Wording of Conflicts and Character Control

[jburneko]

Tony,

I completely see your point.  This is Ron's distinction between Furniture and Characters.  So yes, inanimate things and concepts can have an agenda.  I also have no problem with that agenda forcing my character to do stuff if it is WORDED as an agenda.  I have lost the conflict with something trying to exert influence on my character.  This is both realistic (a word I do not use lightly) and narratively interesting.

Jesse

[Zamiel]

Yeah, I know.  That's your ax to grind.  I'm talking to Jesse about something which doesn't really involve you.  'kay?

Its also worth noting that its only meaningful if Wrath is a Spotlight Character and play is going with Spotlight Characters engaged as inviolate.

If Wrath and the Police State are both on the table, with you (Tony) playing TPS, and Jesse playing Wrath, it actually works out quite neatly, in that if Jesse really doesn't want to betray Rebel Sue with Wrath, he can contest the Goal. And since the Conflict itself blocks the betrayal of Rebel Sue until its resolved (unless the betrayal is to another party and doesn't keep her from being betrayed to the Sewer Morlocks), his successful control and Claim at resolution can easily make sure it doesn't occur.

Not contesting your point, Tony, just making sure the intent is both understood by me and explicit.

[Tuxboy]

Your goal would potentially be vetoed by my (if I am playing Wrath) for taking the choice out of my charaters hands.

I think your veto power would only be possible if the Goal read:

"The Police State maneuvers Lt. Wrath into intentionally betraying Rebel Sue to the Sewer Morlocks."

The original wording leaves the possibility of unintentionally, accidentally, or circumstantially betraying her, which does not reflect on the way you play "your" character.

[Zamiel]

I think your veto power would only be possible if the Goal read:

"The Police State maneuvers Lt. Wrath into intentionally betraying Rebel Sue to the Sewer Morlocks."

The original wording leaves the possibility of unintentionally, accidentally, or circumstantially betraying her, which does not reflect on the way you play "your" character.

Technically, since the Goal only specifies the direct actions inviolably of one Character who is the current pawn of the Player bringing the Conflict in, the target has no veto power as such in vanilla Capes. If it were an Event, all Players would have to OK it, and if it were a Goal for Wrath, he'd have the power to negotiate on it, but as its a Conflict that speaks to the intent of another Character just targeting Wrath (and, indirectly, Sue) with its intent, it doesn't seem to require any other validation. If vanilla Capes worked you're suggesting here, then Spidey would be able to veto "Goal: Goblin hurls Spidey off the side of the building and escapes," which would be more than mildly silly.

Now, if you're targeting some mythical reconstruction of the rules that would make Sindyr happy, then, yes, by all he's said, that might give him some mild satisfaction. Though I'm not sure why you'd care, since he's made abundantly clear on multiple levels and in myriad contexts that Capes is almost entirely not a game he'd enjoy or be interested in playing, and moreover has no idea how any of us could enjoy it, either. Which, once made so evident, pretty much gave me the freedom to disengage entirely from the threads save to follow other folks', such as yourself, contributions. I must say, its made following the forum much faster.

[Tuxboy]

Now, if you're targeting some mythical reconstruction of the rules that would make Sindyr happy, then, yes, by all he's said, that might give him some mild satisfaction.

The point I was trying to make was that Sindyr seems to believe that any conflict concerning his character actions is a reflection of his freedom to play that character, but is not that cut and dried when you look at it closely and objectively.

Though I'm not sure why you'd care

I think I care because he has a misconception of the mechanic, and most of his objections are hitched to that. If that can be cleared up maybe he can move on an actually try playing the game, and stop the meaningless speculation on unplayed mechanics and rules.

But maybe there is no point, as you say he has pretty much said that Capes as it stands is not for him *shrugs*

[Hans]

Finally, the least specific, acording to my understanding, you could get would be: Goal: Awaken Spider-man and Harry Osbron's love for each other.  Which says, SOMEONE, is trying to acomplish this but we don't know who.  But we will know who as soon as someone picks up the "For" side die and rolls it in which case this reduces to the Green Goblin case above.

Hi Jesse:

In my own play, I have seen a lot of variety in the way goals are actually written, but there has not yet been a lot of confusion over who gets to veto them.  I think there COULD be goals that are very confusing as to who can veto them, though, and your Spiderman/Green Goblin example is a good one, because it is written like an event, not a goal. 

Because of this thread, in the game I am starting tonight, I am going to recommend that on all Goals the person making the goal underline the person who has the Goal.  So, in the case above, you could have:

(1) Goal: Spiderman falls in love with Harry Osborn

Which is short hand for "Harry Osborn wants Spiderman to fall in love with him" or "Harry Osborn tricks Spiderman into falling in love with him" or similar.  You could also have:

(2) Goal: Spiderman falls in love with Harry Osborn

Which is a bit more complicated...maybe short hand for "Spiderman wants to build up the courage to come out of the closet and admit his love for Harry Osbourn".  Conceivably you could also have:

(3) Goal: Spiderman falls in love with Harry Osborn

Which is more like asking the question "Will Spiderman and Harry admit their love for each other?"  It could represent a third player being nice and giving both Spidey's and Harry's players a chance to veto something he thinks is interesting, but not giving a fourth player the chance to veto, like they would have it were:

(4) Event: Spiderman falls in love with Harry Osborn

The reason I think more formal rules regarding writing goals is probably not necessary is that any goal can usually be worded in such a way to ensure that only one person can veto it.  For example:

(5) Goal: Hobgoblin evades Spiderman and escapes.

Can be vetoed by the Hobgoblin, but

(6) Goal: Spiderman prevents Hobgoblin from escaping

Can be vetoed by Spiderman.

So the underlining thing just allows you to write what comes to mind first and then determine veto power in an obvious way. 

I think that while vetoing is an important game mechanic, there are important story consequences, or at least hints of what should be story consequences, implied by who can veto.  The player who can veto is playing the more "active" character in the conflict.  Therefore, I would say that narratively, this implies that the more "active" party should probably be described as failing if the goal goes against them.  That is, in (5) above, if Spiderman's player gets control of the goal, he should probably describe Hobgoblin failing somehow (his jet thing fails him, his inclination to rave makes him hesitate, etc.).  In (6) above, if Hobgoblin's player gets control, he should describe Spiderman failing (webs give way and he falls, can't keep up with Hobgoblins jet thingy, etc.)  This is not a rule, its just a way of thinking about things that might help keep the story disciplined and coherent.

[Hans]

One more quick point: another reason I am going to suggest the underlining thing is that the rules of narration on resolution are so broad that it seems pointless to quibble over exactly whose goal it is from the wording.  The actual wording is really just a token, a little placeholder that says "something is going to happen in this game which will matter to one of these characters, involving a particular situation".  The only rule mechanic involved, really, is the veto, and the underlining takes care of that.

[TonyLB]

I'll also point out that, in my experience, the veto is much more powerful as a way of indicating apathy than it is as a way of indicating strong objection.

If someone says "Goal:  Green Goblin begs forgiveness" and the Green Goblin's player says "Aw hell no!" then (as folks have rightly pointed out) the proposing player knows that he'll profit from the conflict, so he will just reword it to get around the veto rule.

If someone says "Goal:  Green Goblin escapes to fight another day" and the Green Goblin's player says "Eh ... I think, in this scene, it'd be equally cool if he were captured and put in prison" then the proposing player knows that he won't profit from the conflict, so he'll propose something else.

Both of those are vetoes, but for very different reasons.  One is vetoing the conflict because it leads to a bad outcome, the other is vetoing the conflict because it's not a good conflict.

[drnuncheon]

Just out of curiosity, how do you think the game would change if anybody could veto any goal (just like an event)? 

Is the "popcorn" rule sufficient (at least in a well-adjusted gaming group) to control potential abuses?  "Hey Jim, you've been getting pretty heavy-handed with the veto button there lately."

I suspect you might lose a little bit of the tooth-and-nail fighting over goals, but you would wind up with a situation where all players think that the goal/event will be interesting however it turns out.

J

[Hans]

If someone says "Goal:  Green Goblin escapes to fight another day" and the Green Goblin's player says "Eh ... I think, in this scene, it'd be equally cool if he were captured and put in prison" then the proposing player knows that he won't profit from the conflict, so he'll propose something else.

This is interesting.  Many of the games I have played of Capes would have been much better if people had vetoed for apathy.  It would have kept a lot of frankly pointless and incoherent conflicts from coming in to play.  For some reason, the people I have played with don't seem to do it; I think they feel that it is somehow disrespectful or rude to veto for apathy.  I have also seen people play Goals like the escape one above because they felt somehow they HAD to, like there wasn't really a story without it, not because they found it particularly interesting.  Hmmm....another thing to bring up when we start or long series tonight; don't feel like you are showing respect to another person by letting their boring goal hit the table.

[TonyLB]

Just out of curiosity, how do you think the game would change if anybody could veto any goal (just like an event)?

Well ... I love the sincere "Aw hell no!" moment when a Goal that you absolutely, totally reject hits the table.  "Goal:  Peggy the little girl hostage beats down Gangbuster with her bare hands" ... "Aw HELL NO!"

Now me, personally, I know better than to veto a goal that makes me feel that way.  I've already got the experience of playing through hundreds of those and enjoying them, win or lose.  But wouldn't the veto power be an awful temptation to somebody who hasn't yet learned to relish that sense of sudden, hellfire-hot outrage?

[TonyLB]

Hmmm....another thing to bring up when we start or long series tonight; don't feel like you are showing respect to another person by letting their boring goal hit the table.

Oh yeah.  A veto gives them five seconds of embarassment, then lets them do something else with their turn.  Don't veto and they waste their turn and doom themselves to ten minutes of sad, slow, gradual realization of precisely how much suction their goal is generating.  Much more respectful and helpful to veto immediately for apathy.

[Hans]

I suspect you might lose a little bit of the tooth-and-nail fighting over goals, but you would wind up with a situation where all players think that the goal/event will be interesting however it turns out.

First, keep using the "popcorn" rule thing, please.  I want to someday tell my grandkids I coined a new term in the Forge glossary. :)

I think my quote of you above concisely summarizes the game effect.  It would make the game more cooperative, at the cost of making it less competitive.  

Or would it...vetoing could become a tool for competition as well.  "I veto that goal because it will distract people from this other goal over here, which I stand to gain a lot of stuff from.  Pay attention to me, not him!"  "I veto that goal because it would distract ME from this stuff over here."  It might make the "popcorn" rule MORE necessary, not less.  

[drnuncheon]

Now me, personally, I know better than to veto a goal that makes me feel that way.  I've already got the experience of playing through hundreds of those and enjoying them, win or lose.  But wouldn't the veto power be an awful temptation to somebody who hasn't yet learned to relish that sense of sudden, hellfire-hot outrage?

I'll admit it came to me after reading a lot of Sindyr posts.

I think it's a case of Capes being like...Thai food. Some people love authentic Thai food, but it's too spicy for other people.  They still might enjoy a nice Thai-inspired dish, though.

J

[Sindyr]

Now, if you're targeting some mythical reconstruction of the rules that would make Sindyr happy, then, yes, by all he's said, that might give him some mild satisfaction. Though I'm not sure why you'd care, since he's made abundantly clear on multiple levels and in myriad contexts that Capes is almost entirely not a game he'd enjoy or be interested in playing, and moreover has no idea how any of us could enjoy it, either. Which, once made so evident, pretty much gave me the freedom to disengage entirely from the threads save to follow other folks', such as yourself, contributions. I must say, its made following the forum much faster.

A correction, the actual truth is:
I find Capes to contain amazing and interesting mechanisms, and look forward to exploring its potential use to service my gaming needs, with possibly some alterations along the way.  Apparently the discussion of these potential alterations has upset Zams quite a bit.  Sorry Zams. Proof: unlike some I have observed, I have put my money where my mouth is and bought it. :)

Also, for other proofs, see everything else I have written.

G'day.