).  However, it is unlikely that such a pre written list will be guaranteed to be comprehensive.

What you are saying is to have some trust that players will respect each other's boundaries, and if they don't, leave the group.

What's wrong with inverting the trust issue?  Let's trust that players won't veto something as crossing a boundary that they NEED to protect unless it really does.  If you believe that someone is lying and using this as a tactic, leave the group.

If we have to have trust as part of the equation, lets give each other the ability to protect ourselves and *then* trust we will not abuse it.

This seems even better than simply trusting that we will not have to protect ourselves.

Again, I must say that this conversation is helping refine the central issues here, for which I am grateful.

Maybe a simple House rule that explicitly permits any player to

[drnuncheon]

Obviously, the best thing to do is gets from each player what their needs are before starting play, and write them in as house rules (not comic's codes, which actually encourages almost-conflicts).

Actually, the Code is the best thing, because then you know that no matter what, it won't happen.

For example: In your Code you have "Characters will not be raped or tortured."  Because of this, no matter what, your character will never be helpless to prevent a rape or a torture.  If the bad guy "wins", the conflict gets rolled back and you get another go at it.

Now, you may be afraid of a situation where, since it's in the code and gives tokens for gloating, people put characters in potential rape or torture situations often.  That's the time for communication. That's when you say, "Jeez, that's getting old, why don't you come up with something more original" or some such - the same way you would if your normal GM used the same plot over and over again.

However, it is unlikely that such a pre written list will be guaranteed to be comprehensive.

That's true.  I always think it's best to have it as a living document, that you can discuss and change between sessions.

If we have to have trust as part of the equation, lets give each other the ability to protect ourselves and *then* trust we will not abuse it.

Mostly because I'm a rules minimalist - I'd rather not have a rule for something until and unless there's a problem that requires it.  Otherwise you'll be there all night thinking of "oh, this bad thing could happen, we need a rule to stop it".  I'm also the kind of person who looks at a rule that says "You can't do X" and says "But why not?" and then starts thinking about situations in which I might want to do X and it'd be perfectly fine.

The other thing is, I game with a couple of groups of people.  The group I play Capes with is the group I implicitly trust.  I'm not worried about my wife or our other player trying to abuse me, so its probably easier for me to see less need for that sort of thing.

J

[Sindyr]

Yeah, the comic's code will keep it from happening.  But if I don't want to experience not only rape as part of the storyline but even the spectre of rape, than the comics code may not be the way to go.

And I was playing with my girlfriend and my best friend then I wouldn't worry to much about it.  I instead will be going to a game store to find some strangers to help me try out this game.

Maybe this game is best played with good friends?

But to play with complete strangers, perhaps just a few extra rules - not too many, just a couple - might make it possible in relative safety.

Just a thought.

[Eetu]

If there was only some way to ensure that, to make it safe to trust one's fellow player, especially since the game's very nature encourages competition.  If it gets no holds barred, who's to say that leaving the explanation till later won't be used against one?  Now that would be a circumstance I don't ever care to experience - it would make me want to throw something a lot heavier than popcorn.

The game encourages competition, but /not/ vicious competition on the story level. Competition mostly, primarily stays on the resource economy level, and there it's actually very beneficial to be sensitive to what the other players want to engage with, and what not. So competition actually mostly encourages story safety and satisfyability for all.

What's wrong with inverting the trust issue?  Let's trust that players won't veto something as crossing a boundary that they NEED to protect unless it really does.  If you believe that someone is lying and using this as a tactic, leave the group.

In practice, with experienced Capes players, there will probably be no noticeable difference in play regardless of which rule is in effect. What goes will be decided in negotiation. However, particularly for people new to Capes, and with experience in "traditional" games, coming in from the known, "safe" side may result in stopping short and not seeing the potential on the other side. i.e. vetoing stuff that they actually could deal with, and that would create good play, because they /think/ they couldn't or wouldn't want to deal with it.

So, beginning Capes play, it's actually good to feel just a little bit unsafe, to go well over the border, chart the foreign land, and maybe even get hurt to find out where the /real/ border is, maybe push it a bit farther than where they previously thought it was.

[Sindyr]

So, beginning Capes play, it's actually good to feel just a little bit unsafe, to go well over the border, chart the foreign land, and maybe even get hurt to find out where the /real/ border is, maybe push it a bit farther than where they previously thought it was.

I have said that I will give it a shot, but I will say again: feeling unsafe and getting hurt is not cool with me, I loathe it, I hate it, its awful.

So, if you and others like it I will not stand i your way - but if I decide its just not fun, please don't expect me to lay down at the sacrificial altar.

Just off the top of my head

[TonyLB]

I have said that I will give it a shot, but I will say again: feeling unsafe and getting hurt is not cool with me, I loathe it, I hate it, its awful.

LOL.  Man, you're gonna get hammered by any player who is willing to make themselves unsafe.  Hammered.  I can only offer my sympathies in advance.

I mean, seriously ... here's a player (we'll call him George) who wants to feel safe and avoid getting hurt.  And then there's a player (we'll call him Tony, because he's me!) who wants to be unsafe and to put important stuff out there for people to try to take away from him.  And then there's Carl, who gets to choose which character to gun for.

George:  Those bank robbers look pretty serious.  I'm narrating, and I say that they don't have any hostages.  All the innocent bystanders have been cleared from the building.  I'll introduce "Goal:  Raptor looks good on television capturing villains."  I don't really care about Raptor, so if it goes wrong that's okay with me.
Tony:  Major Victory glares at the bank and the robbers inside.  "By the pendulous patriotic paunch of Andrew Jackson!  It burns my blood to see these criminals trying to make off with the hard-earned money of the people of Steadfast City!  Wait!  What's that I spy?  Ace reporter Trudy Trueheart is sneaking into the bank in search of front-page-worthy photos!  I'm torn between my loving admiration of her spunk and moxie and my deep concern for her safety!  The only thing to do is to rescue her from her own reckless nature!  Surely that will make her love me the way I love her!"  I create "Goal:  Show Trudy Trueheart that I am the man of her dreams by rescuing her from peril!"
Carl:  Oh ... you can't think that I'm leaving that alone.  You want to lose that one, don't you?
Tony:  Lose it!  Madness!  Trudy means everything to me.  I've got two points of Love Debt that says that Iron Brain will never lay a finger on Trudy.
Carl:  Oh yeah?  I've got three points of Pride Debt that says that Iron Brain will be the one who rescues Trudy from peril and shows her that he's the man of her dreams.
Tony:  See her in thrall to my archnemesis?  Never!
Carl:  Big words.  Somehow I doubt you'll be able to back them up.  Trudy will be Iron Brain's love-slave.
Tony:  You FIEND!  He's a brain in a cybernetic jar!  What's he even going to do with a woman like Trudy?
Carl:  Oh, they have attachments for everything these days.
Tony:  Oh that's just WRONG!  You will never succeed!  I won't allow it!

This seems so incredibly obvious to me.  George isn't offering Carl any opportunity to make an impact on anything he cares about.  Tony is offering Carl the chance to totally undermine Trudy's character and MV's pride, both of which Tony cares about intensely, if only Carl can win the conflict.  If you were Carl, which of the two would pique your interest?

[Sindyr]

Tony - I think having you in my game would *make* me safe - everyone would go after you!

(heh heh)

Wasn't sure if you were still following what may seem to you to be either my annoying criticisms or my complete dedication to self-protection.

I feel grateful to see that you seem to be continuing to follow my postings even after all my doubts.

When it comes to stories, or really anything in my life, I do it seriously, intensely, and with full commitment.  I couldn't help tell a story of heroes and villains without really caring about the story, the world, and what goes on.  It's fun, exhilarating, but not just a light-hearted goof.

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.

I love these sorts of scene, emotionally charged.  But I *live* these stories, and cannot abide to live through a story in which my hero is forced to villainy by someone else's choice, nor a story where making the right decision (not to torture) actually causes innocents to be harmed.

In this case, if I were controlling the hero, I would reluctantly refrain from torturing the villain - although I would try every other thing - even asking for help from the Dominator (see above) to save my hero's love.

If that all failed, then my hero would be devastated by thinking that he caused the death of his loved one by refusing to stop to villainy... but only for a short while until he found out that he got lucky, and that his love still lives.

Then maybe the hero has a conversation with his love about whether they stay together given the risks...

*That's* a good story IMO.  The story of a my hero torturing a villain, or the story of my hero's love being killed by a villain are not.  Threatened, yes, but killed, no.

I never want to see a good story or any recreational activity turn into something that causes me anguish.

Hope that makes sense to you.

I guess it's all about need versus want.  I am happy to fight for what I want, but I won't fight for what I need - I will simply take it.

The good news is that I think there is much I have to offer Capes within the boundaries of what I want, even if what I need is completely off limits.

[Sindyr]

George:  Those bank robbers look pretty serious.  I'm narrating, and I say that they don't have any hostages.  All the innocent bystanders have been cleared from the building.  I'll introduce "Goal:  Raptor looks good on television capturing villains."  I don't really care about Raptor, so if it goes wrong that's okay with me.

FYI: I don't mind the robbers taking hostages, or innocent bystanders being put seemingly at risk.  I mention this because I think you had me as George.  I also don't mind throwing down goals that threaten what *other* players hold dear, if that is what they want from me.  What I don't want is (for example) someone narrating how my hero opens fire on the villains, placing the hostages at risk.  I also don't want there to be any actually chance that anyone will be truly maimed or killed, nor that the villains do not ultimately get their comeuppance.

I just want it to be a good story with a happy ending. (grin)

So if you relish me playing "Goal: The villain soundly beats and leaves unconscious Major Victory", than I will. I will also offer to withdraw that Goal if it doesn't appeal to you.  I may also try to play "Event: the police arrive... and are found to be in league with the villains", with permission.

I appreciate the dramatic tension.  I appreciate that putting heroes and innocents in apparent danger or risk of some kind or another drives the story.  But that doesn't mean that the *players* can't know that somehow by the end everything will work out for the best.

I am not trying to make boring stories, I am simply trying to create a safety net for the players (not the characters) as to what happens with the story.

[TonyLB]

Tony - I think having you in my game would *make* me safe - everyone would go after you!

Well, yeah.  That's what I was saying.  Now, after a few scenes, how many story tokens do you think you'll have?  How many story tokens will I have?

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 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?

[Sindyr]

Tony -

that's a helluva good question.  I am going to have to ponder this a bit.  Will reply asap - prolly tomorrow.

[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?

OK, let me ask a few questions about the intent of what you asked.

When you say what's left as a goal, do you mean:
1) <story creation-wise> Why would the villain's player create for the hero this storyline when she knows she will not be able to either make the hero fall or make him suffer the loss of his love? 
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?
3) <mechanic instance> Or are you asking, given the fact that she cannot lay down a Goal forcing either of the two verboten acts (hero falls or love interest dies) what actual specific Goal(s) would it make sense for her to lay down in it's place?

Those are all interesting questions, and some have easier answers than others, but instead of going off in three separate directions at once, could you (at least to start with) help me understand more specifically in what way you are asking "What impact does she get to have?"?  Then I can begin to address what you asked instead of what I think you may have meant with that question.

[TonyLB]

I'm asking questions #1 and #2.  I know the answer to #3:  if George uses vetoes and such to build a situation where Carl can't have an impact then Carl won't try a different goal on George at all.  Carl will go to Tony, who's left lots of room for an adversary to play.  And then, if things don't change, Carl and Tony will accumulate more story tokens and resources, and they'll be running the story of their characters, and George will be 90% spectator.

[TonyLB]

Oh man, and I just realized (glancing back over the thread) that I crossed my wires on Major Victory's patriotic line.  It's the pendulous paunch of William Taft, of course.

Andrew Jackson (as Ben Lehman so memorably informed me) will rise again to send evil on a new trail of tears.

You gotta get these things right.

[Sindyr]

I'm asking questions #1 and #2.  I know the answer to #3:  if George uses vetoes and such to build a situation where Carl can't have an impact then Carl won't try a different goal on George at all.  Carl will go to Tony, who's left lots of room for an adversary to play.  And then, if things don't change, Carl and Tony will accumulate more story tokens and resources, and they'll be running the story of their characters, and George will be 90% spectator.

OK, I have a *different* answer for number three, but lets focus on what you asked.

1) <story creation-wise> Why would the villain's player create for the hero this storyline when she knows she will not be able to either make the hero fall or make him suffer the loss of his love?

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.

Basically, if she wants to create a story with elements of risk for the *hero* (not the player of the hero) than she would be willing to create this storyline which has that.  On the other hand, if she (the player of the villain) really wants to tell a tale of the fall or the failure of the hero to save his love, then I don't WANT her to  do that.

So, story-wise, the answer to what impact she get to have is she gets help write a story, embrace her creativity, and really express herself, within just a few limitations.  Freedom does not mean without limitation of anykind.  We are not free to kill one another in real life, but we are nonetheless considered free as a whole.

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?

To my way of think, this and this alone is the crux, the fly in the ointment of what I might like to do.  Because story token are the game mechanic incentive for getting people to create for us the stories we want, right?

To help answer this questions, let me pose to you a slightly off topic, but I think related, question.

If at the beginning of the scene two of the three players choose ordinary, non super characters to play, and I am the lone super, why would I create for either of the other two players storylines that would suit them?  After all, as non supers, they cannot acquire and stake debt so I have no hope of gaining tokens from them.  For that matter, if the rest of the players are playing non supers, and I am the lone super, what's the point in my continuing at all?  Mechanically, the goal of the game is acquisition of story tokens, and to a lesser degree, inspirations - but mainly tokens.

Side unrelated question: What would happen if all abilities were super powers?  Or if normal abilities could only be used once, but cost debt?

Anyways, the answer of some of the above will help me better answer #2 for you.

[TonyLB]

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?

To my way of think, this and this alone is the crux, the fly in the ointment of what I might like to do.  Because story token are the game mechanic incentive for getting people to create for us the stories we want, right?

Well, that and inspirations.  They aren't unequal resources.  There's a natural concentration, in talking about the game, on the techniques for getting Story Tokens.  This is because Inspirations flow from the type of play (seeking success, rejecting failure) that we're all familiar with already.  Story Tokens take some learning, and so we talk about them more.  That doesn't make them more important, just more famous.

If at the beginning of the scene two of the three players choose ordinary, non super characters to play, and I am the lone super, why would I create for either of the other two players storylines that would suit them?

You wouldn't.  You'd create conflicts you can win, and press home your massive advantage (debt will, in the long term, guarantee victory over normals) to quickly accumulate massive Inspirations.