Social Reinforcement in Capes

[TonyLB]

As Vaxalon says one-sided trash talk with the other guy wincing and obviously getting truly upset, not so much.

Agreed.  That guy who winces and gets upset needs to get his act together, pronto.  Until he starts giving as good as he gets he's just ruining everyone's fun.

[Sindyr]

As Vaxalon says one-sided trash talk with the other guy wincing and obviously getting truly upset, not so much.

Agreed.  That guy who winces and gets upset needs to get his act together, pronto.  Until he starts giving as good as he gets he's just ruining everyone's fun.

Agreed.  And if he doesn't find "giving as good as he gets" fun, then boot him.  After all, everyone's else's fun is more important than his.

[drnuncheon]

Agreed.  That guy who winces and gets upset needs to get his act together, pronto.  Until he starts giving as good as he gets he's just ruining everyone's fun.

Alternately, the guy who's trash talking needs to get his act together, pronto.  Until he realizes that it's not appropriate, he's just ruining everyone's fun.

Either one could be right, depending on the group.  Personally, I'm not going to trash talk anyone until I know where the lines are.  It's fun until you accidentally hit a nerve, then it's time to be a man and say, "Hey, I'm sorry."  Same as if I'm goofing around and I accidentally twist his bad shoulder or something.

J

[Sindyr]

Agreed.  That guy who winces and gets upset needs to get his act together, pronto.  Until he starts giving as good as he gets he's just ruining everyone's fun.

Alternately, the guy who's trash talking needs to get his act together, pronto.  Until he realizes that it's not appropriate, he's just ruining everyone's fun.

Either one could be right, depending on the group.  Personally, I'm not going to trash talk anyone until I know where the lines are.  It's fun until you accidentally hit a nerve, then it's time to be a man and say, "Hey, I'm sorry."  Same as if I'm goofing around and I accidentally twist his bad shoulder or something.

J

J, I think your approach is best. :)

[TonyLB]

J, Sindyr:  Yeah, in general terms either mode of play works fine.  Whatever dynamic the group has is the dynamic it has.  But there are games that form that dynamic for the group, by their very structure.  Capes is one of them.

Capes encourages, rewards, indeed all but requires an in-your-face machismo and an equal willingness to both take and dish out lumps.  So within the context of Capes you can say "Hey, the girl who's projecting in-your-face machismo is playing the game, and the guy who's taking offense at it is not.  She's right, he's wrong, moving on."

[drnuncheon]

Capes encourages, rewards, indeed all but requires an in-your-face machismo and an equal willingness to both take and dish out lumps.

Again, there's lumps and there's lumps - and I feel like theres an enormous communication chasm that doesn't need to be there, so I'm going to try this bridge one last time:

If you were roughhousing around wrestling with a friend, and you accidentally dislocate their shoulder, or break a finger, or draw blood - do you keep going and tell them to suck it up, that's part of the game?

J

[Sindyr]

Damnit J, you beat me to it!

Good analogy...  Capes is competitive - but whether its roughousing or no-holds barred ultimate fighting championship depends on the group.

What you *don't* wan't is a mixed group where some people just want to roughouse while others want to draw blood.  It isn't fair to either side.

[TonyLB]

Again, there's lumps and there's lumps - and I feel like theres an enormous communication chasm that doesn't need to be there, so I'm going to try this bridge one last time:

Oh, J.  You have not failed to communicate.  I understand what you're saying perfectly, and I am quite certain that you're argument is without merit.

If you were roughhousing around wrestling with a friend, and you accidentally dislocate their shoulder, or break a finger, or draw blood - do you keep going and tell them to suck it up, that's part of the game?

The analogy is invalid.  Sindyr, by way of your eager agreement you are also targetted for this blanket dismissal.

There is no way to physically hurt the player in Capes.  There is no way to do lasting damage to any part of the fiction.  There is no way to remove or reduce the player's opportunity to seek agency over the fiction, nor to limit their methods of doing so.  There is no lasting defeat (for defeat leads to later victory).  In short, there is no chance of damaging the player or their ability to play the game in any way, ever.

There is no counterpart here to dislocating your friend's shoulder.  The only thing you can hurt is his pride.  Your analogy, I repeat, is invalid.

The only arguments I have seen for people actually being hurt pre-suppose people who are already so broken that they can be hurt by the mere act of witnessing fiction.  Rape victims, those who are grieving loved ones lost under tragic circumstances, the massively phobic, etc.  These are the only people who could legitimately claim to be damaged by Capes play.  These people need to be careful about what games they play, what books they read and what movies they watch, and they should know that they need to be careful, the same way someone with a severe heart condition knows they should be careful before embarking on a marathon.

I have zero sympathy for people who are that traumatized, and choose to put the responsibility for their own safety on everyone around them.  They should take care of themselves.  We are not their nursemaids.  So, seriously?  Don't pin an argument on the importance of protecting them, because my response is "They shoulda known better."

Other people who can (and do) claim to be damaged by Capes play are the passive aggressive wimps.  These folks leap to say "Oh me, oh my, the pain, the pain, I do believe you've fractured my soul!  You must stop, and apologize, right now ... and then when we restart play I personally must be given vast new powers to control what can and cannot be narrated, proposed or contested, lest this terrible tragedy should ever occur again!"  These people are not being hurt.  These people are being manipulative.

I have actual negative sympathy for people who convince themselves that they're damaged because it's a good path to getting their way.  I don't merely want them to fail.  I also want them to be punished.  Capes does a really good job of punishing (and occasionally reforming) them.  That's something about the system that I cherish.

[Sindyr]

Therefor by being blind to the fact that people *can* be actually hurt by words and fictions, you empower yourself to:
1) Dismiss them and their pain
2) Give no thought to anyone else but yourself as you pursue you course of action(s)
3) Deride and "blame the victim" for not being as macho and tough as yourself
4) Judge them as weak, which coincidentally I guess makes you "strong"

Let me give a personal example.  Extended and graphic scenes of torture are unpleasant to me to the point of causing me trauma, suffering, and anxiety.  I know countless others who react the same way.

A person plays ANY game to have fun - including Capes.  If an opportunistic Capes player were to note my inability to deal with explicit torture, they could try to use that as leverage to get me to pay them off in story tokens not to go there.

The above bully is despicable, assuming that he knows his is exploiting another human beings weakness and corrupting the other's fun to serve his own.

Let me be explicit and 100% clear.

It is ok for a group of Capes players to decide that their game will not have any narrations of torture.  It is further ok for any person that contravenes this social contract to be asked to leave.

It is also ok for a group of Capes players to decide that their game will *not* have any limits on narrations, including torture.  It is further ok for any person that contravenes *this* social contract to be asked to leave.

If a group finds itself with members of both camps in it - some who can't stand torture and some who can't stand limits - then its ok to have a dialogue to see if a compromise can be reached.  If that is not possible, it is ok for the group to fracture so that each subgroup can play the game in the way that works best for them.

Neither the anti-torture people nor the anti-limits people are wrong.

What IS wrong is if either side looks at the other with disdain.  What IS wrong is if either side expects the other to conform their style of play to suit them.  What IS wrong is assuming that only one of the sides deserves to play Capes - or any other endeavor, or that one side does not have a right to pursuing fun, that one side must sacrifice their fun for the fun of others.

That is clearly wrong.

If a group of four Capes players has one member that wants to play the torture card and 3 that want to keep torture out of the game, the three anti-torture players should not be expected to play the game in a way they do not find fun in order to provide fun for the fourth.

Likewise, the fourth anti-limits player should not be expected to play the game in a way that is not fun for him just in order to provide fun for the other three.

Each player or group of players should be allowed without being judged to pursue recreational fun however they choose.  If an endeavor they are in stops being fun for them, only a bully would deride or mock them for taking the rational and suitable step of stopping what is no longer fun to try something else - such as a new and more like minded group of people.

To flip the example, if 3 of 4 Capes players in a group are happy without any narrative limits, but the fourth truly and sincerely cannot handle torture, it is acceptable for the 3 to:
1) Choose to rein in or avoid torture stories out of respect for the fellow.
2) Explain that they prefer to choose to play a game without any limits, and that the fourth guy will have to accept that if he remains.

If the fourth guy *does* leave, then for the other three to deride or belittle him is just sick and more of that macho BS that you see so often in places like the Army and sports.

If that is the case, I find it highly unfortunate that this macho BS has come to RPGs.

I think the key thing to remember is that standing up for the way you want to play, whether that means in this case anti-torture or anti-limits, does NOT mean attacking someone else's choices.

The wise and evolved soul does not judge others for being different than he is, making different choices, or pursuing different goals.

The wise and evolved soul DOES judge others for indulging in the acts of lack of compassion, bullying, and intolerance.

As long as one is not being forced to engage in unconsensual acts, then the only thing we can and should be intolerant of is intolerance itself.

All we have to ask ourselves if do we have any issue with the statement below.  If we do, then that says something (not very nice) about *us*, doesn't it?

It is perfectly acceptable for a group of Capes players to choose to limit or not limit their narrations in any way.  It is furthermore perfectly acceptable for any member or members of that group to choose to leave it (to start or join another group perhaps) without being judged if they find the way the overall group is playing to no longer be fun for them.

[TonyLB]

The above bully is despicable, assuming that he knows his is exploiting another human beings weakness and corrupting the other's fun to serve his own.

No more so than a firm english teacher who won't let people plead ignorance as an excuse not to learn.  No more so than a drill seargent who won't let people plead weakness as an excuse not to grow stronger.

Whether he enjoys pushing people to their limits (and I enjoy it a lot!) is beside the point.  The point is, he's doing them a favor.  He is showing that he has more faith in them than they do ... that he believes, despite their pleas to the contrary, that they can rise to this challenge, and he's going to keep pushing until they do.

[Sindyr]

What if either they do not want to get stronger, or what if the drill sargent is wrong and they can't?

What if all they want to to have fun?

Doesn't what they want matter?

[Vaxalon]

Sindyr...

Those aren't "what ifs" that Tony's going to recognize.

Anyone who can't handle playing with him, or playing his game... shouldn't play with him, or play his game.

[TonyLB]

Fred called it, folks!  He knows me well.

Doesn't what they want matter?

To what Capes does?  No.  It doesn't matter at all.

If a man opened his veins and dived into a tank with a hungry Great White Shark, would you protest "But ... that man doesn't want to be eaten!  Doesn't what he wants matter?"  If you did, I'd answer the same way.  Nope, doesn't matter at all.  The shark is a pretty predictable creature.  It's gonna do what it does.  If you don't want to be attacked, do not get in the water.  The shark will not ask your preferences, and I wouldn't expect the shark-keepers to make heroic efforts to save you from the predictable consequences of your own choice.

Likewise, Capes is a pretty predictable creature.  It's gonna do what it does.  If you don't want to have your buttons pushed, do not play the game.  The game will not ask your preferences, and I wouldn't expect your fellow players to make heroic efforts to save you from the predictable consequences of your own choice.

Now if you feel "But it's morally reprehensible to make such a game," that's fine.  Just bear in mind, I think of it as a service to people who (whether they know it or not) benefit from having their buttons pushed, their limits tested.  But whether it should have been made or shouldn't have been made, the game exists and it does what it does.  There is a shark in that tank.  Plan accordingly.

[Sindyr]

I, politely and with respect, disagree.  You built a tank.  Perhaps you intended it for shark use only, but whether people put a shark there or instead play water polo is up to them.

I think Capes can do more than you seem to think it can.

Anyways, I think we have both stated our positions and if you like, we can both now let it drop.

If you like.

[TonyLB]

Anyways, I think we have both stated our positions and if you like, we can both now let it drop.

Well, here's where I feel we stand:  I've arrayed several arguments and proofs for my point, on this thread and others.  I've explained how the dynamics of the system conspire to encourage certain behaviors, and how those behaviors in turn feed into a functional game mechanic.

You've offered nothing but your personal sense of outrage that people would act in that way, and your utopian hopes that "enlightened, mature souls" will behave otherwise, despite all the rewards and feedback.  You've spent a lot of time and energy explaining why you think it would be better if Capes didn't push people to test each other's limits, but that's not the same as showing that Capes doesn't push people to test each other's limits.

So, yeah.  You disagree.  I think everybody gets that.  But I wouldn't say that you've got a position.  You've got a claim, which you've never substantiated. 

If you're happy leaving it there I certainly have no objections.  The next time you raise this same old issue I'll just say "Yeah, we discussed that over in this thread.  As it currently stands I've got a position and you've got nothing."  Works for me.