Capes game scheduled!!

[Sindyr]

"against a positive" should read "against a negative"

[Tuxboy]

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.

Out of interest, did anyone other than you invest in "Lucky Charm looks AWESOME"? Doesn't strike me as an ideal conflict to draw others in...ok you might get people wanting to contest it if LC was behaving like "a tool" but if he wasn't I'm not sure people unfamiliar with the system would pick up on it.

Maybe "Goal: Lucky Charm impresses everyone with his AWESOMENESS" would have worked better to draw in the other players...

[TonyLB]

... or "Lucky Charm is so AWESOME that everyone (even you!) agrees that he's the best super-hero ever."

[Tuxboy]

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?

But in this case you were essentially "demo"ing the game to people, and under those circumstances it might have been better to subsume your "wants/needs" and try to generate the same degree of enthusiasm in the other players that you have expressed in your previous postings. It is one of the reasons that the "demo"er is best off taking the part of the villain initially, as this encourages the others to enter clear-cut conflicts against them.

In games with an experienced group your point is definately valid, but in a group that is as yet unconvinced by the game then there is a risk that overplaying our own "wants/needs" will conflict with the "wants/needs" of the other players and could drive them away as it seems it did with the the player of Catwoman-mimic.

[Tuxboy]

... or "Lucky Charm is so AWESOME that everyone (even you!) agrees that he's the best super-hero ever."

*LOL* especially like the "(even you!)"

Seems like a good example of Tony's button-pushing prowess...

[Sindyr]

As I understand it, people create goals for one of three reasons:
1) to win - in order to get Insps, clear debt, and narratively resolve something in the story
2) to lose - in order to get story tokens
3) to prevent something from occuring for a while, regardless of whether you win or lose (preventative goals).

When I created the goal "Lucky Charm looks awesome", my motivation was neither #2 nor #3. 

Given that one creates a goal for reason #1, it behooves one to not have other players drawn into it - in fact, it may be wise strategy to instead create a goal for them to be drawn into so that they don't interfere with one unilaterally resolving the goal you really want to win.

Long story short, as far as I can see, if one can arrange, manipulate, or otherwise get people to not engage in the goals you want to win, you will have a much better chance at winning them, and achieving the outcome that was the reason you wanted to win it in the first place.

Is this obvious, or is there a strategic reason why I would want to have players drawn into a goal that I want to win?

[Tuxboy]

Is this obvious, or is there a strategic reason why I would want to have players drawn into a goal that I want to win?

Seems reasonable, but my point is that you were trying to encourage people to come back and play Capes again, therefore, maybe, winning wasn't of paramount importance in this case.

[Sindyr]

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?

But in this case you were essentially "demo"ing the game to people, and under those circumstances it might have been better to subsume your "wants/needs" and try to generate the same degree of enthusiasm in the other players that you have expressed in your previous postings. It is one of the reasons that the "demo"er is best off taking the part of the villain initially, as this encourages the others to enter clear-cut conflicts against them.

In games with an experienced group your point is definately valid, but in a group that is as yet unconvinced by the game then there is a risk that overplaying our own "wants/needs" will conflict with the "wants/needs" of the other players and could drive them away as it seems it did with the the player of Catwoman-mimic.

Sorry, I was not clear.  the section above is adressed to Tony (who is experienced) not to my gaming group.  The section you quote is taken somewhat out of context.  The relevant past of that post was:

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?

So the context was:
A) I like trying to win positive goals and don't like being pushed into trying to win negative goals
B) To deal with someone who consistantly threatens negative consequences I can electively and selectively ignore and forget the offending goal and its fallout
C) However, do not assume that B means that I refuse to get involved and participate - nothing could be further from the truth.  I am just *selective* about what I choose to care about - which is my right as a player.

The part you quoted was in essence part C above, but taken without A and B it loses the meaning I was giving to it.

My basic point is as a player, I choose to get involved in the conflicts that matter to me, and I choose to stay away from that which I wish to discourage.

This is *not* about the Capes group I played in.  That was about me answering Tony's question about what kind of goals I want to see on the table in general.

By the way:
Second session scheduled with most of the first session people likely to be there, this Sunday.

Here we go again - but with more knowledge and experience.

Woot.

[Sindyr]

Is this obvious, or is there a strategic reason why I would want to have players drawn into a goal that I want to win?

Seems reasonable, but my point is that you were trying to encourage people to come back and play Capes again, therefore, maybe, winning wasn't of paramount importance in this case.

Well, my first priority wasn't to make sure everyone loved the game, my first priority was to see what I thought of the game after actual play.  You need to remember that I am not a convert yet, I am still too green.

After playing for a session, I and everyone else now ask the big question - should we try it again.

Before playing (and even now) I am not able to sincerely tell them that I have no doubt that this game is what they should be playing.  All I can do Is try the game out and allow others to do the same with me.

Now in 5 to 10 session, perhaps I will be a convert, and at that point when I run a game for newbies I won't be at all focussed on my questions and will instead be focussed on trying to sell them capes.  Right now, I am more in their camp of asking the question(s).

[TonyLB]

Is this obvious, or is there a strategic reason why I would want to have players drawn into a goal that I want to win?

Well, here's the thing:  it pays to be able to adapt.

Yes, you can go in with the intent of getting inspirations ... and then if you win then you succeed, but if you lose (which can happen ... remember how easy it is for even a casual opponent to roll a 6 by luck) then you fail.

If you go in with the intent of having an interesting and engaged conflict ... well, then, if you win then you succed (Inspirations!) and if you lose you succeed (Story Tokens!)  There's no losing.

So what's the benefit of pursuing only one possible goal to the exclusion of all others when you can pursue everything at once?

[Sindyr]

So what's the benefit of pursuing only one possible goal to the exclusion of all others when you can pursue everything at once?

That only works if you want everything all at once.

Tell a general going into battle that he will succeed no matter what the outcome, just so long as he counts defeat and victory both as successes, and he will not be bale to argue with you, because you have defined yourself (using undefeatable circular reasoning) into winning the debate.

The part I disagree with is that one should find equal value in all possible outcomes regardless of circumstance.

If one *doesn't* find equal value, then one will want to strive for the outcome that ones values most.

Which means doing thing to hinder those that wold block that outcome, and using all your resources to help that outcome come about.

So again I say, if you want to win a goal, if narrating the resolution is more important than any number of story tokens, then you *will* want other people to NOT be involved in that goal.

If you don't care too much about the goal, but think that losing it to someone else can net you tokens, then you will want to play differently.

Either you want to win the conflict, or you want to lose it, or you are ambivalent.

Trying to win it plays differently from trying to lose it.  And if you don't care then where's *your* passion?

[drnuncheon]

Trying to win it plays differently from trying to lose it.

I disagree.  Even when you're playing to lose, Capes rewards you for pushing as hard as you can.

Let's presume you're a villain, and you have a goal that you (the player) want to lose on.

If it's a Gloatable goal, then you want to play to win - because that lets you turn down a die and get a story token.  The longer you keep the Goal alive, the more Story Tokens you're going to get for it.  (And of course you'll get some when you finally lose, too.)

If it's not a Gloatable goal, then you still want to play as hard as possible.  The tougher you make it fo the other side to win, the mode Debt they're going to be staking, and the more Debt they stake, the more Story Tokens you have a chance at when you lose.  If you deliberately "throw" the goal, then you're cheating yourself out of Story Tokens. 

Sure, you might accidentally win - but that's OK, because now the hero has double debt, which means that when one of you puts down some kind of followup conflict, they're going to have a lot more Debt to stake and he's going to have a vested interest in beating you at the rematch.

J

[Sindyr]

Assuming that its a non gloatable conflict, then I disagree that accidental victories are good.

You want to make them stake as many tokens as you can - you want them to win, but you also want to maximize the tokens you get when you win.

Giving them back double their debt is not helpful to you.  I have found it extremely easy to generate debt any time I want - so it's not like they need help their.  And you run the real risk that you will cause them to stop playing that character because of how overloaded it is with debt.

So you can make the most of it, but anytime you *win* a conflict that your really wanted story tokens out of, and whose narrative resolution is not all that important to you, then I think we really must admit that that is a failure.

[Matthew Glover]

Giving them back double their debt is not helpful to you.  I have found it extremely easy to generate debt any time I want - so it's not like they need help their.  And you run the real risk that you will cause them to stop playing that character because of how overloaded it is with debt.

Nah, I disagree.  Look:   There are two conflicts on the table.  You don't really care about either of them.  Steve cares about them both deeply.  Steve has four debt staked on one of them, and the other is tied.  You spend a Story Token for an extra turn and stake some of your Debt and you roll up and control the goal so you get to resolve it.  You narrate it painfully, making Steve really regret losing it.  He gets back eight Debt, and a few Story Tokens. 

Top of the next page, Steve is badly overdrawn on Debt so he has to roll down his highest die on the remaining goal that he really cares about.  Now he's desperate to get rid of all that Debt and after that horrible loss he's even more desperate to win the goal that's left.  He dumps all the Debt just to get it off his guy and spend his Story Tokens rolling up his dice to make damn sure he wins this one.  Even if you wanted to win this goal, you'll have a tough time because of all the resources he has now, so you don't fight too hard.  When the page resolves, you've gotten rid of your Debt, you've raked in twice as many Story Tokens as you would have, and Steve spent the Tokens you gave him.   AND Steve was dealt a resounding blow, yet managed to overcome it and finish with a triumphant victory, so he's happy about what you did.

So you can make the most of it, but anytime you *win* a conflict that your really wanted story tokens out of, and whose narrative resolution is not all that important to you, then I think we really must admit that that is a failure.

No way.  If you win it, it's a tool that you use in order to farm more Story Tokens later.

[Sindyr]

Giving them back double their debt is not helpful to you.  I have found it extremely easy to generate debt any time I want - so it's not like they need help their.  And you run the real risk that you will cause them to stop playing that character because of how overloaded it is with debt.

Nah, I disagree.  Look:   There are two conflicts on the table.  You don't really care about either of them.  Steve cares about them both deeply.  Steve has four debt staked on one of them, and the other is tied.  You spend a Story Token for an extra turn and stake some of your Debt and you roll up and control the goal so you get to resolve it.  You narrate it painfully, making Steve really regret losing it.  He gets back eight Debt, and a few Story Tokens. 

Top of the next page, Steve is badly overdrawn on Debt so he has to roll down his highest die on the remaining goal that he really cares about.  Now he's desperate to get rid of all that Debt and after that horrible loss he's even more desperate to win the goal that's left.  He dumps all the Debt just to get it off his guy and spend his Story Tokens rolling up his dice to make damn sure he wins this one.  Even if you wanted to win this goal, you'll have a tough time because of all the resources he has now, so you don't fight too hard.  When the page resolves, you've gotten rid of your Debt, you've raked in twice as many Story Tokens as you would have, and Steve spent the Tokens you gave him.   AND Steve was dealt a resounding blow, yet managed to overcome it and finish with a triumphant victory, so he's happy about what you did.

So you can make the most of it, but anytime you *win* a conflict that your really wanted story tokens out of, and whose narrative resolution is not all that important to you, then I think we really must admit that that is a failure.

No way.  If you win it, it's a tool that you use in order to farm more Story Tokens later.

IF it always works out that way, you would be right.

I am just not sure at all that it always works out that way.

And if that is the case, then my original assertion stands.

Perhaps it is a case of the bird in the hand being worth more than two in the bush, if you see my point.