Boundaries and the meta-game - and Capes

[TonyLB]

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

Okay.  You think it's easy, fine.  Tell me, how do you draw that line?

Suppose I can threaten "Goal:  Kid Wonder is captured and tortured by Jester" and that's fine ... it makes you really uncomfortable, but that's good and earns me resources, so the more you yell about it the more I should stick to my guns.  But I can't threaten "Goal:  Kid Wonder is raped and killed by Jester" because that makes you "really uncomfortable plus one," which would earn me even more resources (because you'd fight against the goal even harder) but now it's bad and I'm supposed to back off?

How do you draw that line?

[Matthew Glover]

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.

As an aside that is totally not intended to threadjack or derail the topic (which is important, I think), Primetime Adventures is totally real and totally interesting.  You should check it out.  It creates great games in a very different way from the great game stuff you'll get from Capes.  Assuming you can find some players, I mean.  I hope you do, because I think that when you do get to play it a few times, you'll find that a lot of your concerns about it will turn out to be less of a big deal than they seem now. 

It's really pretty easy for your fellow players to tell the difference between "Oh no, that sucks, I'm totally staking debt to keep that from happening," and "Oh no, that sucks, not only are you not getting any Story Tokens for that from me but I'm also not sure I like you anymore, Steve."  They'll rapidly find out that it's in their best interests to keep you happy because that's what earns them the resources.

[Sindyr]

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.

Tony may have built Capes to be played IWNAY, but it can certainly be played NGH.

If I found a game that does what Capes does and was more NGH compatible, I would certainly look at it.

But after checking out Capes, buying it, reading it, exploring it...  I guess I have to give Tony more credit than that.  Capes has a LOT of things going for it.  Add some TtP or NGH house mods and Capes *still* has a LOT going for it.

Capes is not a one trick pony - it's much more sophisticated than that - perhaps even more sophisticated than its creator suspects.

Capes was built from a IWNAY stance, but Tony built the game well - maybe too well - it does not seem to lose any appeal as a majorly intriguing game simply because a few limits get added.

Now perhaps the IWNAY crowd is unhappy at the prospect of NGH or TtP folks gaining enjoyment out of "their" signature game - perhaps using Capes in a NGH or TtP style "offends" IWNAY purists.

But that's a different issue, and not my problem.  All I care about is can I have fun playing Capes NGH or TtP without IWNAY?  The answer seems to be a clear yes.

Why does that bother some folks?  Unless its just a case of "not in *my* backyard you won't."

[Sindyr]

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

Okay.  You think it's easy, fine.  Tell me, how do you draw that line?

Suppose I can threaten "Goal:  Kid Wonder is captured and tortured by Jester" and that's fine ... it makes you really uncomfortable, but that's good and earns me resources, so the more you yell about it the more I should stick to my guns.  But I can't threaten "Goal:  Kid Wonder is raped and killed by Jester" because that makes you "really uncomfortable plus one," which would earn me even more resources (because you'd fight against the goal even harder) but now it's bad and I'm supposed to back off?

How do you draw that line?

You listen to and trust the other players to only "tap out" not when it gets hard, but when it gets hurtful. Plus you have some discussion *before* gaming as to limits to set - like no heroes get raped, tortured, or killed, etc. Doesn't mean you can't push the other players' buttons, just means you can't push *those* buttons.

Now, if you can't trust your fellow players to be honest about what is hard and what is hurtful, then maybe playing NGH/TtP is not for you, in the same way that playing IWNAY is not for me.

To each their own is my philosphy.

[TonyLB]

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. 

Lots and lots of ways.  Here's some examples:

• Bill still wants to play D&D, but accepts that the matter will be decided by majority vote.  He keeps working on Chad, who he thinks is bordering on undecided.  He also looks at getting Evan, a die-hard D&D player to join the group.  He never gives up his desire to play D&D, even though it never happens.
• Hosting duties rotate among players each week.  When Al, Chad and Dave are hosting, the group plays Capes.  When Bill is hosting, the group plays D&D.  Everyone is cool with this.  The group stays together
• High roller on a d6 determines the game played, every session.  Three out of four sessions are Capes, one out of four is D&D.

... and on and on.  None of these involves telling Bill that he needs to agree with what the rest of the group wants.

Consensus is one method of resolving conflicts.  It is not, to my mind, a particularly strong one.  It tends to silence some people in order to serve others.  Capes operates best when you throw consensus right out the freakin' window.  'kay?

[Sindyr]

As an aside that is totally not intended to threadjack or derail the topic (which is important, I think), Primetime Adventures is totally real and totally interesting.  You should check it out.  It creates great games in a very different way from the great game stuff you'll get from Capes.  Assuming you can find some players, I mean.  I hope you do, because I think that when you do get to play it a few times, you'll find that a lot of your concerns about it will turn out to be less of a big deal than they seem now.

I just went and looked at it - PTA seems cool, tried to order it - and no, it is back ordered. :(

One thing I noticed though is that PTA requires a GM - Capes doesn't.  Doesn't mean I wont play/run PTA and love it, just means that Capes is still necessary and viable for me.

It's really pretty easy for your fellow players to tell the difference between "Oh no, that sucks, I'm totally staking debt to keep that from happening," and "Oh no, that sucks, not only are you not getting any Story Tokens for that from me but I'm also not sure I like you anymore, Steve."  They'll rapidly find out that it's in their best interests to keep you happy because that's what earns them the resources.

You kind of are making my point.  All I want to do is create a house rule or protocol to semiformally handle the second case.  Seems simple eneough.

Of course I will play Capes vanilla first, before I alter it or add house rules.

[Sindyr]

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. 

Lots and lots of ways.  Here's some examples: <snip>

None of those ways work unless the participants agree on using them. If you have that agreement, fine, problem solved.  If you don't, you still have a problem.  That's all I am saying.

[TonyLB]

But that's a different issue, and not my problem.  All I care about is can I have fun playing Capes NGH or TtP without IWNAY?  The answer seems to be a clear yes.

That's your answer.  Very few people (and, I think, none who have actually played the game) have agreed with you.  That may not worry you, but it worries me.  I'd rather not see you get hurt (and possibly angry) because you're so dead-set on using Capes that you ignore the fact that the rules are going to gore you.

Why does that bother some folks?  Unless its just a case of "not in *my* backyard you won't."

If I manufactured circular saws, and somebody said "Hey, I'm going to use this to drive nails!  I'll just hold the nail and move the spinning blade near it until the teeth drive that nail right into the wall," I would be concerned.  I would say "This tool is likely to do things other than what you're planning ... like cut your fingers clean off."

Hearing the person in question say "No, no, don't worry about it!  I've never actually started the circular saw up, but I've examined the structure of it very carefully.  I'm quite sure that it will work for this task" doesn't make me feel more comfortable.  On the contrary, it convinces me that the person is sufficiently confused that they will actually try this thing without the slightest worry.

Nobody here is trying to convince you this is a bad idea this because it will hurt us.  We're trying to convince you it's a bad idea because it will hurt you.

[Sindyr]

I will add: if two or more members have diametrically opposed positions, and cannot or choose to not work out a compromise, then assuming one side does not give in, you will have a group fracture where each subgroup leaves to pursue it's own needs.  This is natural and acceptable.

[Sindyr]

Why does that bother some folks?  Unless its just a case of "not in *my* backyard you won't."

If I manufactured circular saws, and somebody said "Hey, I'm going to use this to drive nails!  I'll just hold the nail and move the spinning blade near it until the teeth drive that nail right into the wall," I would be concerned.  I would say "This tool is likely to do things other than what you're planning ... like cut your fingers clean off."

Hearing the person in question say "No, no, don't worry about it!  I've never actually started the circular saw up, but I've examined the structure of it very carefully.  I'm quite sure that it will work for this task" doesn't make me feel more comfortable.  On the contrary, it convinces me that the person is sufficiently confused that they will actually try this thing without the slightest worry.

Nobody here is trying to convince you this is a bad idea this because it will hurt us.  We're trying to convince you it's a bad idea because it will hurt you.

I hear you.  I am taking my own risks.  If I am wrong, and I get hurt, I will blame no one but myself.  I am not opposed to taking certain risks that seem to me to be worth it, mind you.

Capes is such a risk.  Maybe it just won't work to play Capes NGH or TtP - I and others think it *will*, but say we are wrong.

I personally absolve each and everyone of you from responsibility if and when I discover that this game it too unsafe to play NGH/TtP no matter what house rules one applies.

But even though they told Columbus he would sail of the edge of the earth, he felt *compelled* to try  - because, what if? What if?

What if Capes *can* be played just as competitively and fun even while respecting certain limits?

Well, that would certainly be something.

If I fall over the edge of the earth, I fall.  I guess to *me*, that's the bravery which others have alluded I do not posses.

I dare to try.

[TonyLB]

None of those ways work unless the participants agree on using them. If you have that agreement, fine, problem solved.  If you don't, you still have a problem.  That's all I am saying.

I'm pointing out that there are ways of resolving conflicts that do not generate consensus and do not need it.  Your response seems (to me) to be saying "But that's conflict N.  Sure, they can resolve conflict N by means that don't generate consensus.  That just proves my point!  Because how did they resolve conflict N-1 about what rules they would use to resolve conflict N?"

And now, what ... I'm supposed to argue this whole thing again about conflict N-1?  How about if I point out "Hey, maybe they took a vote that decided that the game hosting would rotate among people ... and Al still thinks that his idea of 'whoever brings the pizza decides the game' was the better idea, and advocates for it"?

Why do I get the strongest feeling that you would then argue "Well, yeah, but that just proves my point!  Because how did they resolve conflict N-2 about what rules (i.e. voting) they would use to resolve conflict N-1?"

You started this post by saying (or at least strongly implying) that people needed to come to a consensus on boundaries for Tone, Ownership ... all that jazz.  Do you still hold to that, or have you changed your mind?  'cuz if you've decided that there are other ways to resolve it that work fine then we're in agreement and I can stop worrying at this.

[TonyLB]

But even though they told Columbus he would sail of the edge of the earth, he felt *compelled* to try  - because, what if? What if?

Uh ... quick history correction here.  People didn't tell Columbus the world was flat.  Everybody at the time knew the world was round.  Where they disagreed with him was about its circumference.

Columbus asserted, with utter certainty, that the world was so small that he had enough supplies to sail across the Atlantic ocean and reach India.  Other people told him "Sir!  Your calculations are in error!  India, she is more than twice as far from Spain as your calculations indicate!  Surely you will run out of supplies in the middle of your journey, and unless by sheer luck there happens to be yet-uncharted land in the middle of the ocean from which to resupply then you and all your crew will die a most painful and ignominious death."

[Garg]

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"?

Honestly, I can't say I'm an expert on NGH or IWNAY or whatever either.  However, I don't see how agreeing not to include rape or child abuse in your narration is crippling to Capes play.

My regular gaming crew isn't as theory-inclined as myself, and certainly hasn't been for the greater span of its rather long existence, so I don't have anyone to reality check me on where we fall in all the labelling.  So this is my understanding applied to my experience - without a net, as it were:
The majority of players I know actually fall toward the IWNAY side, though if they get pushed "too hard" they may request a breather or break into tears (or something in-between), depending on who they were.  I mean, per my reading of the essay, breaking into tears or needing a moment to compose qualifies as "reacting" and, assuming they return to the game and play on, still counts for IWNAY.  Is that incorrect?

In response to Tony's question about where one draws the line: It's a good question.  I'd say that isn't something you answer for everyone.  Like how a collection of players chooses to alter the rules of a game for themselves, the state of boundary-crossing and what counts as what is something that has to be tooled individually.  It's a weak response, I admit.  I wish I had a better one.

Players will go for whatever is rewarded, but if you're with a group of people who are all on the same page, how does that prevent the game from working?  Gamers are a tinkering breed, by and large.  We modify games to suit our particular interests and needs.  I hardly need to say that here.  Sure, some games skew to some styles, but that's never stopped people from drifting games to suit their needs.

There are questions about drawing a line between crossable and uncrossable boundaries, similarly: How do you draw the line between IWNAY play and abusive play?  How do you distinguish between TtP and NGH?  If I know there's a topic that will hurt another player emotionally (not just push their buttons, but really hurt them), and I don't bring that topic up after they've had a hard day, does that one instance of restraint make my play NGH or just a moment of being nice?  Where's the line between the two?

If Sindyr's reacting to the feedback and still intent on playing, maybe he's moving toward an IWNAY mindset.  I really doubt every single person posting that this may not be the game for him started out with that mentality.  Maybe more than one gamer will find in Capes the opportunity to move into a different style of play.  Or at least, find out that they need to be more honest about what they need out of a game.

Garg

[Garg]

Oh, and as a possibly more "in line with Capes" option, it seems like the best way to circumvent issues like this would be to A) communicate and B) fail to dive in on the Conflicts with such issues.  If the other players can't abuse your Achilles' Heel for Story Tokens, then they'll probably stop poking at it.

Just a thought.

Garg

[Andrew Cooper]

Oh, and as a possibly more "in line with Capes" option, it seems like the best way to circumvent issues like this would be to A) communicate and B) fail to dive in on the Conflicts with such issues.  If the other players can't abuse your Achilles' Heel for Story Tokens, then they'll probably stop poking at it.

This is exactly how you deal with issues that you aren't interested in being a part of the game in Capes.  You simply ignore those goals.  In fact, I would go so far as to tell the player who wants to put it down, "I will never invest a single resource in that Goal.  You may win it but you won't get anything for it."  If you do that, then the other player would be stupid to continue putting those kinds of Goals on the table.  It's a waste of his action.