Capes game scheduled!!

[drnuncheon]

If so, if you *can* pass your reaction and simply take it later after everyone else, what's to prevent people wanting to react but not wanting to react first?  Whats to prevent the reaction phase from becoming crawn out as people try to out-wait each other in order to the last person to roll the die?

I'd say if you go full circle without a reaction, it's time to move on.  For courtesy, I'd do it something like this:

Alex: OK, I rolled a 3...I'm not going to react. Betty?
Betty: Pass.
Carl: Not yet.
Dave: Pass.
Emily: Nope.
Alex: So nobody wants to react?  Last chance...OK, it stays at a 3.  Betty, its your turn.

J

[Glendower]

Point taken - the downside comes from when the complexity becomes a burden and time gets lost either trying to come up with narrations or bookkeeping the Insps.

Perhaps as the basic Capes mechanics become second nature, we shall bring back in the narrative aspects of Insps.

I'm not sure why time would be "lost".  I guess it's a difference of opinion, but I think time would be "well spent" trying to come up with narrations or bookkeeping the Inspirations.  Those decisions on narration are an important part of play.

I look at Inspirations as a log of successes and the occasional defeat.  Jotting down "Saved Hostages" followed by a number doesn't take that much time, does it?  Inspirations provide that crucial link between what has happened before and what has hapened next.  The same link that you said you lacked when going from one scene to the next.  Without inspiration narration used to connect, you will continue to have this problem.

[Glendower]

If so, if you *can* pass your reaction and simply take it later after everyone else, what's to prevent people wanting to react but not wanting to react first?  Whats to prevent the reaction phase from becoming drawn out as people try to out-wait each other in order to the last person to roll the die?

Good question.  Mechanically speaking, nothing.  Though if someone pulled that kind of nonsense, I'd probably ask them to cut it out. You're talking about the equivalent of not rolling dice in monopoly, but thinking about rolling dice, waiting for people to either forfeit or bribe you with property to hurry the hell up and Roll!  That's also not against the rules, but also makes for a poor game.

[Hans]

I'd say if you go full circle without a reaction, it's time to move on.  For courtesy, I'd do it something like this:

Alex: OK, I rolled a 3...I'm not going to react. Betty?
Betty: Pass.
Carl: Not yet.
Dave: Pass.
Emily: Nope.
Alex: So nobody wants to react?  Last chance...OK, it stays at a 3.  Betty, its your turn.

J

This is the way we have always done it, except without the "last chance" bit.  We start around the circle.  If EVERYONE passes, then we move on.  If at least one person reacts, then we go around the circle again of those that have not yet reacted.  Essentially, if anyone reacts, it cancels all "passes" and frees people up to react or pass again (if they have not already reacted). 

It adds a lot of gaming into reactions for everyone as you try to gauge whether someone else will react or not to decide whether you pass or react yourself, because if you guess wrong you are liable to lose your chance to react.  I have to say that I pretty much thought this WAS the rule on reaction, but I might have just read it in.

[Matthew Glover]

We do it the same way that Hans does.  We do spending Story Tokens for extra actions the same way.  On your turn you can pass, but if everybody passes, you lose your chance.

[Sindyr]

We do it the same way that Hans does.  We do spending Story Tokens for extra actions the same way.  On your turn you can pass, but if everybody passes, you lose your chance.

Everybody passes = next (whatever) is very doable.  Thanks, I was thinking along similar lines.

Perhaps this should be added to the official rules?

[TonyLB]

How do you make the other players do that?

Uh ... did I say you should?

I mean, you should if you can manage it, because (as people rightly point out) doing so can get you a lot of Story Tokens.  But I was asking whether there was a player, even one, who brought that passion to the table.  To my mind, one player with passion is enough to jump-start the game, if they are willing to put themselves on the line.

Now if you intend to ask, all incredulous and resentful, "How could I possibly assure that at least one player brings passion to the table?" then I would recommend that you examine that question very carefully.  I think the answer may be staring you in the face.

[Sindyr]

Several players brought enthusiasm to the table, and lots of it.  That should suffice.

[TonyLB]

Well then why are you balking at answering this question?  Sounds like you should have plenty of examples of players who got passionate about goals, and invested in fighting off all opposition.  Tell us about them!

[Sindyr]

"passionate" is a superlative word and I do not employ it often.  Using it is like leaving oneself a loophole, a way to say "yeah, but since you had problems, you must not have been (supebolded) *passionate*, you know, not really" - in other words, self-serving circular logic of proving oneself right by jiggering the semantics and definitions.

What I can tell you is that:
1) I was invested in winning the Lucky Charm is Awesome conflict.
2) I tried to dangle the Lucky Charm Saves Catwoman-mimic from embarrassing herself to get that player to invest.
3) There was a The Mind Control Device gets destroyed that at least 3 of us were fighting over.
4) There was a City Hall gets Destroyed that at least 3 of us were fighting over.

Mind you, we were under the impression that we could not react during our own action - it changes things a lot if you can.

There were also other goals that were of medium interest such as Mitch the Twitch finds a place to stay.

Does this answer your question?

[TonyLB]

No, but it lets me ask more specific questions.  I'm not asking you to defend your experience, I just want you to tell the story, for Pete's sake.

So let's start with item #1:  You were really invested in the Lucky Charm is Awesome conflict.  Cool!  What did you say?  What did you do?  How did you shove Lucky Charm's potential awesomeness right out there in the other people's faces and make sure they got a good whiff?

[drnuncheon]

What I can tell you is that:
1) I was invested in winning the Lucky Charm is Awesome conflict.

That's good.  But the best goals are obviously the ones where you and someone else are both invested - on opposite sides.  I don't particularly have any reason to oppose you on that goal.  Now if you slap down "Lucky Charm shows up Dr. N and gets all the credit"...well now.

2) I tried to dangle the Lucky Charm Saves Catwoman-mimic from embarrassing herself to get that player to invest.

Hmm.  This might be a player thing.  An inexperienced player might think "Gee, if I win, and he wants Lucky to save my character, and I'm opposing him, that must mean my character embarasses herself.  I don't want that to happen."  Like I suggested in a previous post, I'd go for the clear-cut goals and only slowly introduce them to the idea that you're actually fighting over narrative control.

(When you think about it, you could actually have something where a player is fighting to have their character fail, and someone else is fighting to narrate them succeeding - even though in the game-world their characters are doing the exact opposite!)

J

[Sindyr]

What I can tell you is that:
1) I was invested in winning the Lucky Charm is Awesome conflict.

That's good.  But the best goals are obviously the ones where you and someone else are both invested - on opposite sides.  I don't particularly have any reason to oppose you on that goal.  Now if you slap down "Lucky Charm shows up Dr. N and gets all the credit"...well now.

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.

2) I tried to dangle the Lucky Charm Saves Catwoman-mimic from embarrassing herself to get that player to invest.

Hmm.  This might be a player thing.  An inexperienced player might think "Gee, if I win, and he wants Lucky to save my character, and I'm opposing him, that must mean my character embarasses herself.  I don't want that to happen."  Like I suggested in a previous post, I'd go for the clear-cut goals and only slowly introduce them to the idea that you're actually fighting over narrative control.

(When you think about it, you could actually have something where a player is fighting to have their character fail, and someone else is fighting to narrate them succeeding - even though in the game-world their characters are doing the exact opposite!)
J

Interesting - perhaps she didn't quite yet get the fact that should she win that conflict, the narration of it is up to her.  So winning the "Goal: Lucky Charm help Catwoman-mimic from embarassing herself" means that you can narrate LC succeeding at getting Catwoman-mimic to not embarass herself, you can narrate LC failing to prevent Catwoman-mimic from embarassing herself, and you can narrate Catwoman-mimic not even embarrassing herself to begin with.

Maybe the player did not realize the third result was an option.

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.

Example: Goal: Lucky Charm rescues Supergirl from Mr Machismo.
A player who wins the conflict could narrate Supergirl failing to be rescued, and therefor captured by Mr Machismo; but could also be narrated (should the winner so choose) as Supergirl not requiring rescue as she defeated Mrachismo herself, making Lucky's rescue of her impossible because the opportunity has vanished.

Make sense?

[Matthew Glover]

Now that I look at it again, I think I might understand why your player didn't jump on "Lucky Charm Saves Catwoman-mimic from embarrassing herself".  I'm going to be jumping to some conclusions here, but I think they're on target.  If I were playing Catwoman, I think that goal would probably piss me off too.  The way its phrased is like "Catwoman is going to embarass herself!  Luckily, Lucky Charm is here to save her from her own stupidness!"

If you're not accustomed to exactly how much freedom you get in narrating resolution, it could look like there were only two options:  You win and you narrate Lucky Charm saving stupid Catwoman from embarassing herself.
She wins, and has to narrate Lucky Charm failing and has to narrate embarassing herself.

If that was her interpretation, and I'm starting to think that it must have been, I see why she clammed up and wouldn't touch that goal.  By dropping that goal, you establish that Catwoman is some bumbling dork who's going to make a fool of herself if big strong Lucky Charm doesn't step in and saaaaaave her.

Just to be sure, I ran this scenario past my wife.  "You're playing a character named this, he's playing character named that.  He drops this conflict. What would you do?" I asked.

Gouge his eyes out with a spoon, pretend conflict was never dropped.

Not only do I find it condescending, he's introducing a goal where whether I win or lose, I look like an idiot.

Either I lose the conflict, and I fuck up, letting him play gallant... or if I win, I get to fuck up spectacularly, anyhow.

Either way, the eventuality is already set. I am a fucking idiot.

Just so you know, my wife has played Capes several times, in addition to having to listen to me talk about it all the time.

[Matthew Glover]

Bah, cross-posted with above.  My point still stands, though.  I expect that at least part of why your player wants to never play Capes again is because you dropped that conflict.