Boundaries and the meta-game - and Capes

[Sindyr]

This doesn't just apply to Capes, but it has come up in relation to Capes, so here are some thoughts of mine...

When playing an rpg, each player has boundaries, lines that we each want the other player (and GM(s)) to respect and not cross.  This is I think a meta-game consideration - it's one that in several ways precedes the ruleset of whatever game we decided to play.  However, a games like Capes or Universalis may see these questions come up more due to their more open ended play experience.

And I firmly believe, I *know*, that while some of us have fewer forbidden areas than others, fewer and more open boundaries, that even the most open and least sensitive person still has *some* boundaries that they would experience hurt, anguish, or suffer were it to be crossed.

So everyone has boundaries, and the sensible thing to do would be to discuss these before playing any game, especially Capes.  Get the forbidden areas discussed up front, and the meta-rules figured out how boundary issues that come up in play will be handled. (It's worth noting, however, that no amount of up front discussion will guarantee that an unforeseen blind spot won't rear its head, necessitating an on the spot in the middle of the game boundary negotiation.)

That's not to say that games (like Capes) could not address such issues within its ruleset and its not to say that doing so would be wrong.  Handling boundary issues can be done by implicit assumption with no discussion (a bad idea in my opinion), by open and frank discussion about what will be done when the issue rears its head in gameplay, and/or by the game being played having rulesets and protocols (whether built-in or added house mods) that explicitly answer these questions ahead of time. (I think it's probably a *good* idea to have a protocol, a known procedure for what one is supposed to do when one has to say to another player or GM that the game is becoming hurtful)

With some reflection, it seems to me that these boundary issues fall into four main categories: Squick, Tone, Ownership, and Consistency.

Squick is the easiest to illustrate. In short, Squick is when someone can't handle a narration or event. For example, four gamers could be playing Capes together, 3 men and one woman.  Unbeknownst to them, perhaps the woman is a rape survivor, or maybe one of the guys was beaten as a boy.

Later, in a piece of the story a rape may be about to occur, or a child may be about to be beaten.

This can make the game extremely uncomfortable for one of the above players, to the point of making the game a hurtful experience.  Of course, you don't have to have a specific history for that to be true - even if none of the players was beaten as a child, one or more of them may simply not be alright with stories that include narrations of violence against children - and their objection is still just as acceptable, just as worthy of our respect.

A Tone violation is when someone signed up to play a general happy, poetic justice type of game and the game turns into a bleak gritty affair.  For example, the Heroes try to save the City, and fail, millions die, and now the game is stained by the horrible tragedy. 

Each player gets to say (preferably at the start): "I am willing to play these Tones, but not *these*."  And should the game be heading in a direction that were to violate this, a correction should be made.

Ownership concerns are present in the vast majority of rpg's, though not necessarily all.  Most gamers (although this may not be true for the Capes slice of gamers) want to have absolute, non contested ownership over  some piece of the story.  For "players" it is ownership over their character, the sole ability to determine that character's choices, behaviours, actions, morals, etc.  This to them is ownership.  For "GMs" it is ownership over everything else - the world, the NPCs, everything.

Of course, in a game like Capes everybody are GMs, contesting over the right to narrate.  No GM in Capes has any ownership not earned through battle.

In *some* Capes game, a level of ownership of certain characters is present via "spotlight" characters - and I believe this rule is here to serve a base need of the rpg player to have at least one thing he owns, one thing no one else can have.

Now, how the spotlight rule is executed differs from game to game - I don't think it is part of the core Capes game - so its implementation varies.  But the core idea behind it is the concept of Ownership.

Personally, I think the best spotlight rule, if one were to have a spotlight rule at all, would be something like:
"Each player is allowed to create or choose one spotlight character. Additional spotlight character may be chosen for 1 story token each (or freely?).  There are two limitations on spotlight characters:
1) Only the owning player can introduce or bring in the character, and likewise only the owning player has access to using that character's resources and abilities.
2) If another non-owning player narrates an action, unwritten trait, behaviour, or other choice, impulse, or feeling of the spotlight character that is *not* due to external causes (like a mind ray, or poor lighting) that part of the narration may be summarily vetoed by the player that owns that spotlight character."

Such a rule would prevent narrations (and Goals) that purports, for example, to demonstrate the clumsiness of a character.  It would NOT prevent narrations of the character stumbling because of external factors, such as poor lighting, being drugged or sleepy - or because the character in question has Clumsy or something similar as an Ability listed on his sheet.

Now perhaps many of you do not play with an ownership rule of any kind - maybe each and every character can be picked up by any player with no restriction in your games.  If so, than it seems you may not have any aspects of Ownership in your game - and if all your players are happy with it, more power to you.

On the other hand, I know some number of Capes player *do* use some version of the spotlight rules, so Ownership is an important issue for some of you.  It is for me too.

The final kind of boundary is Consistency.  A glaring example of this is if we know that the character Fred Wilkins is allergic to shellfish from last session when he was forced to eat some by the villain, this session he should not be seen to be enjoying shellfish in the VIP party scene without good reason.

Perhaps it's not really Fred, but someone disguised as Fred.  Perhaps the scene is taking place on a holodeck and none of it is real.  But without intentionally meaning one of those two things to happen, were I to challenge the narrating player with "by the way, remember that Fred is allergic to shellfish" the other player is then forced to either retract or modify the inconsistent bit ("Shellfish? Sorry, I mean the VIP party is serving *caviar*) or affirm that he intended what is occurring to occur and that by the end of the scene he will explain how the apparent contradiction is not in fact a problem.
("Fred is actually dreaming - a fact Fred doesn't know, Sindyr, so keep playing him as though he believes everything is real - unless of course *he* notices the shellfish contradiction")

I think those four things - Squick, Tone, Ownership, and Consistency - represent the bulk of the metagame issues that could come up that one should be prepared for.

Just my $.05 (inflation)

[TonyLB]

And I firmly believe, I *know*, that while some of us have fewer forbidden areas than others, fewer and more open boundaries, that even the most open and least sensitive person still has *some* boundaries that they would experience hurt, anguish, or suffer were it to be crossed.

Yep!  Go suffering!  Suffering rocks, and facing the prospect of suffering with the tools to address it and examine it rocks even harder.

But then you've got this whole post that follows it which is all about avoiding all that good stuff ... so I'm confused.

It seems like we've got two different points of view here.

• "Okay, these are the places that have been safely paved, and if we drive our car on the pavement everything will go smoothly, so let's set up walls around the pavement to make sure we don't drive off of it unintentionally."
• "Okay, these are the places that have been safely paved.  We've got a monster 4x4 off-road vehicle, and we want to go drive over some rocks.  So let's put up some signs that say 'Off-road area this way!' so that we know how to get off the pavement as quickly as possible."

So when you say (for instance):

So everyone has boundaries, and the sensible thing to do would be to discuss these before playing any game, especially Capes.

It sounds to me like you have an unstated subtext ... that the sensible thing to do would be to discuss these areas in order to avoid them.  You shouldn't assume everyone agrees with that subtext, because they don't.  So how 'bout we make it explicit, 'kay?

[Valamir]

Yup.  In fact there are many folks I know who would go so far as to say the entire purpose of roleplaying is to check out those rocks.  There've been many discussions about how to handle various areas delicately (lines and veils) and so forth, but I'd say that while there may be some variation in degree on how you approach the rocks...the rocks are where the purpose is.

Avoiding the rocks to me = why am I bothering to play this?

I could just read a book to get the same effect...or play a video game.

But if I'm going to take the time to actually play an RPG with other human beings...I better come away from the session with something more than I went in with.  Greater insight into myself.  Greater insight into my friends. A closer bond...that sort of thing.  And that doesn't require being all dark and moody and angsty either.  I've accomplished those things playing Toon.  But it does require heading off-road and spending some time navigating the rocks.

Driving on the the pavement is like playing Monopoly but never bothering to collect the rent you're owed.

[Sindyr]

To clear up some confusion...

The above essay was a collection and organization of thoughts about meta-game boundaries and understandings, especially as related to Capes.  It was especially in reference to all players agreeing to the basic underlying assumptions - and possibly to having protocols for resolving assumptions found to be in conflict later, after the game has started.

But many of the observations could present boundary concerns from more than one direction.

My standard example is if a player expects to join a particular Capes group, and finds the play, narration, and storyline depressing, gritty, neanderthalic, etc, he may find himself in a Tone violation situation. He may want to play a four-color upbeat game instead.

It's just a true that if a fan of brutal realism joins a Capes group with players that play a four-color sort of game, they may object to his adding elements of graphic violence or negativity to the four-color toned game they have been playing.  In this case the gritty player may find himself in a Tone violation situation.

In neither case is it anyone's fault, and in neither case is the gaming group obligated to change it's permitted tone for the new player.  Each gaming group should fee free to serve the needs of it's players, and what works for one gaming group does not necessarily work for another.  It doesn't mean either group is wrong, it just means that the players in each group have different needs and are gathering to tell different kinds of stories.

Hope that helps.  Most of the essay above was me thinking through what possible boundaries players may have in Capes or any RPG, what kinds of limitations that we want our gaming group to observe.

Of course, the formation of a gaming group is a process of a group of people finding each other that have similar needs.

After all, RPGing is supposed to be fun, and if people aren't having fun, whether its because the game isn't gritty enough, or because its *too* gritty, then people will drop out of the game to find one that *is* fun.

[TonyLB]

In neither case is it anyone's fault, and in neither case is the gaming group obligated to change it's permitted tone for the new player.

The "gaming group" doesn't set the tone for the game.  The gaming group is an abstract.  Individual members create the tone, by bringing their individual intentions to the table and thrashing out how to combine them.  Capes has rules for how to thrash that out.  Those rules make disagreements fun.

Say you've got Anne, Barry and Cindy there happily playing a grit-free four color campaign, and Doyle joins up with a desire to tell stories like Frank Miller.  Now what you have here is a creative difference.  Three people (individually) want one thing, and a fourth wants another.  The players are not in agreement.  They will pull the game in different directions.

This is good for the game.  It is something to be actively cultivated.

Doyle will create conflicts like "Goal:  Show that real superheroes wear kevlar, not spandex" and "Goal:  Disabuse Major Victory of his naive and simplistic world-view."  Those conflicts rock!  They rock so hard.  They will create good, engaging, dynamic play.

If they wrongly assume that such creative differences will hurt the game then Anne, Barry and Cindy will work to make Doyle conform, so that these issues can't come up during play.  They will, in short, screw themselves and their game.

[Tuxboy]

And given that concept you could have the others beginning to soften the dark hero's world view with corresponding goals like :
"Goal: Show that the End doesn't necessarily justify the Means"

I like the idea. The characters would grow dynamically as "people". Character growth through narrative evolution, one of the great strengths of Capes.

Going to a Con this weekend will have to give it a try ;)

[Sindyr]

In neither case is it anyone's fault, and in neither case is the gaming group obligated to change it's permitted tone for the new player.

The "gaming group" doesn't set the tone for the game.  The gaming group is an abstract.  Individual members create the tone, by bringing their individual intentions to the table and thrashing out how to combine them.  Capes has rules for how to thrash that out.  Those rules make disagreements fun.

I think it's important to recognize that what is fun for one person can be hell for another.

If 3 people gather to game, and they want to play in a four-color story, especially if that is explained to a potential new group joinee, than it is obviously highly inappropriate for him to try to highjack the group choice to NOT partake of a gritty story.  If the original 3 players set that as how they want to play, and simply do not want to open the door for gritty realism, than we should all repsect their choice.

Saying that players do NOT have the right to choose to have boundaries in the games they play is bizarre and strange.  For example, 4 people play ping pong together, and enjoy it. However, none of them can utilize "spin" moves - moves that purposefully but spin on the ball to make it harder for people to return the volley.

So they agree to ban the use of spin tactics from their games of ping pong.  Later on a fifth person joins them.  They explain that one of the house rules is no spin maneuvers.  This new person has four choices:

1) Choose to join the game and respect their house rules. He may ask them what if he teaches them how to spin, would they open it up, but if they say no thank you, he accepts it, stay and plays without spin.
2) Choose not to join that group and instead find people that play the way he does.  All the same, he bears the group he didn't join no ill will and does not judge them.
3) Tell them how stupid and how weak they are, and how they are lacking as human beings, and how they should play the *real* game the way he does.  People who do this are so high on themselves that in being intolerant of other they show that it is they who are severely lacking in the evolution department.  Get a clue.
4) Join, and continue to use spin until they kick him out, and *then* run his mouth off at them.

I have no respect for anyone who commits 3 or 4 - no decent human could respect someone who does 3 or 4.

The correct choice is of course, 1 or 2.

Given that, a group can choose:
-a single tone for their group.  All new members must conform to that tone.
-each member goes for the tone they like, and the issue is settled in game by the rules of Capes.

Unless one is type 3 or 4 above, one will not put down either choice above.

And another matter - ALL groups have boundaries.  Proof: How long would ANY Capes group, no matter how permissive, allow a player to keep telling stories that cross Squick boundaries, like rapes, child molestation, and other highly inappropriate things?

People who think their game play doesn't have boundaries simply have blind spots.  These type of people tend to have intolerances since they cannot see that they are not fundamentally different from others, that they have simply different boundaries, not NO boundaries.

I do not know if any of the intolerant types are actually present - I cannot say with any certainty that anyone I have read fits that description.  I hope no one here does.

I only present it for illustrative purposes, and for people to identify themselves in whatever camp they find best describes them.  Whether they admit it publically or privately is up to them.

I will admit publically to be in the camp of *tolerant* people.  I think people should game in whatever way they find fun.  I do not judge people for whatever way they wish to play - I just want them to have fun.  And I hope they they wish me the same.

It's sort of like when I find a nail coming up from a floor board and I don't have a hammer handy.  I might grab a shoe and pound that nail back down.

The shoe is not the intended tool for the job - the person who made it did not make it to be used that way.

Am I wrong for using it as a hammer?  Not wrong, just inventive.

And that's something that people here on these forums should be able to identify with. Hopefully, people can rise above the impulse to be judgemental and look down on the fellow that uses his tools in ways that fit his needs, even if the maker of the tools did not so intend.

Who needs intolerance and judgementalism? Better yet to simply say, "Different strokes for different folks and mean it.

[Tuxboy]

So they agree to ban the use of spin tactics from their games of ping pong.  Later on a fifth person joins them.  They explain that one of the house rules is no spin maneuvers.  This new person has four choices:

1) Choose to join the game and respect their house rules. He may ask them what if he teaches them how to spin, would they open it up, but if they say no thank you, he accepts it, stay and plays without spin.
2) Choose not to join that group and instead find people that play the way he does.  All the same, he bears the group he didn't join no ill will and does not judge them.
3) Tell them how stupid and how weak they are, and how they are lacking as human beings, and how they should play the *real* game the way he does.  People who do this are so high on themselves that in being intolerant of other they show that it is they who are severely lacking in the evolution department.  Get a clue.
4) Join, and continue to use spin until they kick him out, and *then* run his mouth off at them.

I have no respect for anyone who commits 3 or 4 - no decent human could respect someone who does 3 or 4.

The correct choice is of course, 1 or 2.

You missed out option 5

5. Teach them the techniques involved in the use of spin and the ways to deal with spin in the game. Expanding their understanding of the game and developing their abilities and learning new skills.

[TonyLB]

If 3 people gather to game, and they want to play in a four-color story, especially if that is explained to a potential new group joinee, than it is obviously highly inappropriate for him to try to highjack the group choice to NOT partake of a gritty story.  If the original 3 players set that as how they want to play, and simply do not want to open the door for gritty realism, than we should all repsect their choice.

Why is that any more valid than saying, instead, "If the new player wants to play a gritty story then we should all respect that choice"?

[Sindyr]

So they agree to ban the use of spin tactics from their games of ping pong.  Later on a fifth person joins them.  They explain that one of the house rules is no spin maneuvers.  This new person has four choices:

1) Choose to join the game and respect their house rules. He may ask them what if he teaches them how to spin, would they open it up, but if they say no thank you, he accepts it, stay and plays without spin.
2) Choose not to join that group and instead find people that play the way he does.  All the same, he bears the group he didn't join no ill will and does not judge them.
3) Tell them how stupid and how weak they are, and how they are lacking as human beings, and how they should play the *real* game the way he does.  People who do this are so high on themselves that in being intolerant of other they show that it is they who are severely lacking in the evolution department.  Get a clue.
4) Join, and continue to use spin until they kick him out, and *then* run his mouth off at them.

I have no respect for anyone who commits 3 or 4 - no decent human could respect someone who does 3 or 4.

The correct choice is of course, 1 or 2.

You missed out option 5

5. Teach them the techniques involved in the use of spin and the ways to deal with spin in the game. Expanding their understanding of the game and developing their abilities and learning new skills.

I didn't miss it - it was part of option 1 above, see it?

He may ask them what if he teaches them how to spin, would they open it up, but if they say no thank you, he accepts it, stay and plays without spin.

The question is not whether he offers to show them how to do it, the question is how does he react if they do not *want* to have spin be a part of it - accepting or jedgementally.

[Tuxboy]

I didn't miss it - it was part of option 1 above, see it?

I saw it, but rather than rejecting it out of hand I added an option where they accepted the new experience...or is that not an option?

[Sindyr]

If 3 people gather to game, and they want to play in a four-color story, especially if that is explained to a potential new group joinee, than it is obviously highly inappropriate for him to try to highjack the group choice to NOT partake of a gritty story.  If the original 3 players set that as how they want to play, and simply do not want to open the door for gritty realism, than we should all repsect their choice.

Why is that any more valid than saying, instead, "If the new player wants to play a gritty story then we should all respect that choice"?

Because he is joining an established group.  They *do* respect his right to choose how to play, but that does not mean they have make their pre-existing group open to his preferred tone.

Imagine a group of friends that get together for SciFi/Fantasy movie night, once a week.  The underlying assumption, perhaps explicitly stated, is that the movie that will be watched will be fantasy or scifi in nature.

If a new member joins, he can ask if he could bring a Western for the group to watch.  But it would be extremely bad form to insist upon it.  The founding purpose of the group is otherwise.

Perhaps an example using Capes might be that a Capes gaming group wants to play a Hard SciFi game, no magic, no esp, just hard realistic science.

If a new member joins that group, it would not be appropriate for the new member to attempt to bring in his eleven ranger Drizzt Do'Urden with lightning bolts and fireballs aplenty.

In neither case is either group saying Westerns are bad or the Fantasy gaming is bad.  All they are saying is that the purpose of their group does not include those options.  The Western movie watcher is free to find another group, as is the Fantasy gamer.  But while it is fine for either individual to ask to be considered, it is obviously arrogant and egoistic for either individual to expect either group to change to suit them.

Every individual should be allowed to find or create groups of like minded people.  Heck, if someone came to your Capes group and insisted you all play d20 AD&D, I would assume you would find the person rude.

Don't you think?

[Sindyr]

I didn't miss it - it was part of option 1 above, see it?

I saw it, but rather than rejecting it out of hand I added an option where they accepted the new experience...or is that not an option?

The question I was asking is that *assuming* for the sake of argument that the group is not interested in changing, how can someone who wants them to change react, and which kind of reaction are acceptable?

So if the group was willing to change, the questions would not even get asked.

If I come to your Capes game and say lets play D&D and you all agree, there is no problem.

My question was exploring what happens when I want you all to play D&D and you all want to keep playing Capes.  What *I* do after you tell me, no thanks, we want to stay with Capes.

The four reactions are all possible, but reacting as #3 or #4 marks me as not a very nice person I think.  So I wouldn't do that.  Hopefully no one here would.

[TonyLB]

Because he is joining an established group.  They *do* respect his right to choose how to play, but that does not mean they have make their pre-existing group open to his preferred tone.

So it's seniority?  Well, that sounds wrong-headed to me but let's explore it.  Anne, Barry and Cindy have played three sessions.  Doyle joins the game, and wants to change the tone.  A+B+C all say "No, Doyle, you can't play any of your gritty stuff.  You're new to the group."  And Doyle, because he's either a saint or a pushover, goes along with it.

How long is it before Doyle gets a voice?  How long does he have to just accept what the others want before he gets to have an equal say in the group?  One session?  Three sessions?  Nine sessions?  Never?  At what point does he get to say "Okay, we're no longer 'A+B+C, oh and Doyle's visiting' ...  we're A+B+C+D, and that's a new group.  What sort of game does that group want?"

[Sindyr]

Because he is joining an established group.  They *do* respect his right to choose how to play, but that does not mean they have make their pre-existing group open to his preferred tone.

So it's seniority?  Well, that sounds wrong-headed to me but let's explore it.  Anne, Barry and Cindy have played three sessions.  Doyle joins the game, and wants to change the tone.  A+B+C all say "No, Doyle, you can't play any of your gritty stuff.  You're new to the group."  And Doyle, because he's either a saint or a pushover, goes along with it.

I believe he goes along with it because its the only rational choice, if he want to play with A+B+C.  He is always welcome to start his own group or find a more like minded group.

How long is it before Doyle gets a voice?  How long does he have to just accept what the others want before he gets to have an equal say in the group?  One session?  Three sessions?  Nine sessions?  Never?  At what point does he get to say "Okay, we're no longer 'A+B+C, oh and Doyle's visiting ...  we're A+B+C+D, and that's a new group.  What sort of game does that group want?"

He needs to accept all conditions in effect when he joins the group until such time as everyone is agreed to change it.

If a group is formed to watch SciFi, he never has the right to demand them to start watching some Westerns.  He can ask every so often.  But he can't push.  They may decide to throw him a bone a watch a Western, or they may decide to remain true to the original idea of watching only SciFi when the group gets together.

He decide to stay with the group, find another or start his own.  But at no point does the group owe him Westerns.

Now if he doesn't get his Western he may well leave the group.  The the other members of the group want him to stay badly enough, they may let him pick a Western or make another compromise.  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.

And that's perfectly fine.