Four-color rules?

[Sindyr]

I don't think most of that has anything to do with what I said.  Don't have any time this moment to write more now, maybe later.

[Tuxboy]

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.

Excellently made point...cuts straight to the chase...and I agree whole-heartedly.

I don't think most of that has anything to do with what I said.

It is the distillation of what you said, the pure and refined end result of a game where only one side can ever win. It may not be what you meant, but is certainly what your mechanic boils down to.

I was actually looking for more of a mechanical critique...
{snip}
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?

A mechanical critique?...it is an ugly, cumbersome, and totally unnecessary mechanic that will actively discourage anyone from playing "villians" as it is no longer fun or economically viable to do so. It tears the heart out of the game.

As for a better way:

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.

A well-written Comics Code will restrict the villians ability to win quite nicely, there is no need to further restrict people's ability to play villians by penalising them for doing so.

Mechanically it would hurt the game more than help it so, it seems that the majority of posters think, its a bad idea...a really bad idea.

[Sindyr]

Then I posit you this:

I am looking for a way to add the following boundaries/limits to the game, all of which support the Four-Color Tone:

• No torture, no rape, no brutality, no maiming or mutilation, etc, and no hint of any of those either.  In other words, in this game, this stuff doesn't happen, and the spectre of it doesn't even ever occur.
• No extended (past one scene) physical suffering
• The atmosphere is not one of brutal reality, is not depressing and/or bleak, but one of hope, possibility for good, and a deep faith in the hearts of the ordinary man on the street that good triumphs and evil fails - somehow. (Obviously, the villains do not share this faith - they are deluded.)
• The heroes eventually defeat the villains, the villains are not able to achieve any significant success. The villains may achieve temporary success, but every temporary success yields failure in short order.
• Likewise, the heroes may suffer temporary defeat, but each temporary defeat yields triumph sooner rather than later
• The reverse is not true - a villains defeat does not engender later victory, and a heroes victory does not engender later defeat.
• The heroes are generally more effective than the villains - not in every action, but overall in average.
• The villains are ultimately doomed if they do not reform

OK, starting with the above list, how do you use the existing mechanics to accomplish the above goals?  You can do some of them halfway, but as far as I can see, to accomplish them as stated requires mods - addon rules.  Right?

[drnuncheon]

I am looking for a way to add the following boundaries/limits to the game, all of which support the Four-Color Tone:

Here's something very important that I think you're overlooking:

No rules will stop me if I want to ruin the "Four-Color Tone" of your game. 

It doesn't matter how strict or punishing you make them - if I'm determined to do it, I will do it, and the only way you can stop me is by not playing with me at all.  You can say "if the villain wins, the player loses all of his Inspirations and Story Tokens".  That's fine.  I'll spend them all in the course of winning, so I'll lose nothing - and you'll lose everything.

Now that we have that established, maybe you can let go of the idea that game rules can protect you from problem players - because they can't.

The way to get a real, lasting, authentic "four-color tone" is to have a group of people that all want a four-color tone - and then trust them to do it.  In the words of Douglas Adams, DON'T PANIC! When somebody does something that looks like it's not four-color at first, instead of shooting them down, run with it.  That's what Capes is all about.  Since everyone's a GM as well as a player, you have to let go of the death-grip you have on theme, character, and creative control.  You have to have some level of trust for the other people you are playing the game with.

J

[Glendower]

You have to have some level of trust for the other people you are playing the game with.

And if you don't have trust, no amount of rules will stop that player from destroying your four color world.  Or be so insulted by your lack-of-trust rules to be turned off from gaming in that environment. 

I don't think they're necessary mechanics to get what you want done.  I've already mentioned why, and other people have given better reasons why they aren't a good plan.  We've even suggested alternatives to this.  What more are you looking for from future posts?

[TonyLB]

I'm going to look at this from a different angle.  Heaven knows we've covered all the angles that explain why it won't work.  Here's why it shouldn't work.

Sindyr:  You want a Four Color story.  You want the heroes to win, and villainy to suffer, and just generally good stuff to happen.  You want the world you are telling about to be the kind of world where that kind of thing happens.  You want a world where a benevolent God is watching behind the scenes, prepared at every moment to defend the innocent and uplift the righteous.

I think it is fair to say, given how many times you've come back to the point here on the forums that you want that very, very, very much.

That is passion.  Passion is important.  When you work to make that virtuous world a reality, you act with passion.

Why are you trying to waste all of that by spending your passion before the game?  You're spending all that passion talking to us.  You're spending all that passion trying to build rules to make any striving in the game itself meaningless.  When you get to the game there won't be anything left to be passionate about.

Instead, take that passion to the game.  Go into the game and strive to create the world you want so much.  Play a hero and show people that the world you are all creating is a good place, that the innocent are protected and the virtuous are uplifted.  Show them that crime doesn't pay and that justice always triumphs.  Show them that it is that way not because it had to be, but rather because you made it that way.  Show them that the world is good because it has heroes like you.

I believe, firmly, that there is a benevolent force that protects the innocent and uplifts the virtuous.  That force is us.  We do it.

[Tuxboy]

I believe, firmly, that there is a benevolent force that protects the innocent and uplifts the virtuous.  That force is us.  We do it.

And Tony you are in very good company, to quote two of them:

The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing ... Albert Einstein:

All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing ... Edmund Burke

Couldn't agree more...

[Sindyr]

Hmm... feels like the original intent of this thread was lost along the way...

I am looking for a way to promote four color play and limit play which is not four color.

This is because I wish this to be *hardcoded*.  For example, in a four color game, *no one* uses torture, or even thinks about it or threatens to.  The spectre doesn't come up.

If a goal about torture hits the table, its already too late.  Torture at least as a threat or atmosphere has entered the game.

This thread is for exploring ways to promote four color play and limit that which is not.  The existing rules are not sufficient.  Under the existing rules, one can create Goal: Mr. Evil tortures Stacy -or- Goal: Mr. Evil threatens to torture Stacy.  Either way, it takes only one player to bring it in, and no rule under Capes can prevent this.

How do you stop those Goals from even hitting the table is the real question?

Now if you are aghast and freaked out by the idea of a rule that has the possibility of placing a limitation that affects far far less than 1% of the creatable goals, then maybe you are more brittle than I, at least about limits.

But if you can, even hypothetically, get over that and consider, *given* we want to find a way of preventing certain types of narrations and Conflicts (such as any that mention or touch on torture), *how* do we do this?

For Capes as it stands has no way to do this as far as I can see.

Thanks to everyone who helps works on this, especially those of you who may choose never to use such a rule for *their* but don't wig out and actually help me figure this out for *my* play.

Thanks.

[Eetu]

Well, I think it's pretty hard to get anything better (and less disrupting) than a flat out contract between players that states what is allowable and what is not.

Now, even this will probably disrupt the game a bit. Vanilla Capes goes to great lengths to contain no hard limits whatsoever, and this "daunting freedom" actually ends up fostering a safe, warm, atmosphere (of exceeding yourself and facing also the harder things). Hard limiting rules, on the other hand, may elicit old dysfunctional player behaviour of creatively and maliciously bending the rules, leading into hurt (just because gamers ferally hate limiting rules). It's really subtle, but I think also core to almost all the arguments between you and the others.

However, if you do absolutely need it, I think that accompanied by otherwise fostering the good mood, this simple rule would be best.

[Kintara]

I don't know what four-color books you've read, but villains threaten to do nasty stuff in the comics all the time. They just fail, often at the last moment. That's why gloating works so well. The villains always lose if they go for the big gloatable conflicts. Does that mean that torture might get close to happening? Maybe. But it won't. I can feel comfortable knowing that they will fail, as a player. The character, who doesn't exist, doesn't know that. But you do. Why be squicked by something that you know can't happen...ever? It's like Bond strapped down to the table with the laser approaching. It's exciting, but I KNOW Bond will NEVER get sliced in half.

If the Code does its job, the villains will lose because they gloated down all the conflicts, the heroes will win. And the world will be safe from torture, mutilation, and rape (and planet explosion, conquering, etc.) forever, because it can't happen. I just find it hard to believe that such a world is all that dark. Do you really think the innuendo will be that unbearable?

[Tuxboy]

Now if you are aghast and freaked out by the idea of a rule that has the possibility of placing a limitation that affects far far less than 1% of the creatable goals, then maybe you are more brittle than I, at least about limits.

But your rule/mechanic didn't affect far, far less than 1% of the creatable goals, it affected EVERYTHING a "villain" did...that's 100% in the mathematics  where I come from ;)

It was a textbox example of taking a sledgehammer to crack a egg.

But if you can, even hypothetically, get over that and consider, *given* we want to find a way of preventing certain types of narrations and Conflicts (such as any that mention or touch on torture), *how* do we do this?

For Capes as it stands has no way to do this as far as I can see.

Hypothetically, agree it with the players beforehand and sanction any player that breaks that social contract during play. If the group can't be trusted to do this after it was agreed then why would you be playing with this bunch of sociopaths?

This seems to be a trust issue for you, you don't seem to trust anyone not too infringe preagreed boundaries during play, so need a rigid framework in place.

I'm interested to know how would you deal with this situation in a more traditional RPG environment, which was even less structure governing player behaviour?

Thanks to everyone who helps works on this, especially those of you who may choose never to use such a rule for *their* but don't wig out and actually help me figure this out for *my* play.

*L* I'm not sure that disagreeing with you and pointing out the ways your mechanic could negatively impact the game can be characterised as "wigging out".

I think the issue here is that no-one else sees the need for a rigid rules framework to govern this so are not invested in trying to build one. I think we are all more than willing to discuss any mechanism you come up with to do this for "your" game, the impact on play and the knock-on effects of the mechanic based on our experience with the system, but the no "wigging out" rule works both ways. You can't "wig out" if we tell you what works in every other game of Capes ever played just because it doesn't fit your perceptions of play, bearing in mind you still having played a game yet.

Does that sound fair? :)

[Kintara]

You could use the http://www.onceuponadime.com/hist/comicscode.htm

[Kintara]

You could use the http://www.onceuponadime.com/hist/comicscode.htm

Oops, the Real Comics Code.

[drnuncheon]

I was thinking abotu torture on my drive in to work this morning (how's that for an opener?) and I began to wonder about all sorts of tangential topics, like what qualifies as "torture" for pushing Sindyr's buttons.  For example, is this OK?

"Ha HA, Captain Dauntless - the device I have you strapped into is my remarkable PAIN INDUCER!  When I activate it, it will bathe you in an unspecified energy field of KirbyDots(tm) that will make you grit your teeth in heroic determination!"

I mean, I think that's pretty inoffensive, and if that's OK then the problem can probably be solved with a single line in the Comics Code:

No Graphic Violence

That one should do exactly what Sindyr wants, because you won't even be able to gloat on it - at least, I can't think of a goal offhand that couldn't be narrated without a graphic depiction of violence (unless it specifies graphic violence in the goal itself, which would obviously never happen anyway thanks to the code).

J

[Sindyr]

Well, I think it's pretty hard to get anything better (and less disrupting) than a flat out contract between players that states what is allowable and what is not.

Now, even this will probably disrupt the game a bit. Vanilla Capes goes to great lengths to contain no hard limits whatsoever, and this "daunting freedom" actually ends up fostering a safe, warm, atmosphere (of exceeding yourself and facing also the harder things). Hard limiting rules, on the other hand, may elicit old dysfunctional player behaviour of creatively and maliciously bending the rules, leading into hurt (just because gamers ferally hate limiting rules). It's really subtle, but I think also core to almost all the arguments between you and the others.

However, if you do absolutely need it, I think that accompanied by otherwise fostering the good mood, this simple rule would be best.

Then the next question is how to word that contract.  I am nto opposed to using a contract in the place of mods to the mechanics, but I am also not opposed to considering a mechnical solution either.