Four-color rules?

[Sindyr]

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?

If the gloating rules prevent rape, then you are basically rewarding the player who gets Stacy Scott naked, strapped to the table legs wide with a mechanical pentration device poised to enter her.

Unless of course you define rape more loosely - but my point remains - gloating rules *encourage* players getting you up to the edge.  That is *great* for some things, and *terrible* for others.

I stand by the idea that there needs to be a way to say "you are not allowed to cross this line AND you are not rewarded for threatening to"

Makes perfect sense to me that you should have BOTH kinds of rules - ones that encourage boundary play for some issues and ones that discourage boundary play for others.

[Hans]

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).

Nice try, J.  And a fun idea, I think.  

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.

(emphasis mine)
then the code line above doesn't really help with the bolded part.  It just makes what can be gloated on a bit confusing.

For example:

Goal: Wolverine slaughters the ninja guarding the compound

Under what circumstances would that goal be gloatable by Wolverine's player?  Nothing requires that the goal's resolution be narrated graphically; we could just be treated to the sight of all kinds of ninja bodies lying around the place, while Lady Mariko's father is yelling into his walkie talkie for his guards to respond.  On the other hand, it could be narrated with sound effects, blood splatters, heads flying off shoulders, etc.  

Wolverine is a bad example, though, as he is from the '80's four-colour ethic of comics, as the real-life comics code was rapidly losing its authority.  So here is a more old-school one:

Event: Mr. Fantastic recieves word that Doctor Doom is brutally torturing Sue Storm for information.

Is it gloatable?  Note that it is not certain that Dr. Doom IS torturing Sue?  Doom could be taking her out to Latveria's finest restaurants for all we know.  The word could be coming from some enemy of Dr. Doom, would be well served if the FF were to show up and start trashing Doom's place. However, you could also narrate as Reed opening up a package and finding a finger with Sue's wedding ring on it, still oozing blood.

I would argue that from the perspective of old-school four-colour (say, Lee/Kirby era), the only one of Sindyr's laundry list that is really inappropriate is rape.  Maiming, mutilation, torture, brutality, etc. were all commonly THREATENED in four-colour comics; they just never really happened.  Pretty much every trap on Apokolips would constitute the threat of one of those things.   "I have saved you from the whirling sawblades of mutiliation, Mr. Miracle, because I would rather you face...the boiling acid pits! MWAHAHAHAHAHA"  This is where the Capes Comics Code comes in; these are EXACTLY the things that four-colour villains gloat over in the comics all the time.

Now that I think about it, even rape was not completely taboo...certainly the threat of it was implied in the old Wonder Woman comics, although those were pre-code.  And how often do we hear things like "Aha, I like my women to have fire!  But you WILL bend to my wishes...eventually."

The acceptablity is not really which of these things is threatened, but the style in which it is threatened.  Dr. Doom could threaten to torture Reed Richards to make him reveal secrets about the negative zone; he could threaten to zap him with an elaborate Kirby-esque bit of weird science equipment, or he could threaten to pull Reed's teeth out one by one without anesthetic (assuming you can pull Reed's teeth out, and his gums wouldn't just stretch).  Both are torture.  Having the line "No Torture" in the CC will prevent both from ACTUALLY happening, but the one is within the style, the other isn't.

Style of narration is something that absolutely cannot be mechanically enforced...it can only come about through people wanting it to come about.  Moreover, it requires people to actually know what you are talking about; if I want "Lee/Kirby four-colour, ala Fantastic Four", a person who has never read Lee/Kirby comics could not possibly understand what I want, I will have to be more explicit and guide them to it, or pick a sub-genre of comics they ARE familiar with and interested in.

[Sindyr]

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

Again, no use of the Comics Code mechanic in Capes suffices because it drives and encourages player to often return to the boundary.

[Sindyr]

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

J - I like your approach.  Enduring pain in a four color comic way is not an issue.

*Perhaps* a Comics Code of "No graphic violence, tramua, suffering, or pain" might cover it.  But maybe that would be better as a Rule that could NOT be Gloated on than a Code.  I do not want to reward people for threatening to break that one.

We may be getting somewhere here.

[Sindyr]

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 ;)

The 1% was in (I think) the section about not allowing people to tell stories that touch on torture - I was not (I hope) claiming that the mechanic idea was a one percenter.  Sorry if I was unclear or misspoke.

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?

1) I think the question of "why codify" is the same as "why not just play let's pretend without any rules at all" - namely, that rules can be useful in guiding play.  I don't think I need to spend a lot of time explaining why codification of important prinicples and goals is important.

2)  In a more traditional RPG environment I am usually the GM, and I talk about the limits of the gamespace with my player before the game.  I don't need to worry about one of them breaking the limits because as the GM I can stop them.

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.

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? :)

I think it is more accurate and a sign of wisdom not to say thing like "no one sees the need..."  Perhaps it is better to say what *you* see or don't see and not speak for everyone else who may be posting, lurking, or who may read this months from now.

As to the other, the only thing that would make *me* wig out is people telling me that I have to play in ways that are not fun and I need to be willing to endure anxiety and trauma to play a game.  Or, to say the same thing another way, people attacking me for trying to explore utilizing the majesty of Capes with some minor tinkerings to make it safer.

I guess I do not equate "safer" to "bad".

[Hans]

I stand by the idea that there needs to be a way to say "you are not allowed to cross this line AND you are not rewarded for threatening to"

Assuming that you have all agreed, up front, as to the tone and style of comics you are shooting for with this Capes session (in this case, Four-colour ala Lee/Kirby), then there is a way, Sindyr.  I say "Man, this whole bondage/rape thing you've got going...does nothing for me, and moreover I can't imagine what four-colour comics you have been reading that that works with.  You've been reading to much Hentai and watching to much freaky weird anime, man.  Get with the program or don't come back next time."

Makes perfect sense to me that you should have BOTH kinds of rules - ones that encourage boundary play for some issues and ones that discourage boundary play for others.

I can see why you say this, but I am convinced that rules that PREVENT boundary play are impossible.  However, I will suggest that removing the gloating rule altogether, or allowing gloating only on certain elements of the Comics Code and not others would at least not encourage villains to indulge in this kind of play.  Here is my example pseudo-comics code for you.

Ultra Safe Comics Code:   The following items are prohibited by the comics code, and are NOT GLOATABLE.

• No torture, no rape, no brutality, no maiming or mutilation, etc, and no hint of any of those either.
 

• No extended (past one scene) physical suffering.  
• No prevasively depressing and/or bleak scene elements
• No significant success for the villains.
• No significant defeat for heroes.

In addition, all elements of the Comics Code from the Capes rules are available and are gloatable.

Again, this PREVENTS nothing, but at least it clearly lists what you want from the game, and does not reward attempting to do these things.

Personally, I wouldn't touch the code above with a ten-foot pole.  First, I think it would lead to very drab play, especially from the villains.  Secondly, I think it is almost completely unecessary; if I really need to spell out exactly what I mean by "four-colour" to someone I am playing with in this detail, I probably should not be trying to play "four-colour" style Capes with them in the first place.  But, hey, I'm not playing with you, so what do I care?  Give it a go, and tell us what happens.

[Hans]

Oops, got the quote tags a bit off in the above post, sorry.  I think you can tell which is new and which is old.

EDIT:  Fixed, courtesy of your friendly neighborhood moderator.

[TonyLB]

I think it is more accurate and a sign of wisdom not to say thing like "no one sees the need..."  Perhaps it is better to say what *you* see or don't see and not speak for everyone else who may be posting, lurking, or who may read this months from now.

I'm going to make a recommendation to all those who think Sindyr's wrong:  Stop posting to this thread to try to educate him.

He has made the purpose of the thread clear (albeit recently):  He wants like-minded people, who agree with his goals and believe that the rules he is proposing will help him achieve them, to comment and help him refine.

Let's leave this thread to those people.  Maybe a lively discussion will erupt once people are freed of the hovering presence of nay-sayers.  Or maybe there will be a silence in which one can hear the gentle call of the crickets.  The only way to find out is to let it happen.

Sindyr:  Is that what you would like for the thread?

[Tuxboy]

1) I think the question of "why codify" is the same as "why not just play let's pretend without any rules at all" - namely, that rules can be useful in guiding play.  I don't think I need to spend a lot of time explaining why codification of important prinicples and goals is important.

Not sure what relevance this has to my comments.

2)  In a more traditional RPG environment I am usually the GM, and I talk about the limits of the gamespace with my player before the game.  I don't need to worry about one of them breaking the limits because as the GM I can stop them.

And how do you stop them? And why can't you and the others players do the same on a pre-agreed set of boundaries in a Capes game?

I think it is more accurate and a sign of wisdom not to say thing like "no one sees the need..."  Perhaps it is better to say what *you* see or don't see and not speak for everyone else who may be posting, lurking, or who may read this months from now.

Normally i would agree with you but based solely the responses in this thread, and the numerous others on this subject, there seems to be little or no doubt that on the subject of introducing a additional mechanic to control tone you would appear to be in a very vocal minority of one ;)

As to the other, the only thing that would make *me* wig out is people telling me that I have to play in ways that are not fun and I need to be willing to endure anxiety and trauma to play a game.  Or, to say the same thing another way, people attacking me for trying to explore utilizing the majesty of Capes with some minor tinkerings to make it safer.

I guess I do not equate "safer" to "bad".

I don't recall anyone suggesting that you be forced to endure trauma and anxiety in a game, or indeed anyone attacking you for wanting to introduce additional mechanics.

There has been a great many requests for you to explain why you think it is necessary to go beyond the social contract to control game content, and this is mostly because, at least to me and I feel form rereading the posts many others, you have not given a compelling reason other than because you want to or that you think it might possibly be required as the social contract is not, in your opinion, strong enough to do the job. This of course has caused a great deal of frustration in experienced Capes players that have seen it work in practice.

As I have said before I think the forum would be more than will to discuss your proposed changes and additional mechanics, but you must be aware that if there is a fault with any proposal then this group will find it, no matter who suggested it, and will not be slow in coming forward to point out the issues.

On a personal point it does sadden me that you feel that you are becoming the target for personal attacks because of your quest, but I do not believe that has been anyone's intent at anytime. I think again stems from the levels of frustration that an untested theory versus solid factual evidence discussion will always generate, especially if beliefs are heavily entrenched.

[Tuxboy]

Sorry Tony our posts crassed there

[TonyLB]

I figured there would be a certain amount of "cross-post" no-man's-land.  It's the nature of the medium.

[Sindyr]

Goal: Wolverine slaughters the ninja guarding the compound

Under what circumstances would that goal be gloatable by Wolverine's player?  Nothing requires that the goal's resolution be narrated graphically; we could just be treated to the sight of all kinds of ninja bodies lying around the place, while Lady Mariko's father is yelling into his walkie talkie for his guards to respond.  On the other hand, it could be narrated with sound effects, blood splatters, heads flying off shoulders, etc.   

I think that's an excellent observation.  Ultimately, in a lot of four color comics, we don't know whether the mooks are dead or knocked out.  And even if they are dead, we know that a) the hero did not make them suffer b) the hero had no other functional way and c) the narrator did not make us have to dwell on the happening.  Pow! Smash! Blam!  The mooks are down, and no longer important to the story.  This is fine.

Event: Mr. Fantastic receives word that Doctor Doom is brutally torturing Sue Storm for information.

This is a great concrete example of why a simple Comic Code of No Torture is not enough to make certain that the spectre of torture does not arise.

In a four color world, I would prefer to see:
Event: Mr. Fantastic receives word that Doctor Doom is interrogating Sue Storm for information.

Serves the same function, but more four-color.

The acceptability is not really which of these things is threatened, but the style in which it is threatened.  Dr. Doom could threaten to torture Reed Richards to make him reveal secrets about the negative zone; he could threaten to zap him with an elaborate Kirby-esque bit of weird science equipment, or he could threaten to pull Reed's teeth out one by one without anesthetic (assuming you can pull Reed's teeth out, and his gums wouldn't just stretch).  Both are torture.  Having the line "No Torture" in the CC will prevent both from ACTUALLY happening, but the one is within the style, the other isn't.

Upon review, I think I mostly agree with you.  It deals with is the narration creating in our minds gruesome, grisly, brutal, etc images.  If Sue Storm is in a chair that has spring loaded blades ready to cuisinart her, even if it never happens, the image of her so sliced has been fostered on us and the damage is done.

If she is in a chair being exposed to energy from the Negative Dimension, it may be a different thing.

Of course, one *could* be just as brutal with the above - one could narrate her spasming muscles, her agonised howls, her pleading for mercy, her broken spirit, her asking the baddie to please for the love of god just kill her - it's not just about the situation the hero is in, but how graphically that situation in handled.

On the other hand, Sue Storm saying through clenched teeth "I... will... never... help... you..." is classic and probably not going to tweak anyone.

Style of narration is something that absolutely cannot be mechanically enforced

That is true in one sense - mechanics affect resolution cannot promote four color play if the concept of four color play is not understood by all players to start with.  However, there are two important exceptions:

1) A rule of "No graphic, brutal, or explicit violence, trauma, suffering, rape, or other such narration or imagery, stated or implied." is a simple one to help codify the game's stance.  Whether you consider this a mechanic I cannot say, but I think it's smart to codify most fundamental principles that are not obvious to a random player joining the game for the first time - without of course going overboard into trying to get too legalese in writing it.

2) The system and mechanics can (of course) and does affect play style.  If, for example, I want to adjust the game so that pursuing villainous goals is less effective than pursuing heroic goals, that will have a direct effect on the style of play.  Ultimately, ALL systems and mechanics exist to channel play in one way or another.

[Sindyr]

Makes perfect sense to me that you should have BOTH kinds of rules - ones that encourage boundary play for some issues and ones that discourage boundary play for others.

I can see why you say this, but I am convinced that rules that PREVENT boundary play are impossible.  However, I will suggest that removing the gloating rule altogether, or allowing gloating only on certain elements of the Comics Code and not others would at least not encourage villains to indulge in this kind of play. Here is my example pseudo-comics code for you.

This is exactly the help I was looking for, thank you.  I added a few minor tweaks below:

Four-Color Comics Code:  The following items are prohibited by the comics code, and are NOT GLOATABLE.

• No torture, no rape, no brutality, no maiming or mutilation, etc, and no hint of any of those either.
• No extended (past one scene) physical suffering. 
• No pervasively depressing and/or bleak scene elements
• No significant non-fleeting (one scene) success for the villains.
• No significant non-fleeting (one scene) defeat for heroes unless the defeat is personal and approved by the owner of the character.

In addition, all elements of the Comics Code from the Capes rules are available and are gloatable.

Again, thank you - I am surprised, shocked, and grateful for some of the first major assistance in formulating an approach in detail to codifying this.

Again, this PREVENTS nothing, but at least it clearly lists what you want from the game, and does not reward attempting to do these things.

Well, I don't know how one can claim that it prevents nothing.  Unless you are also saying that ANY rule prevents nothing - including all those in Capes.  But inasmuch as the Capes rules are followed, so will the above be followed.  And if people are ignoring the rules, whether they are the above ones or the fundamental Capes ones in defiance of the group contract, you have a problem.  The good things about having rules like Capes and like the above is you know clearly when someone *is* breaking the rules and can deal with it on that basis.

So I think it prevents a good deal.

[Sindyr]

He has made the purpose of the thread clear (albeit recently):  He wants like-minded people, who agree with his goals and believe that the rules he is proposing will help him achieve them, to comment and help him refine.

Let's leave this thread to those people.  Maybe a lively discussion will erupt once people are freed of the hovering presence of nay-sayers.  Or maybe there will be a silence in which one can hear the gentle call of the crickets.  The only way to find out is to let it happen.

Sindyr:  Is that what you would like for the thread?

Close, but not exactly.

What I would like for this thread is a discussion of how to achieve the stated goals.  I do not require that anyone who assists me be in *favor* of those goals, I only ask that ythe postings help refine and accomplish those goals.

For example, I may be an atheist, but I am able to engage in discussions about Christianity helpfully with my friends even though I do not subscribe to those beliefs.

Likewise, some of the folks who have stated that they do not agree with my stated goals have nevertheless been very helpful - and I think there is no truer sign of a flexible, evolved person than one who can put aside their disagreement with a question to nonetheless help those who feel the question is important find an answer that helps them.

Thank you to those of you who have helped even in spite of your personal valuation of the goals.

[Sindyr]

2)  In a more traditional RPG environment I am usually the GM, and I talk about the limits of the gamespace with my player before the game.  I don't need to worry about one of them breaking the limits because as the GM I can stop them.

And how do you stop them? And why can't you and the others players do the same on a pre-agreed set of boundaries in a Capes game?

For example, if I am running a game of Four Color Champions, and a player decides he wants to torture a baddie for info (not threaten, or intimidate, but start pulling fingernails) I tell the player "if you do this, your character will be become a villain, and since as I said at the beginning I am only GMing for heroic players, your character will become an NPC and you will have to generate another character if you want to continue playing in the game.  Is this what you want?"

I cannot issue the above statement in a shared GM environment like Capes, without a codified rule to back that up, a rule I can point to and say "see, this is not allowed and you should have known it was not allowed" in the same way as someone who tries to spend debt in the same way as story tokens can be curtailed - by pointing to the rules.

As I have said before I think the forum would be more than will to discuss your proposed changes and additional mechanics, but you must be aware that if there is a fault with any proposal then this group will find it, no matter who suggested it, and will not be slow in coming forward to point out the issues.

On a personal point it does sadden me that you feel that you are becoming the target for personal attacks because of your quest, but I do not believe that has been anyone's intent at anytime. I think again stems from the levels of frustration that an untested theory versus solid factual evidence discussion will always generate, especially if beliefs are heavily entrenched.

Even on an indie game forum I am in the minority - and I also feel a little safer when in the minority, as opposed to when I am in the majority and I wonder whether I am the victim of "group-think".

Anyways, while not pleasant, I am somewhat use to not being popular - and if popularity was my goal, I would act differently.

I *am* going to experiment with vanilla Capes before doing much to it, however, the logic seems impeccable:
If one wants to define, control or limit play, one codifies this into rules.  This is why Capes exists, and why the Comics Code exists.

I am simply extending that reason slightly to include some narrative boundary rules that do not incentivize the way CC's do.  I am not sure why several folks seem so opposed to coded narrative limits - almost like they think its ok to have these limits as long as they remain unspoken and unenforceable.

I like getting things out into the open and into the light, and to say "Here it is. Like anything else, we may need to add to it as we go along, but we have a working set of rules and we have them in black and white."

I still cannot see how this is a bad thing, especially since Capes, and ALL rpg's are the results of that very same stance.