With Great Power - Questions

[klausok]

I have just bought and read With Great Power. It seems very interesting. I think I will try running a story with it.

There are a couple of things I would like to know before I do so.

(If any of these have already been answered, I apologise. I have looked at likely topics, but I have not read  them all.)

1 Can several heroes team up one villain? What happens if they do? I think the same character taking part in two more or less independent battles simultaneously would look rather odd on the page. And what happens if the stakes are contradictory? E.g. hero A defeated the villain, so the villain goes to jail. Simultaneously the villain defeated hero B, so the villain takes hero B back to his HQ.

2 The GM takes control of devastated aspects. Does that only mean that the GM and not player controls their suffering? Or can the hero no longer use them at all?

An example: our shining hero has only one power aspect. This has now been devastated. In a conflict, the GM plays the 10 of diamonds and says "The villain blasts you with his villain blast." Using power, in other words. The player has the queen of diamonds in his hand. Can he play it? If yes, what would the page show?

3 The rules say that something that looks like an aspect but cannot suffer can be used as color text. What does that mean? Unshakable convictions can be role played, of course, but what about other kinds of aspects? Can you have a power that you can never lose no matter what, for example?

4 According to the rules, the GM should always select stakes that further the plan. But stakes have no influence on the plan. You advance the plan by winning conflicts and increasing the suffering of strife aspects. Stakes don't come into it.

You can further the plan by choosing stakes so unpalatable to the hero that the player voluntarily increases the suffering of his conflict aspect rather than lose the conflict. But that relates to the hero's motivations, not directly to the plan.

[Michael S. Miller]

HI! Thanks for the questions.

1 Can several heroes team up one villain? What happens if they do? I think the same character taking part in two more or less independent battles simultaneously would look rather odd on the page. And what happens if the stakes are contradictory? E.g. hero A defeated the villain, so the villain goes to jail. Simultaneously the villain defeated hero B, so the villain takes hero B back to his HQ.

Certainly, heroes can team up against a single villain. Dr. Doom & Magneto never appear any other way, right? Just take a moment while setting Stakes to check for contradictions. And remember, that in the world of superheroes, things that might have seemed contradictions can actually come to pass. Check out the 2nd question in this thread for an example of that.

2 The GM takes control of devastated aspects. Does that only mean that the GM and not player controls their suffering? Or can the hero no longer use them at all?

An example: our shining hero has only one power aspect. This has now been devastated. In a conflict, the GM plays the 10 of diamonds and says "The villain blasts you with his villain blast." Using power, in other words. The player has the queen of diamonds in his hand. Can he play it? If yes, what would the page show?

That depends on how the Devastation was inked. It may have been inked as "My powers are now wildly out of control" or something like that, which just means that there wouldn't be an issue, as long as the panel's pencilling and inking included the "out of control" stuff.

If the Devastation were inked as an outright "hero loses his powers," like in Superman 2, then you're going to require a bit more imagination. Y'see, the conflict system is designed to hinge on the players and their cards, not the decisions of the characters. Removing the option to play that Queen of Diamonds in your example is seriously disempowering the player, and shouldn't happen. But, "Using a Power" is still "Using a Power." How to reconcile that dilemma?

I suggest being a little more flexible with the definition of "Using a Power" in this case. Try tthinking along the lines of "How could the hero's powers help him escalate this conflict without actually using them?" So "Straining every muscle to make the leap, I push the villain's blasting hand down. The blast hits the ground, causing shards of rock to pummel the villain. <grabs Thought Balloon> 'Thank goodness all those hours training with my powers taught me how to handle a rampaging blaster! But I can't keep this up forever! I've got to get my powers back!'" See how the Thought Balloon bit ties the move into the hero's power? Plus, the hero is using the Villian's power against him. The characteristic of conflict only says "Using a power" not "Using your power."

3 The rules say that something that looks like an aspect but cannot suffer can be used as color text. What does that mean? Unshakable convictions can be role played, of course, but what about other kinds of aspects? Can you have a power that you can never lose no matter what, for example?

Did you see Spiderman 2? Peter's got this conflict of living in this crappy apartment with this mean landlord. The landlord is in maybe two scenes. The landlord isn't important enough to the story to be a full-blown Aspect. The story isn't about "Do I fight crime or get evicted?" But, he's still there as color text.

As for a power that you can't lose, it sounds to me like the player is trying to abuse the system. That's why I urge folks to list all their powers into a single aspect. How often does Superman's icy-cold breath come up? Hardly ever. But when he loses all his Kryptonian abilities, we know he can't do the icy-breath thing, either.

Do you have an actual play example of this? I've never run into this problem in actual play.

4 According to the rules, the GM should always select stakes that further the plan. But stakes have no influence on the plan. You advance the plan by winning conflicts and increasing the suffering of strife aspects. Stakes don't come into it.

You can further the plan by choosing stakes so unpalatable to the hero that the player voluntarily increases the suffering of his conflict aspect rather than lose the conflict. But that relates to the hero's motivations, not directly to the plan.

You need to think about the aspect called "THE PLAN" and the Villain's Plan that your write up in chapter 5 as two slightly different things. The Plan Aspect is just what the villain wants to acheive. Both the villain and the Plan Aspect are fictional things. They don't exist.

The plan you craft (of which the Plan Aspect is a part) is your "plan of action" as a GM. It focuses on stuff the real world players are interested in, and what you, as a person playing the game, are going to do to make a story that everyone's interested in. When I say Stakes should further the plan, I'm talking about this "GM plan of action." If you make uninteresting Stakes, the game will be uninteresting and unfun. THe "GM's plan of action" is a tool to guide you in the creation of interesting Stakes. Make Stakes to advance both plans and I assure you that the players will sit up and take notice. Both plans look very similar, and that's because the GM plays the villains in WGP...

[klausok]

Thanks for your answers.

You ask:

Do you have an actual play example of this? I've never run into this problem in actual play.

No, I have no experience with play. I have just read the rules, and have almost decided to run a game with them.

I have two more questions.

First, I just don't get how the various kinds of scene relate. Here are three different impressions I have had when reading the rules and thinking about them afterwards:

1 The game consists of a series of enrichment and conflict scenes. The GM decides which kind is next.

2 The game consists of a series of enrichment scenes. Any of these will turn into a conflict scene if someone picks a fight.

3 The main flow of the game consists of a series of scenes of a type not named in the rules. I think of them as standard scenes. These are controlled by the GM. Any of these will turn into a conflict scene if someone picks a fight. Interspersed between these are a number of special scenes called enrichment scenes. They are special in that they are usually controlled by a player, not the GM. These can not turn into conflict scenes.

Is any of these close to how he game is intended to be played?

Second there is the ranking card. How do you determine which is the ranking card when there are several identical cards on the table? It seems clear that in the case of cancellation the last played card i ranking. But what if you escalate up to a copy of a card already played? It might not come up often, but it could.

[Thor Olavsrud]

There are two types of scenes: Enrichment Scenes and Conflict Scenes.

1. Go around the table and give everyone, including the GM (playing the villains) an Enrichment scene.

2. When finished, does anyone (including the GM) want to initiate a Conflict Scene? If yes, start a Conflict and ask who wants to be involved. If  no, repeat step 1.

Make sense?

The ranking card is the highest card of the current suit that is currently face up on the Conflict Page. As long as that suit is active, every card of that suit played must be equal to or higher than that card. If the new card is higher than the ranking card, then it becomes the ranking card. If the new card is equal to the ranking card, you are considered to have played a block. You flip over your opponent's version of the card (to make it clear that your card is now the ranking card) and then take a card from your opponent's hand.

It goes something like this:
1. I play a 6 Spades. You play an 8 Spades. (8 Spades is the ranking Spades and it is on your side of the conflict).

2. I change suits  to Diamonds by playing a 4 Diamonds and 7 Diamonds. The 7 Diamonds is discarded. You respond with 9 Diamonds. (9 Diamonds is the ranking Diamonds and it is on your side of the conflict).

3. I play 10 Diamonds. You respond by changing suits to Hearts by playing a 10 Hearts and a Jack Hearts. The Jack Hearts is discarded. (10 Hearts is now the ranking Hearts and it is on your side of the conflict. 10 Diamonds is the ranking Diamonds and it is on my side of the conflict; however, it is not currently the active suit).

4. I change suits back to Diamonds. I play 3 Diamonds and 8 Diamonds, discarding the 8 Diamonds. However, my 10 Diamonds is the ranking Diamonds on the table. You must beat the 10 Diamonds, not the 3 Diamonds. You play Queen Diamonds. (Queen Diamonds is now the ranking Diamonds, and it is on your side of the conflict).

5. I change suits to Hearts. Your 10 Hearts is the ranking Hearts on the table. I need to beat it to play Hearts. I play Jack Hearts and Queen Hearts. My Queen Hearts is discarded. You decide you cannot beat my Hearts at the moment. You change suits back to Diamonds. You play the 4 Diamonds and the 5 Diamonds. The 5 Diamonds is discarded. Your Queen Diamonds is the ranking Diamonds and it is now active, despite the fact that 4 Diamonds was your most recent play. (Queen Diamonds is the ranking Diamonds on the table, and it is on your side of the conflict. Jack Hearts is the ranking Hearts on the table, and it is on my side of the conflict. However, the Hearts suit is currently inactive.)

Does that make sense?

[klausok]

Thanks for the reply.

Yes, your answers make sense. I can't make your answer to the first question fit what the rules say, but I guess it would work.

As for the second question

4. I change suits back to Diamonds. I play 3 Diamonds and 8 Diamonds, discarding the 8 Diamonds. However, my 10 Diamonds is the ranking Diamonds on the table. You must beat the 10 Diamonds, not the 3 Diamonds.

This was the bit I had overlooked. I thought you just needed to beat the card just played.

[yogshog]

Which brings up a question one of my players asked during our "group - playtest" (that is, not a playtest contributing to the creator necessarily, but testing it to see if we like it) of WGP and I answered with my intuition, but now I realize I'm not sure: If Bob has an Ace of Hearts on his page, and the GM changed suits rather than blocking it, there is no way to negate Bob's hold over hearts on this page, right? Nothing (not even a wild card) can beat the Ace, except another Ace (or wild) played as a Block/Cancel and effectively stolen, right? A later Ace of Hearts could not be played on that page by the GM.

Or am I misinterpreting?

[Thor Olavsrud]

I'd have to go back over my text to give you a 100% answer, but I'm reasonably sure there's no such restriction. The GM should be able to cancel Bob's Ace of Hearts by playing two Aces of Hearts to change suit back to Hearts. He'd discard one, play the other, and take a card from Bob's hand (for the cancel).

It could also be done with an Ace of Hearts and a Wild Card, or two Wild Cards. The Wild Cards could also be defined as higher than an Ace (I believe, though again I'd have to check).

This stuff flies fast and heavy in the end game, when everyone has tons of Wild Cards due to Devastated aspects.

[Michael S. Miller]

Thor, as usual, is absolutely right on all points, save his very last one. In a conflict scene, Ace is the highest rank. The "higher-than-Ace" only exists in Enrichment scenes. It's only purpose is to give sufficient weight to wild cards in Enrichment.

Everything else Thor has said in this thread is 100% correct.

[yogshog]

Either I was not clear in my writing the question, you didn't understand it, or I don't understand your answer. Are you saying that if I play an Ace of Hearts on a panel, and the other person in the conflict CHANGES THE SUIT AWAY in his/her response, he can later come back and retroactively cancel my ace? Or he can play two aces of hearts on my 10 of diamonds later to cancel my action? I don't see how that's covered in the text; under "cancel" it specifically states that you have to match the card just played, doesn't it?

[Michael S. Miller]

under "cancel" it specifically states that you have to match the card just played, doesn't it?

You're absolutely right! You've discovered a piece of errata! Since we don't hand out No Prizes, we'll just have to name this piece or errata after you. Thus, I give you the Yoshog Errata:

On page 71, the last complete paragraph on the page, right after "how to script it" should read:

Do you have a card of the same rank and suit as the current ranking card?

In your proposed example, the answer is YES, your opponent can retroactively cancel your Ace if they have another Ace. Happens a lot, actually, and makes conflict sings nicely unpredictable.

[klausok]

I see two problems with the new wording of the rule:

The ranking card is defined in the rules as the highest card in the suit last played. So if the last card played was not a hearts, the ace of hearts is not the ranking card.

And if you allow a "ranking card" in each suit, this wording seems to let you change back to hearts with just one card. Is this your intention?

Another question concerning this rule:

If I have an ace of hearts on the table, and I change back to hearts with a five, this play can be cancelled with an ace. Can it also be canceled with five?

[Michael S. Miller]

I see two problems with the new wording of the rule:

The ranking card is defined in the rules as the highest card in the suit last played. So if the last card played was not a hearts, the ace of hearts is not the ranking card.

And if you allow a "ranking card" in each suit, this wording seems to let you change back to hearts with just one card. Is this your intention?

No. That's not right. You've got the Ace of Hearts. I change to diamonds using 9 & 10 of diamonds. 10 goes away and the ranking card is currently 9 of diamonds.

You change it back to hearts using a 5 & 9 of hearts. The 9 goes away, the 5 sits on the table. However, the highest heart on the table is the Ace, which belongs to you, so that's the current ranking card.

If I can't cancel the Ace, I must change suit or yield. I cannot cancel the 5 of hearts because it's not the ranking card.

Let's say I play the 2 & 3 of diamonds. 3 goes away, 2 sits on teh page, 9 of diamonds is still the ranking card.

You play the Jack of Diamonds. It's now the ranking card.

I do an Assessment and draw and Ace of Hearts and a wild card. I could play the wild as an Ace of Diamonds, or I could define it as the Ace of Hearts, and play it together with my natural Ace of Hearts to change suit. By changing suit, the ranking card is no longer the Jack of Diamonds, but the Ace of Hearts. If I only had an Ace and another card, I couldn't do this. Since I have 2 Aces of Hearts, one goes away to pay for the change of suit, and the other cancels your Ace of Hearts. I steal a card from your hand and ink how your last action (the one you described when you played the Jack of Diamonds) comes to no real effect.

You need to pay attention to the current ranking card, as well as what the ranking card will be the moment you change the suit.

Clear?

[klausok]

Clear?

Yes. It is also rather complicated. I suggest that you explain it in detail on your errata sheet. The few words you used in your answer to yogshog are not enough. I also suggestthat you give several examples.

Thanks for the answers.

Klaus O K

[yogshog]

In your proposed example, the answer is YES, your opponent can retroactively cancel your Ace if they have another Ace. Happens a lot, actually, and makes conflict sings nicely unpredictable.

Aha.

This may also explain why I was trouncing my players enough to transform a mess of their aspects (as mentioned in the thread started by me)

[klausok]

One more question, and I think I will be ready to run a game.

I am still not sure I understand how the distinction between enrichment scenes and conflict scenes is meant to work.

In all the examples in the book, enrichment scenes concern only the hero's (or heros') own characters. Either their relationships, or a few defeat and forget thugs. No-one connected to the real villain.

Is that a rule?

Let me put the question in a more concrete way:

The example on page 81 ends with Nate announcing that his character, Noir, will rescue Pearl in the next scene.

If Nate now starts his next enrichment scene with: "I decrease the suffering of Pearl by liberating her", is it certain that she will end the scene free? Or could the GM pick a fight, turning the scene into a conflict scene? Or does doing against the wishes of the villain like that in itself constitute picking a fight? Or could the GM set her recapture as his stake?