Capes game scheduled!!

[Sindyr]

Makes sense - she didn't realize that there was a third conflict - narrate in such a way that there is no embrassment to save her from.

Let's take this back a step.

I am sitting at the table, trying to figure out a way to motivate the player to get involved.  I think about dropping the goal "Catwoman-mimic embarrasses herself" but I realize that I can't, because the player of that character can veto the goal, right?

So I think how can I reword that so that it is not vetoable, but threatens the same result.

And that is how I came up with "Lucky Charm saves Catwoman-mimic from embarassing herself."

So the problem here is that the player didn't know (and neither apparently does your wife) that the winner of the conflict is only bound to narrate the success or failure of the goal.  She is not restricted in anyway from narrating why Lucky charm failed at the goal - and one valid reason to narrate is because Catwoman-mimic did nothing to embarass herself, therefor there was nothing for LC to save her from.

This is probably an important point for Capes players to learn - the ONLY constriction on what a player may narrate after winning a goal conflict is that it must address either the success or failure of the subject character act achieving that goal.  How it plays out is entirely in the narrators hands.

Right?

[drnuncheon]

I thought that even if I put out my own goal that I am obviously interested in winning, over players should be drawn to that like moths to a flame knowing the story tokens they can get?  In other words, they don't have to care whether or not Lucky Charm looks awesome, they just need to realize that *I* do, and that they can profit from that.

True enough - in the absence of other goals.  But you have to remember that your goal is competing with the other goals out there for the attention (and resources) of the other players.  Every time my turn comes up, I have to decide:  am I going to spend my actions on stopping Lucky from looking good? Am I going to spend it on trying to win "City Hall gets destroyed"?  Or am I going to throw down a goal of my own?

I assume that all goals "X does Y (to Z)" can be resolved by the successful conflict winner in having X succeed at doing Y, having X fail at doing Y because X fails, or having X fail at doing Y because Y is not possible.

Pretty much, yeah.  I mean, even if I'm a hero, if I think it'd be more interesting to have City Hall get destroyed, I can narrate that if I win the conflict.

J

[drnuncheon]

"Catwoman-mimic embarrasses herself" but I realize that I can't, because the player of that character can veto the goal, right?

Right.  You might have tried it anyway, though, to see what kind of reaction you got.  Maybe she'd let it stand, after all.  (I would.  I might even go for the 'my character embarasses himself' side.)

So I think how can I reword that so that it is not vetoable, but threatens the same result.

And that is how I came up with "Lucky Charm saves Catwoman-mimic from embarassing herself."

I have to agree, the wording on that is...eh.  It sounds more like it's about your character than hers.  Now that kind of thing might work out if the characters had some kind of long-standing rivalry or something, where it was a sort of 'counting coup' kind of thing ("I saved your ass, but we both know you messed up...score 1 for me!") and it would probably work with a player like Tony (of course, so would "Major Glory embarasses himself", I suspect).

I wonder what her reaction (and Mrs. Glover's reaction) would be to "Lucky Charms embarasses Catwoman"?  She can't veto it, so you're clear there.  But it's clearly drawing a line in the sand: I am on this side and I am going to embarass you - unless you do something about it.  Instant conflict.

This is probably an important point for Capes players to learn - the ONLY constriction on what a player may narrate after winning a goal conflict is that it must address either the success or failure of the subject character act achieving that goal.  How it plays out is entirely in the narrators hands.

Right?

You got it.

J

[Matthew Glover]

This is probably an important point for Capes players to learn - the ONLY constriction on what a player may narrate after winning a goal conflict is that it must address either the success or failure of the subject character act achieving that goal.  How it plays out is entirely in the narrators hands.

Right?

I think it's probably more important for players to learn how to construct conflicts that other players will want to persue.  Even if she had known the other option, just dropping that goal has already had an effect.  You added to the fiction a possibility that her character would embarass herself unless she was saved by Big Strong Hero Guy.  I expect she found that savagely offensive and deprotagonizing. 

I am sitting at the table, trying to figure out a way to motivate the player to get involved.  I think about dropping the goal "Catwoman-mimic embarrasses herself" but I realize that I can't, because the player of that character can veto the goal, right?

I think you realized that she would veto that, because she didn't want any chance of that happening.  You knew it was something she would oppose violently, so you restructured it, forcing her to face it, hoping to use that opposition to get her to engage.  It backfired, though, because she saw it as you not just forcing her to engage, but forcing that element into the fiction, win or lose, and it made her disengage.

My question is why you forced such a negative conflict rather than one that would have positively engaged her? 

[Sydney Freedberg]

Goal: Catwoman-mimic proves she's cooler than everyone else

Or

Event: Someone is proven to be cooler than everyone else

This way you get both the carrot ("look what I get if I win!") and the stick ("look what they might do to me if they win"), as opposed to simply beating them over the head with the stick ("Goal: Don't be embarassed" or "Event: Someone is embarassed").

[Matthew Glover]

I wonder what her reaction (and Mrs. Glover's reaction) would be to "Lucky Charms embarasses Catwoman"?  She can't veto it, so you're clear there.  But it's clearly drawing a line in the sand: I am on this side and I am going to embarass you - unless you do something about it.  Instant conflict.

She says:

That's way less condescending, and while it would get the same sort of reaction from MY catgirl (ie, I'll make life HELL for you from here on out, no matter how good or innocuous your intentions in the future), that wouldn't make me scratch the PLAYER'S eyes out.

It's the ridiculous implication and condescending nature of a lot of male gamers that piss off women who would probably truly enjoy games.

And when even your conflicts and plot devices insinuate that the chick's going to fuck up and be incompetent, you have serious reasons why most women roll their eyes at gamer dudes.

Which is pretty much about what I expected.

[Sindyr]

I thought that even if I put out my own goal that I am obviously interested in winning, over players should be drawn to that like moths to a flame knowing the story tokens they can get?  In other words, they don't have to care whether or not Lucky Charm looks awesome, they just need to realize that *I* do, and that they can profit from that.

True enough - in the absence of other goals.  But you have to remember that your goal is competing with the other goals out there for the attention (and resources) of the other players.  Every time my turn comes up, I have to decide:  am I going to spend my actions on stopping Lucky from looking good? Am I going to spend it on trying to win "City Hall gets destroyed"?  Or am I going to throw down a goal of my own?

Well, even if no one bites, worse case scenario - I can clear debt if I like, I can get some Insps, and most of all, I can narrate how *awesome* Lucky Charm looks. ;)

[drnuncheon]

She says:

That's way less condescending, and while it would get the same sort of reaction from MY catgirl (ie, I'll make life HELL for you from here on out, no matter how good or innocuous your intentions in the future), that wouldn't make me scratch the PLAYER'S eyes out.

And that's exactly what I'd be looking for, because that means we're going to be giving each other lots of story tokens...

J

[Sindyr]

I wonder what her reaction (and Mrs. Glover's reaction) would be to "Lucky Charms embarasses Catwoman"?  She can't veto it, so you're clear there.  But it's clearly drawing a line in the sand: I am on this side and I am going to embarass you - unless you do something about it.  Instant conflict.

Well I didn't want Lucky Charm to be hurting Catwoman - helping would be fine, but I didn't want LC to become her character's outright enemy.

Actually, the horrible truth is that even though I am apparently right about the goal I made not fencing her in, instead of taking the via negativa I should have done the reverse.

I should have put down the goal "Catwoman looks awesome!" or, if the player vetoes that, "Lucky Charm notices how awesome Catwoman looks!"

Damn! And triple Damn!

Let this be a lesson to me and everyone else - before trying to motivate someone with a hindering or negative goal, try enticing them with an enabling or positive one.

Thanks to all the posts above pointing this out.

Grrr....

[Sindyr]

It's the ridiculous implication and condescending nature of a lot of male gamers that piss off women who would probably truly enjoy games.

FYI, Lucky Charm is always trying to rescue everyone and smooth things over - man or woman.  He's a bit pro-noid.  He's a hero, but many other characters would liekly find him somewhat annoying.

Which is I think another way to earn story tokens....

Personally, I find that sort of macho and machismo stuff repellent - but it can make for interesting characters.

[drnuncheon]

Let this be a lesson to me and everyone else - before trying to motivate someone with a hindering or negative goal, try enticing them with an enabling or positive one.

It's not as clear-cut as that, as you can tell from many of Tony's past posts.  I think he'd get more motivated by "Major Glory embarasses himself" than he would by "Major Glory impresses the crowd". (Unless, of course, he was impressing the crowd in his narration and you put it down to block him.)  That's the sort of thing that gets him going.

You might be more motivated by a goal that says "Lucky Charms - how's he look?  He looks GOOD."

Another player might be more motivated by plot-centered goals - they don't care whether their character gets dropped into a sewer or that Lucky gets the credit, as long as they prevent City Hall from being blown up.

All of this is part of the skill of reading the player.  What do they want?  And how can I get them to pay me in Story Tokens to get it?

[Tuxboy]

I am sitting at the table, trying to figure out a way to motivate the player to get involved.  I think about dropping the goal "Catwoman-mimic embarrasses herself" but I realize that I can't, because the player of that character can veto the goal, right?

So I think how can I reword that so that it is not vetoable, but threatens the same result.

And that is how I came up with "Lucky Charm saves Catwoman-mimic from embarassing herself."

Just out of interest did you ever consider "Goal: Catwoman-mimic  saves Lucky Charm from embarrassing himself."?

Now there is a conflict that everyone could invest in, especially if Lucky Charm was being played as an insufferable egomaniac...I think everyone would want to narrate that one...I know I would (starts counting the debt) ;)

[Sindyr]

I am sitting at the table, trying to figure out a way to motivate the player to get involved.  I think about dropping the goal "Catwoman-mimic embarrasses herself" but I realize that I can't, because the player of that character can veto the goal, right?

So I think how can I reword that so that it is not vetoable, but threatens the same result.

And that is how I came up with "Lucky Charm saves Catwoman-mimic from embarassing herself."

Just out of interest did you ever consider "Goal: Catwoman-mimic  saves Lucky Charm from embarrassing himself."?

Now there is a conflict that everyone could invest in, especially if Lucky Charm was being played as an insufferable egomaniac...I think everyone would want to narrate that one...I know I would (starts counting the debt) ;)

No I didn't - that would have conflicted with my story goals (vis-a-vis LC looking AWESOME)...  now if someone *else* put that goal down *I* would have jumped all over it.

What someone else pointed out is that I should have gone with "Goal: Catwoman-mimic looks AWESOME" or, if the player vetoes that, "Lucky Charm notices how awesome Catwoman looks!"

*Then* I could have gotten the player to engage in a positive way, instead of giving her a negative to fight. (And one that requires a certain degree of sophisticated Capes understanding at that)

[TonyLB]

No I didn't - that would have conflicted with my story goals (vis-a-vis LC looking AWESOME)...  now if someone *else* put that goal down *I* would have jumped all over it.

I don't get it.  Why would a long period of time in which Lucky Charms could not conceivably be embarrassed (by the Not Yet rule) run counter to your goals of Lucky Charm being awesome?  I'd think that would play right into your hands, just as would goals like "Lucky Charm makes a mistake," "The public doesn't approve of Lucky Charm" and "Someone proves they're better than Lucky Charm."

[Sindyr]

1) I already had the Goal down "Lucky Charm looks AWESOME" - it would be unwise for we to create a second goal I needed to be invested in while that one was in play - for goals I care about winning, the fewer I need to fight for in any one turn, the better I can get them won.
2) My goal (small g) as a player was to play a conflict that I would want to let the other player win.  One that makes my character look bad does not qualify.
3) I personally get more invested when I am I fighting for a positive as opposed to fighting against a positive.  So while I would get deeply invested in winning "LC looks AWESOME" I may well ignore the goal "LC looks like a TOOL" as well as tune out any narration of its eventual resolution, and instead play as if that goal and its resolution had never occurred.

I can use selective blindness and selective amnesia when I must - a quite useful tool in this game I would imagine.

Nevertheless, there are plenty of ways to motivate me to give you story tokens - you just have to care what conflicts I want to be involved in - which is pretty much the key to Capes, isn't it?  Discovering what kinds of conflicts each player is motivated to try to win?