Please critique my first Capes character

[Matthew Glover]

Matthew ... I'll simply point out that James Bond is James Bond because he wins this conflict more often than he loses it.

A seductive enemy agent with a thick accent, furry hat and legs that won't quit enters the story.  You know James is gonna hit that.  There isn't any conflict about whether James is going to hit that.  I mean ... dude.  The conflict is about whether our man Jimmy will end up captured and strapped to a laser operating table because he couldn't keep his fly closed, or whether Agent Ivana Yurbahdie will be so moved by her night of romance and passion that when push comes to shove she sides with her hunka hunka British lovin' rather than her own people.

This is a perfect example of the trouble I'm currently having with Exemplars.  I think it just stems from a lack of actual play experience.  I don't have a feel for it yet.  When you say it, it's obvious how it'll play out.

I totally agree with you that Femme Fatale should be created as a Situation, and that the exemplar should be that Situation.  In a given scene maybe the femme fatale in question would also be represented by a second character that makes her distinctive, or maybe not.  I would freakin' love that.  Because, see, Sindyr would play Leader, and some poor schmoe (let's say Wilhelm) would play mousy lab technician Sylvia Reading, and then I'd play Femme Fatale and make Sylvia a Femme Fatale against her player's will.   Wilhelm would use Sylvia's "Shy" and "Wallflower" traits, and I'd be coming right back with "Smoldering Glance" and "She's so coy" and the scene would just sing.

See, now I want to do that.  Like ... all the time.  And, also ... I totally want Sylvia.  Underneath that bushy hair and formless lab coat burns the heart of a jungle tigress.  Believe it!

See, you're processing this stuff at a way higher level than I am.  I need more time at the table so I'll be able to intuit how things will work.  I was pretty sure that playing the Situation would be cool, but I totally didn't recognize how applying it to somebody else's character would work.  That's awesome.

[Sindyr]

*chuckle*  Now there's something you can have fun with.

Event: Horde of angry Husbands surround the Leader.

I love it!  This is the kind of Capes play I would like to contest for. :D

[Sindyr]

Event: Leader contracts a STD

Can't happen.  Not only does it face the wall of fiction mentioned above (Certain things that happen in real life quite a bit happen to protagonists of stories only when writers are ready and willing to have it happen) but also the Leader is Invulnerable. Core character concept.

Uh ...  no.  Your "Invulnerability" and a point of debt will get you a reaction on the conflict, and that is all.  I mean ... you've read the rules.  You know that, right?

Yeah, but I also plan to have (sooner or later) rules enforcing a four color tone (remember?) and STDs do not fit that.

Also, plan to have rules that spotlight characters can not be permanently maimed, killed, altered etc - STDs can be pretty permanent.  Heh heh.

He'll be perfect for Capes.

Glad to know that finally I have done something you like, was beginning to think that would be impossible. ;)

[Andrew Cooper]

Also, plan to have rules that spotlight characters can not be permanently maimed, killed, altered etc - STDs can be pretty permanent.  Heh heh.

Nothing in Capes is permanent.  No need to have a rule for this.  In fact, you would have to make a new rule that made things permanent in order to create your rule to exclude spotlight characters from it.

[Sindyr]

Also, plan to have rules that spotlight characters can not be permanently maimed, killed, altered etc - STDs can be pretty permanent.  Heh heh.

Nothing in Capes is permanent.  No need to have a rule for this.  In fact, you would have to make a new rule that made things permanent in order to create your rule to exclude spotlight characters from it.

OK, then a rule that spotlight characters can not *seem* to be permanently maimed, killed, etc...

Do I have to break out the legalese?

;p

[Andrew Cooper]

Sindyr,

Nah.  You don't have to break out the Legalese.  I'm just confused about your intent.  You indicated that you wanted to "simulate" (for lack of a better word) 4 color comics, so you were going to make this rule that spotlight characters can not be permanently maimed, killed, altered etc.  My confusion arises from the fact that there is already a rule like that in place:  The Comics Code.  Just put it in.  Then the Villains can try to do all that nasty stuff to the heroes but they can't ever do it.  The player of the Villain does get to Gloat but that's a great thing, since it happens all the time in 4 color comics.

What am I missing?

[Sindyr]

The Comic's Code is a great place to put things that you don't want to happen, but you DO want to have ALMOST happen.  A lot.

I don't particularly want STDs to be part of the narrative at all.  In general, if I create a Comic Code that says nothing can break the Tone of a four-color comic, that effectively encourages and underwrites players trying to come as close as possible to almost breaking it.

That's not the behaviour I wish to encourage.

If instead I create a house rule that says much the same, now people will have no incentive to push it.

Comic Codes are not effective ways to draw a line and set a limit unless you want to spend a lot of the game *near* the limit.

That's being said, I think that Comic Codes are great tools for incentivizing certain types of stories.

For example, a Code could be written: Nothing can threaten True Love.

Then the players can create narrations and conflicts all about True Love, knowing that they will be able to Gloat and get Tokens.

Thus, the game becomes somewhat romance-centric.

So: Comics Code is the right thing to use if you want players encouraged to muck about near the lines, whereas house rules are better if you do *not* want players encouraged to be near those lines.

Does that make sense or am *I* missing something?

PS.  Personally, I would prefer to house rule the maimed/altered/etc - and then comics code stuff like "Villains can't ultimately achieve lasting success" or something similar.

[Andrew Cooper]

Ah...  I see now.  I've also dealt with this issue.  In one game I played we did a Fantasy genre instead of a Supers genre session or two.  One of the things I didn't want was a bunch of techno-gadgets or other non-fantasy junk getting brought up and moving the game out of the Heroic Fantasy realm.  For this purpose, I had two types of entries in the Comics Code:  Gloating Items and Non-Gloating Items.

Gloating Items could be attempted and then Gloated over for a reward.  This encouraged people to go for those kinds of Goals without them getting there.

Non-Gloating Items couldn't even be Gloated over.  Thus they couldn't even be placed on the table.

This worked really well in my opinion.

[Matthew Glover]

I feel like this Comics Code conversation is something that keeps cropping up.

What really troubles me is that these rules for enforcing the tone of the game sound a little fishy.  Either you're going to have to lay out everything that's forbidden territory/approved material, or you're going to have to generalize, and what happens when you and I disagree about what constitutes "4-color"?  What if everybody in the group except you feels that my narration is within the bounds?  What's your recourse?

Something else that I want to make sure I have right.  What I'm hearing is that Sindyr has a very clear idea about what sorts of things happen to The Leader, how he interacts with the world around him.  To me that sounds like an easy mark that I can hit for Story Tokens.  Sindyr, you keep saying "No, The Leader isn't like that."  I'll be dropping Conflicts to establish that The Leader is exactly like that because I know you'll drop the debt to win it and I'll reap the Story Tokens.  So you'll be constantly forced to reaffirm that The Leader is who you say he is because I'll always be pushing horrible, terrible situations on him while you're paying me for it. 

Am I reading that right?  Is that what you want from this?

[Sindyr]

I feel like this Comics Code conversation is something that keeps cropping up.

What really troubles me is that these rules for enforcing the tone of the game sound a little fishy.  Either you're going to have to lay out everything that's forbidden territory/approved material, or you're going to have to generalize, and what happens when you and I disagree about what constitutes "4-color"?  What if everybody in the group except you feels that my narration is within the bounds?  What's your recourse?

I will be making specific propositions in another thread I am getting ready to start, doing my prep and homework first.  For now, I will just say that I have no problem giving the players the right to say what is and is not out of bounds.  More to come.

Something else that I want to make sure I have right.  What I'm hearing is that Sindyr has a very clear idea about what sorts of things happen to The Leader, how he interacts with the world around him.  To me that sounds like an easy mark that I can hit for Story Tokens.  Sindyr, you keep saying "No, The Leader isn't like that."  I'll be dropping Conflicts to establish that The Leader is exactly like that because I know you'll drop the debt to win it and I'll reap the Story Tokens.  So you'll be constantly forced to reaffirm that The Leader is who you say he is because I'll always be pushing horrible, terrible situations on him while you're paying me for it. 

Am I reading that right?  Is that what you want from this?

One of two things is probable.  Either you would challenge the Leader in a way I find entertaining, and I would reward you with story tokens, or you would cross the line in which case I would disallow you the ability to even play the Conflict in the first place, according to the house rules I am working on.

Capes is really good at incentivizing behaviours - it is not (as it stands) really good at prohibiting behaviours.  I plan on giving it that capacity as well.

And FYI, it is my considered stand that even Capes with limits has infinite possibility.  And I stand by that. :)

[TonyLB]

For now, I will just say that I have no problem giving the players the right to say what is and is not out of bounds.  More to come.

Oh, neither do I.

When you say "That's out of bounds," you're totally within your rights to say that.  And then, of course, when I say "Nah, it's totally in bounds," I'm also totally within my rights to say that.

[Sindyr]

For now, I will just say that I have no problem giving the players the right to say what is and is not out of bounds.  More to come.

Oh, neither do I.

When you say "That's out of bounds," you're totally within your rights to say that.  And then, of course, when I say "Nah, it's totally in bounds," I'm also totally within my rights to say that.

What happens when we disagree about what's in bounds?

I have some answers to that question that I will be sharing shortly.  Suffice it to say for now that "Use Capes to adjudicate disputes" is a valid answer, but it's not the ONLY valid answer - and I will be posting some alternatives...