Boundaries and the meta-game - and Capes

[TonyLB]

Or they may without being judged politely inform him that he can come or go as he likes, but the purpose of this group is watching SciFi and that all this group wants to watch when they get together.

But ... they'd be mistaken, right?  Because Doyle is part of that group.  So clearly "The Group" is conflicted.  Its members don't, universally, want to watch SciFi (or play four-color).  It is made up of people with different opinions, different voices. 

Unless, of course, you're saying that Doyle never becomes a member of the group.  Is that what you're saying?

Or are you saying that it is possible for "The Group" to want something, even when individual members of the group actually want something completely different?

[Sydney Freedberg]

Sindyr, there's a brilliant essay by Meguey Baker that you should read (on her blog "Fair Game") that takes on a lot of these questions. Basically she divides styles of play into two philosophies, "Nobody Gets Hurt" -- which I suspect is your preference -- and "I Will Not Abandon You [i.e., even if we hurt each other]."

That said, I'd suggest you're thinkin' way too hard about this. Go find some folks and play! In real life, a little patience and openness to other people's ideas can keep a group humming despite, or perhaps because of, creative tensions that look completely irreconcilable in theory.

[Sindyr]

Or they may without being judged politely inform him that he can come or go as he likes, but the purpose of this group is watching SciFi and that all this group wants to watch when they get together.

But ... they'd be mistaken, right?  Because Doyle is part of that group.  So clearly "The Group" is conflicted.  Its members don't, universally, want to watch SciFi (or play four-color).  It is made up of people with different opinions, different voices. 

Unless, of course, you're saying that Doyle never becomes a member of the group.  Is that what you're saying?

Or are you saying that it is possible for "The Group" to want something, even when individual members of the group actually want something completely different?

No I think what I am saying makes sense.  Let me try to break it down.

Group wants to play Capes.

Doyle asks to join Group - group tells him that its a Capes playing Group.  He asks is they would consider playing D&D - they say not at this time.  Doyle joins anyways.

By the act of joining, Doyle is accepting the groups pre-existing rules, purposes, etc.  It would be irrational for him to join, and then immediately pull out his D&D character sheet and try to play D&D with them.

Now lets say that later on Brad (another founding member of the Capes Group) gets tired of Capes (sacrilege!) and remembers that Doyle wanted to play D&D at first.  Brad may ask the group, "You know, I am tired of Capes for now - lets play that game Doyle likes, D&D"

Now perhaps Doyle loves Capes at this point.  He no longer wants to play D&D.  And perhaps the other members want to keep playing Capes as well. This means that Brad has two options - take a break from the group or keep playing Capes.

What if Doyle still wants to play D&D?  Now two members of the group want to play D&D.  Supposing the rest of the group wants to keep playing Capes under the original purpose, they can.  Now Brad and Doyle have choices to make: stay and play Capes? Split off and play D&D? Its up to them.

When you join a group you implicitly agree to the basic tenets of the group - or else, you haven't really joined. Any member including you can leave at any time to seek their bliss elsewhere, but you really can never demand a group change to serve you.  All you can do is find a better group.

You can ask a group to consider a change, but if members of the group choose to continue along the current way of doing things, one cannot fault them.  Nor can they fault you if you find your fulfilment lies elsewhere.

[Sindyr]

Sindyr, there's a brilliant essay by Meguey Baker that you should read (on her blog "Fair Game") that takes on a lot of these questions. Basically she divides styles of play into two philosophies, "Nobody Gets Hurt" -- which I suspect is your preference -- and "I Will Not Abandon You [i.e., even if we hurt each other]."

That said, I'd suggest you're thinkin' way too hard about this. Go find some folks and play! In real life, a little patience and openness to other people's ideas can keep a group humming despite, or perhaps because of, creative tensions that look completely irreconcilable in theory.

I will check it out.

I desperately want to play this game!!  I just don't have anyone local yet to play with - but I continue looking.

And while I wait, all I can do is think about the rules, styles, and all other things Capes. (grin)

Maybe I'm a teensy weensy bit obsessive.

Maybe. (grin)

[Sindyr]

Read it.

O my god!  Good essay.

I am definitely a NGH player - I like exploring around the boundaries of what's *comfortable* - ie as a GM I like to take people OUT of their comfort zones - but I am committed  to not taking them to a hurtful place.

One example:  One of my past players was a shy type - more of a follower than a leader.  So I gave her a leadership role in the game - which she (with some in game persuading) accepted.  But I never abandoned her, and always had an eye on her comfort level, ready to step in with help should any real anxiety surface.

I suspect most of the other players here are IWNAY players.  And my fundamental point is that okay if all the other players are also IWNAY players.  Like Meguey says, it's when you mix NGH players with IWNAY players that you get trouble.

But I also think its perfectly acceptable for a NGH Capes player to seek out other NGH Capes players - and to limit membership in their game to other NGH types.

Mind you, there are variants of both of the above.  One of my favorite subtypes of NGH is best stated in a response on Meguey's thread:

...I've seen and participated in To The Pain, too. This deal is basically a variant on Nobody Gets Hurt - I will push you, maybe past your boundaries, but I will back off when you tell me to. In return, you will only tell me to back off when it hurts, not just when it's hard.

That's basically the way I intend to play Capes.

Good catch.

One other point - I wonder if even IWNAY players will withdraw, lash out, or otherwise disengage if pushed far enough.  It's hard for me to believe that even a IWNAY player has no limits.

I mean, the kinds of things I would imagine that a IWNAY player would find inappropriate I could never do - but I *could* imagine what they are.

Or do you really think a IWNAY player exists that has no limits or boundaries at all?

I can't imagine such a thing.

[TonyLB]

When you join a group you implicitly agree to the basic tenets of the group - or else, you haven't really joined.

Are you saying that the only way to resolve conflicts and continue together as a group is to reach consensus?

That, in short, differences of opinion will inherently (indeed, by definition) fracture the group?

[TonyLB]

But I also think its perfectly acceptable for a NGH Capes player to seek out other NGH Capes players - and to limit membership in their game to other NGH types.

LOL!  "NGH Capes."  Heh....

That's right up there with playing "Strong-willed My Life with Master" or "Vegetarian All Flesh Must be Eaten."  Which is to say, sure, you can try it but the rules system is going to fight you tooth and nail every step of the way, so why?

In all seriousness, why not go play Primetime Adventures?  It'll suit you to a tee.

[Sindyr]

When you join a group you implicitly agree to the basic tenets of the group - or else, you haven't really joined.

Are you saying that the only way to resolve conflicts and continue together as a group is to reach consensus?

That, in short, differences of opinion will inherently (indeed, by definition) fracture the group?

I am saying that *unresolvable* differences of opinion will fracture the group.

[Sindyr]

But I also think its perfectly acceptable for a NGH Capes player to seek out other NGH Capes players - and to limit membership in their game to other NGH types.

LOL!  "NGH Capes."  Heh....

I am glad to have brought joy into your day.  Even among the unique (such as Forgers) I tend to be unique. ;)

That's right up there with playing "Strong-willed My Life with Master" or "Vegetarian All Flesh Must be Eaten."  Which is to say, sure, you can try it but the rules system is going to fight you tooth and nail every step of the way, so why?

You sound like the shoemaker upset that I am using the wrong kind of shoes - when for me, they are what I choose. ;)

But there are (at least) 2 specific reasons which I have said  a few times before:
1) I like the idea of a competitive storytelling game.  NGH is NOT equal to disliking competition.
2) I actually like poking at the boundaries of my comfort zone - I don't mind being uncomfortable from time to time as long as I can call a halt if the boundary gets crossed from uncomfortable to anguished.

NGH play is simply the choice to respect another players boundaries.  There is no reason for it to be incompatible with Capes - although I quite understand that you, Tony, are passionately committed to IWNAY play and perhaps do not want NGH players to enjoy your game?  Or maybe you just can't see how a competitive NGH player *could* enjoy your game.

But I *can* see how to enjoy your game, and I look forward to it.

In all seriousness, why not go play Primetime Adventures?  It'll suit you to a tee.

I don't know the game you are recommending so I can't say if this is in jest or seriousness.  I have never heard of Primetime Adventures - although I own over a hundred rpgs...

In any case, even if PA is some kind of real and interesting game, it make Capes no less interesting to me, so I am afraid you may have to be reigned to some NGH'ers playing it.

[Andrew Cooper]

Sindyr,

I don't think Tony's saying that your style or preferences of play aren't perfectly valid or good ways to play.  As the designer, he's pointing out that he didn't design the game to support that style of play and probably even designed parts of the game to specifically discourage that kind of play.  Having played the game a bit now, I certainly agree with him.  My advice...  Play the game the way the designer intended.  It works that way.  You'll spend a whole lot of time and energy trying to cut and patch the game to satisfy another style when you'd be better off just finding a game that supports the style you want.  Trying to play Capes in a manner it wasn't designed to support is like trying to drive a nail with a screwdriver.  Sure you can do it but it'd be easier to just find a hammer.

[TonyLB]

I am saying that *unresolvable* differences of opinion will fracture the group.

Your reasoning is in danger of getting circular here, depending on how you define "resolve."  Like, if you said "An issue is resolved if people can continue without fracturing the group."  Let's avoid that, shall we?

Are you saying that a group who cannot reach consensus (everybody agrees on what is right and what is wrong) on an important issue must fracture (or, perhaps, already is fractured, and not a group at all)?

[Garg]

But I also think its perfectly acceptable for a NGH Capes player to seek out other NGH Capes players - and to limit membership in their game to other NGH types.

LOL!  "NGH Capes."  Heh....

That's right up there with playing "Strong-willed My Life with Master" or "Vegetarian All Flesh Must be Eaten."  Which is to say, sure, you can try it but the rules system is going to fight you tooth and nail every step of the way, so why?

I'm a bit confused by this assertion.  The rules allow for IWNAY play, definitely even encourage it...  But I wouldn't say it's as integral as your response implies.  That is to say raping children is not to Capes as eating humans is to All Flesh.  That may be an extreme example, but it's a pretty sure-fire way to get a rise out of someone.  And I don't intend it at all facetiously.  Now if you're talking about NGH as applied to Tone or other factors (as defined by Sindyr), then I see your point.  Capes doesn't enforce consistency strongly, nor does it force any given player to adhere to a particular tone.  Where I disagree is in regards to the Boundaries.  I do see that Capes would readily stand to award pushing the other players' buttons, but I don't think it's implicitly necessary to the game to shove them out of the psychological comfort zones.  However, I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong.  Do you have some thoughts on this?  Am I completely in the wrong?  I admit to not having played much of the game so far, but my reading of it and limited experience didn't indicate this being the case.

Garg

[TonyLB]

I do see that Capes would readily stand to award pushing the other players' buttons, but I don't think it's implicitly necessary to the game to shove them out of the psychological comfort zones.

I'm not sure I get the distinction you're talking about here.  You push someone's buttons to get a response, you get rewarded.  You push the buttons harder to get a more passionate response, you get rewarded more.  Where's the line between "He's pushing my buttons" and "He's pushing me beyond my comfort zone"?

To my mind, a good Capes goal should always have at least one player respond "Oh hell no!  That is totally unacceptable to me!"  That's how you know you've got a conflict worth discussing.  Now I'm not an expert on "Nobody Gets Hurt" play-style, but isn't that the moment where the original proposer of the Goal would say "Oh, well if you feel that way about it then I'll back off"?

[Sindyr]

To my mind, a good Capes goal should always have at least one player respond "Oh hell no!  That is totally unacceptable to me!"  That's how you know you've got a conflict worth discussing.  Now I'm not an expert on "Nobody Gets Hurt" play-style, but isn't that the moment where the original proposer of the Goal would say "Oh, well if you feel that way about it then I'll back off"?

No.  The original proposer of the Goal backs off if someone tells them that it is hurtful or couses them anguish.

Garg seems to get my fundamental point...

Capes can have limits and still be Capes, even if you as a player are completely disallowed from bringing up the rape of children as a way to push another player's buttons, you will (hopefully) find another more creative way to do it.

[Sindyr]

I am saying that *unresolvable* differences of opinion will fracture the group.

Your reasoning is in danger of getting circular here, depending on how you define "resolve."  Like, if you said "An issue is resolved if people can continue without fracturing the group."  Let's avoid that, shall we?

Are you saying that a group who cannot reach consensus (everybody agrees on what is right and what is wrong) on an important issue must fracture (or, perhaps, already is fractured, and not a group at all)?

Almost.  I am saying that if people in a group cannot agree what to play or how to play, if for example Bill wants to play D&D and Al, Chad, and Dave want to play Capes, and none of them are willing to budge or entertain a compromise, than I cannot conceive a way in which they will continue to stay together as a group.  In fact, what will in all likelihood occur is that Bill will go off to find a group willing to play D&D.

But as long as you have at least two members of a group with completely and 100% incompatible goals, those two members will not be in the same group with each other for long - therefor, fracture.

Heck, even in Capes when two people have incompatible storylines, they agree on the meta-level that the Capes mechanics is the proper way to resolves the dispute.  That's why they are playing Capes.  In if they have a house rule that says no children as victims, then they agree on that to override whatever else happens in Capes.

But if three people agree that under no circumstances should violence EVER be permitted in a storyline, and a fourth person brings it up - unless the three change their minds or the fourth relents, you are most likely looking at a group fracture.

Not sure how this help the discussion about boundaries and limits, NGH vs IWNAY, and how it all can work with Capes, but I hope that answers your question.

And if it seems somewhat circular it probably because we may be running into a definition issue, which leads to a tautology.  Unless you are asking something completely different?