Four-color rules?

[Sindyr]

Was thinking of ways to add house rules and mods to encourage four color play; especially that heroes generally triumph over villains, and thought of this:

Villains have some kind of limitation on the spending of Story Token. Heroes do not.

The limitation could be:

• Villains don't get to spend any tokens
• Villains have to spend 2 tokens to get the effect of one
• Villains can only spend X number of tokens per scene, or per page.

Note: I am not suggesting putting any extra limits on their debt, or their ability to stake and/or split.

However, it would seem trivially easy to disadvantage the villain compared to the hero - so for games that want heroes to have the edge, this or something like it should work.

So why would someone want to play a villain?  To get story tokens, of course - they can still *get* them just as efficiently - and tokens *are* transferrable to any hero character you own. :D

Cool?

[TonyLB]

Looks like a pretty sketchy idea.  For a start, how do you define "Villain"?

When they're mechanically equivalent you're free to define them any way you want.  Eddie and you don't have to agree on whether Grathor the Sub-Terran is a misunderstand hero of the underworld or a megalomaniacal villain.  But once there is a mechanical effect, the two of you have to agree on that.  So what's your definition?

[Glendower]

Looks like a pretty sketchy idea.  For a start, how do you define "Villain"?

When they're mechanically equivalent you're free to define them any way you want.  Eddie and you don't have to agree on whether Grathor the Sub-Terran is a misunderstand hero of the underworld or a megalomaniacal villain.  But once there is a mechanical effect, the two of you have to agree on that.  So what's your definition?

To take this a step further, some of the best parts of the old "four color" era was when the villain and heroes have to work together to prevent a goal from a more evil, more nasty Villain.  Think of the times Dr. Doom and Mr. Fantastic have to have an "uneasy alliance" in order to defeat some other black hat.  Is Dr. Doom transformed into a hero?  At what point?  How does that affect the scene?  And what happens when goal x is resolved, and the two have their "sudden but inevitable betrayal?"

I guess my thought is that the idea makes things a little needlessly complicated.  Why tie yourself in knots when you already have a Comics Code and Gloating rules in place to encourage the old four color, heroic activity?

[Tuxboy]

I think the premise is overly complicated and totally unnecessary...as Glendower says:

Why tie yourself in knots when you already have a Comics Code and Gloating rules in place to encourage the old four color, heroic activity?

[Sindyr]

I was actually looking for more of a mechanical critique...

Given that we have a clear way to distinguish Heroes from Villains, and
Given that we want Villains to be threatening, but overal less effective than Heroes

Then, does some kind of rule limiting the Villains use of story tokens accomplish this mechanically, or is there some other better way to do this?

[ubergeek2012]

Also, are story tokens spent by players or by characters?  I thought story tokens were a player resource.  Are you trying to define players as heroes or villains?

[Matthew Glover]

What if a player is running a villain and wants to spend a story token to bring in a hero?  Is he allowed?  After that point, can he spend tokens because he has a hero under his control?

What if a player is running a hero and spends a story token to bring in a villain?  Is he no longer allowed to spend tokens?

[Sindyr]

Hmmm very good questions... let me think on them...

[Sindyr]

OK, perhaps one announces at the beginning of the scene whether you will be Hero or Villain aligned.  One you choose your side, you must play by all the limitations of that side.

Now, given the above, one can enforce a karmic balance simply by limiting how many (if any) Story Tokens a Villain can spend.

Hopefully by doing this, Villain play will be seen not as a way to create stories in and of itself, but more as a way to provide antagonists for the Heroes and get rewarded for it (story tokens.)

However, when you want to spend those story tokens freely, you want to be Hero aligned.

I am assuming that Hero aligned and Villain aligned play have differing limits, which ultimately wind up with Hero Aligned play being about creating narrations that fight injustice, hate, intolerance, and promote peace, love, and compassion.

Villain type play creates narrations that do the opposite.

Maybe there would be some way to tie in the Drives - Hero aligned play aims to further success for Justice, Love, Hope, Truth, and Duty; Villain aligned play aims to futher success for Obsession, Pride, Power, Love, and Fear.

Interesting.

[drnuncheon]

Villains have some kind of limitation on the spending of Story Token. Heroes do not.

In the immortal words of that kid in the disturbingly short green pants: "Holy bad idea, Batman!"

I think that this would actually make it harder for the villain to get Story Tokens.  Why?  Because you get story tokens by generating opposition.  You push the hero, forcing him to use his powers to get debt, and to stake debt on the conflicts to win - then when he does win you get the debt as story tokens.

By removing or crippling part of their arsenal, the villains won't be able to push as hard, the heroes won't rack up as much debt, and the player of the villains won't get as many story tokens out of the deal.

J

[Matthew Glover]

Why would I want to play a "villain" at all if the houserules are going to tie my hands behind my back?  Why wouldn't I just play a "hero" who does stuff that your "hero" will oppose?

[ubergeek2012]

It seems to me that pulling the teeth out of the conflicts will take all the struggle out of the game.  It's like entering a race, but only if the other team has to drag anchors behind them.  What's the point?  I just think that the thrill of a too easily won victory wouldn't satisfy me at all.

[Eric Sedlacek]

The problem I see is that what you seem to want to accomplish and what this rule will actually accomplish are not the same thing.  What you want is for the heroes to win in the end.  What you accomplish is hamstringing the effectiveness of players who control villains.  I bold the word "players" because you do not mess with villain characters in the slightest with this sort of rule.  You only mess with the player.  

There are all kinds of ways I can never once play a villain character and yet cause all sorts of doom, gloom, destruction, and villainous victory.  The easiest of these is to play a heroic character and then constantly narrate his failure.  

There are two things you can do to help play the sort of game you are describing:
1.  Write a good comics code.
2.  Play with other people who want to see the heroes win in the end.

I doubt very seriously that there is any sort of house rule that will be more effective.

[Sindyr]

Well, just because the villains can't spend as many tokens as the heroes will not mean that it will be easy...

Another idea that comes to me (and I am just spitballing here) is reverse gloating -

Have certain Boundary conditions.  When those boundary conditions are about to be threatened (like the villain winning a significant victory) their die gets turned to a "1" BUT they do not get a story token out of it - because Boundaries are presumably not only want you do not want crossed, but you also do not want the story continually coming anywhere near.

Quite possibly the offender loses a token (if he has any) or the offended gain a token, or both.

In fact, that may be a key idea for a mod - some mechanic that prevents certain states of affairs and punishes, not rewards players who activate them.

Whereas Comic's Codes and Gloating rules tend to be Attractors (as in they tend to reward play that bumps up close to the Code) Boundary rules would be Repulsors (and tend to discourage play near their boundaries.)

Kaleidoscopic!

[drnuncheon]

Have certain Boundary conditions.  When those boundary conditions are about to be threatened (like the villain winning a significant victory) their die gets turned to a "1" BUT they do not get a story token out of it

So the villain can't even com near to winning a significant victory, and he gets punished if he does?

Let me provide you with a simpler set of rules:

The good guy flips a coin.
Heads, he wins, and gets to narrate how he wins.
Tails, he flips again.

Not very satisfying as a game, eh?  Makes you ask yourself...why bother?  Hell, I could sit around and actively roll down my side of a conflict.  It wouldn't matter, the good guys are going to win no matter what.  There'd be absolutely no reason for me to care.  There's no reason to get invested, and that would absolutely kill a Capes game, because Capes is all about getting invested in the story.

J