Are Powers actually Effective?

[Animation]

All,

Newbie question / need to grok. Please be kind.

A friend (Matthew Glover) ran a Capes demo for me today and it was fun. However, after the fact, I started to wonder whether powers really mean anything or not in the system. I'm going to admit right up front that I've only skimmed the rulebook so far (bought a copy today).

Certain conflicts/goals like killing innocents prevented using powers in that way until run. I can accept that I dont narrate that until I've won that goal if its present. Still, I'm wondering if powers have ramifications. Matthew's Character shot mine. I didnt care really, it was just a mechanic excuse to roll on the capture the villains goal. I can follow that. What I'm confused about is this.

Lets say I have a power "Dimension Shift". No goals are on the table currently that are stopping me from shifting another character into, say the realm of air, to get them out of my character's way. Thats what my powers let me do. If no Comic Book Code rules prevent me from doing that, can I just do it? Or have we all agreed up front not to do that kind of thing? If its perfectly valid, do players start throwing out goals designed to counteract powers like that?

I like the idea of Capes but I'm concerned that, contrary to the opening pages saying that if you like racing jet liners this game is for you, my powers dont really do anything IF they conflict with goals on the board. I could use the power as an excuse for debt and manipulating a goal, but I could just as easily used a different power, or a style or an attitude or something else. Do powers really have ramifications? Do they matter beyond the mechanic?

I tend to be clever with intelligent use of powers and I like doing that. I'm concerned that that kind of thing doesnt matter compared to intelligent use of game mechanics. I can still enjoy myself, but I struggle with the above issues.

I also miss freeform conversations. I cant tell from my demo I played how often that happens. I'm used to roleplaying superhero games where we might spend 2 hours in character doing somethign where there really isnt a conflict happening. Other players are invested emotionally in the characters so usually (in our group) are interested in watching a dialog that may not even contain their characters. They may even play an NPC for the session kinda like Capes. However, I wonder if the bucking-for-resources approach to game goals and events in Capes will eliminate things like that because there is always gonna be a guy who is like "screw it, I'm playing for story counters so I can do X later". I'm just wondering if players who are bored by stuff like that and want to get right to the next scene boom boom boom ... if that will kill more subtle moments.

Having played one demo based around game mechanics, I cant tell.

Also, how would you do Origin stories? We played a shared-GM game in Champions where no player knew his own powers when he started. I can think of ways to do that in Capes, and of course I dont just play one character. But later, origin stories are very common in our stories. How does capes handle things like that. Matt said that you'd play it as an event not a goal, like "Steve gets super powers". Still, I'm trying to figure out how the goals / interaction system would play into it or how you'd keep that feeling of "when the scene or page started, I didnt have super powers at all, but at the end I do, but based on stuff I did in the middle I might have made an enemy or an ally of someone or mutilated myself or not in the process."

How does it work acting out origin scenarios if you like to actually play them?

Thanks for your patience on my newbie questions.

Lewis

[Zamiel]

Lets say I have a power "Dimension Shift". No goals are on the table currently that are stopping me from shifting another character into, say the realm of air, to get them out of my character's way. Thats what my powers let me do. If no Comic Book Code rules prevent me from doing that, can I just do it? Or have we all agreed up front not to do that kind of thing? If its perfectly valid, do players start throwing out goals designed to counteract powers like that?

In Capes, Powers have one ability that identifies them: they can be used for a narrative mechanical response/act once per page. That's it. In that sense, you can do anything you really feel like narrating ... whether you have a Power to back it up or not! That is, technically, anyone can narrate shifting to the Realm of Air. Having a Trait that says you can do such only lets you interact with the dice on Conflicts by activating it, and it being a Power (rather than one with the little check-box next to it, a Blocking Trait or Skill), lets you do so once on every Page for that Power.

So, yes, you can use "Dimension Shift" to sidestep to a different reality as your first mechanical action of a Scene ... but if you don't have other Powers or Skills that let you interact with the Conflicts on the table from there, you're not going to really have much ability to get invested in Conflicts ...

I also miss freeform conversations. I cant tell from my demo I played how often that happens. I'm used to roleplaying superhero games where we might spend 2 hours in character doing somethign where there really isnt a conflict happening. Other players are invested emotionally in the characters so usually (in our group) are interested in watching a dialog that may not even contain their characters. They may even play an NPC for the session kinda like Capes. However, I wonder if the bucking-for-resources approach to game goals and events in Capes will eliminate things like that because there is always gonna be a guy who is like "screw it, I'm playing for story counters so I can do X later". I'm just wondering if players who are bored by stuff like that and want to get right to the next scene boom boom boom ... if that will kill more subtle moments.

There is always a Conflict happening, because there's always a conflict happening.

I know you say you've played hours without a conflict happening, but I think you're not in tune with what Conflicts in Capes really are. If you're invested in the outcome, there's a conflict, because there's some question of what someone will accomplish. Not "do," because in Capes you can really narrate the character "doing" anything; what's at stake is whether they can see things occur that the Player intends. Casual conversations are usually charged with intent; if the Players want to have a given result, there's a Conflict involved. Now, if no one really cares what happens in the Scene ... why are you playing it out? Scenes exist for Conflicts to play out within, between characters.

In Capes, of course, a given Scene that centers on casual conversations can be (and almost always are) absolutely filthy with Conflicts. Look at the first extended Example in the book. There's no fight in there, its really, from an external perspective, just some heroes having a conversation in their work-out room. But look at the Conflicts! "Get out of practice early," "Captain Liberty exerts his authority." Those are pretty intent and meaningful conflicts, in the overall sense, and they don't involve punching Doctor Evil in the face.

The person that sets a Scene has a lot of control over what kind of environ ends up coming on as a result. If they really want a conversational Scene, they can set it up. And they work just fine.

Also, how would you do Origin stories? We played a shared-GM game in Champions where no player knew his own powers when he started. I can think of ways to do that in Capes, and of course I dont just play one character. But later, origin stories are very common in our stories. How does capes handle things like that. Matt said that you'd play it as an event not a goal, like "Steve gets super powers". Still, I'm trying to figure out how the goals / interaction system would play into it or how you'd keep that feeling of "when the scene or page started, I didnt have super powers at all, but at the end I do, but based on stuff I did in the middle I might have made an enemy or an ally of someone or mutilated myself or not in the process."

Arguably, the way to play out an Origin Story is pretty straightforward. Be the Scene setter, and introduce your pre-Origin character as an unPowered  Character. (You could have Powers like "Algebra" or "PhD in Mathematics," but that's up to you.) State you want to run your Origin scene. Voila. Introduce the event at some point during the Scene. Voosh, there you go. You don't technically have to start with the unpowered version, but using your Powers before the narrative implies you have them might involve having psychic impressions of what you "might" do, if you had powers, or daydreaming.

[Animation]

That is, technically, anyone can narrate shifting to the Realm of Air.

Hmm.

There is always a Conflict happening, because there's always a conflict happening.

I know you say you've played hours without a conflict happening, but I think you're not in tune with what Conflicts in Capes really are. If you're invested in the outcome, there's a conflict, because there's some question of what someone will accomplish. Not "do," because in Capes you can really narrate the character "doing" anything; what's at stake is whether they can see things occur that the Player intends. Casual conversations are usually charged with intent; if the Players want to have a given result, there's a Conflict involved. Now, if no one really cares what happens in the Scene ... why are you playing it out? Scenes exist for Conflicts to play out within, between characters.

I guess I'm more inclined to play for fun, but dont find fun only in conflicts. Why were we playing it out? Because there was an NPC the players found cool, and so they all wanted to talk to him and ask him questions and hang out with him. There was one conflict, a verbal one, in the previous encounter with the guy where the players made a deal with the NPC but there have been long hang-out sessions too. Does it make a game unnatural to have characters constantly digging / pulling / pushing / manipulating even conversations just because there could be story or debt at stake? I guess some people want to roleplay the big conflicts and skip the "fluff" so I wonder if the mechanic stomps / warps the stuff we want to keep.

Again, I wonder when the characters just talk. Also, sometimes, I've been in in-character conversations in games where yeah there were 1 or 2 conflicts or there was variation in how much someone told me depending on how convincing I was to them, but it seems like interrupting a natural flow to make conflict / goal contests would interrupt a good ad-lib conversation.

I guess Capes shoots more for the stuff that makes it to screen or to the page in the comic, and we shoot just as often for the stuff that wouldnt if not more. We could just let our characters interact, but then we have to keep track with what goals were won that convinced me I'll say this now, or we always have to be ready for some player going "I'm going to stir the pot just because I need resources, even though the Beholder and the Silver Eagle were just reminiscing about cruising for chicks in the Skycar." Capes seems to encourage people to throw a monkey wrench in just for treats. Thats my main concern.

So, I know when narration happens and why. When does extended back-and-forth dialog occur?

Thanks,

Lewis

[Matthew Glover]

At the beginning of each page, after players have the opportunity to introduce new Conflicts out-of-turn (Exemplar Free Conflicts, for instance, or by spending a Story Token to introduce a conflict) and to Claim conflicts, there's a period of Free Narration (pg 24.) 

Anyone can narrate, just as they would using an ability, so long as it does not require rules arbitration.  This is a good time for characters to have conversations, and other tight interactions that can be slowed by turn order.

The Starter ends free play at any time by taking actions for each of her characters.  Other players do the same, clockwise.

The "Starter" mentioned here is the Page Starter, the person whose turn it is to act first this page.  I'm curious about how much Free Narration goes in other people's games.  I hardly see any at all in the games that I've played.  That may be because I'm the guy promoting Capes and I haven't been pushing for Free Narration, though.

[Zamiel]

I guess I'm more inclined to play for fun, but dont find fun only in conflicts. Why were we playing it out? Because there was an NPC the players found cool, and so they all wanted to talk to him and ask him questions and hang out with him. There was one conflict, a verbal one, in the previous encounter with the guy where the players made a deal with the NPC but there have been long hang-out sessions too. Does it make a game unnatural to have characters constantly digging / pulling / pushing / manipulating even conversations just because there could be story or debt at stake? I guess some people want to roleplay the big conflicts and skip the "fluff" so I wonder if the mechanic stomps / warps the stuff we want to keep.

As Matthew says below, no Scene goes from Free Narration to mechanical turns until the Scene Starter decides to introduce the first one. This is generally not too long, because the whole premise of setting a Scene is so that you can create Conflicts within it you think you can gain resources from. The opening period of Free Roleplay generally sets the tone of interaction between the Characters that have been introduced to the Scene, and why the first Conflict that is going to come out comes into play. Those Conflicts don't have to be big, but they do have to be meaningful to someone at the table, or you'll get no reward for introducing it. "Event: Lisa Marie notices John Geekboy" in a Scene set at the highschool dance is going to have a lot of back-and-forth, but only if folks have a vested interest in describing how that Conflict turns out. It's going to have a lot of talk in the course of the resolution, too, as the folks involved are probably not tossing cars around to make their points.

In my experience, it actually makes the game more natural to make explicit the Conflicts in every Scene. Let me explain: The fact that the resource-competition mechanic of Capes ensures that in every Scene, every Player will be playing a Character they think will be interesting to see interact with the other Characters. They actively seek out Characters who have agendas and aims, and drive straight at those Characters who might oppose them. Yes, that means there are far fewer Scenes where "nothing really happens" in Capes as opposed to more traditionally structured games -- but that's hardly a drawback. Everything that happens on the table accomplishes something. Everyone is a GM; everyone is pushing the story (in the sense of a retroactively constructed narrative) along.

Capes prioritizes Scenes where something happens. That something can be subtle, or it can be gross, but something will happen. If no one can find ways to make things happen in the Scene (thus, introduce ongoing Conflicts), it'll be a two-Page Scene and the focus'll move on elsewhere. If the other Players get vested in the set-up, it can go on for quite a while. If you, as Scene Starter, don't introduce a Conflict, the Free Narration period can go on quite a while -- but you'll probably start getting some annoyed looks if it goes on too long.

Again, I wonder when the characters just talk. Also, sometimes, I've been in in-character conversations in games where yeah there were 1 or 2 conflicts or there was variation in how much someone told me depending on how convincing I was to them, but it seems like interrupting a natural flow to make conflict / goal contests would interrupt a good ad-lib conversation.

I think this doesn't really represent either literature nor reality very well. People don't "just talk." They want things. They need things. They have things that occur between them which are in question before they begin ("Will they kiss or won't they?"). In Capes, this is complicated further by the fact that the Characters are not the seat of agency, the Players are! That is to say, thinking of the Players as writers collaborating on a Scene invites, and necessitates, that there are parts that they each want to write differently, even if the Characters involved are not in direct interpersonal conflict. Those conflicts over narrative rights are really what Conflict resolution is about; there is many the time I've fought hard to describe the Character under my control losing the in-Scene Conflict ... just so I describe how he loses. Combining these issues really works better than you'd think at modelling believable exchanges.

Remember, the actual act of influencing a Conflict requires you to activate a Trait, and then narrate how it engages the Conflict. That includes commentary, not only from the Character but from everyone and everything in the environment. While it does focus things down to a fairly tight block, that doesn't really make the act of talking less frequent. It does tend to keep one person from hogging the spotlight once the Conflicts start, though, which I find a godsend.

Think of Capes Actions as taking place in the space of a single comics panel. Reactions are things other characters do which extend that panel on the Page. In that framework, you can squeeze a fairly huge chunk of exposition and dialogue on the page, with a back-and-forth flow that keeps it interesting.

I guess Capes shoots more for the stuff that makes it to screen or to the page in the comic, and we shoot just as often for the stuff that wouldnt if not more. We could just let our characters interact, but then we have to keep track with what goals were won that convinced me I'll say this now, or we always have to be ready for some player going "I'm going to stir the pot just because I need resources, even though the Beholder and the Silver Eagle were just reminiscing about cruising for chicks in the Skycar." Capes seems to encourage people to throw a monkey wrench in just for treats. Thats my main concern.

So, I know when narration happens and why. When does extended back-and-forth dialog occur?

Capes goes right for the "good stuff." If your group thinks the "good stuff" is extended back-and-forth dialogue, they'll create Characters and introduce Conflicts where back-and-forth dialogues are crucial to the Scenes and have the Traits to engage in them productively. Capes does encourage people to throw a monkey wrench into the works just for treats, but that's because everyone gets to play, not just a couple people at a time, and it's in the best interests of everyone at the table to engage at a level where Conflicts occur naturally.

Why are the Beholder and Silver Eagle reminiscing about cruising for chicks in the skycar? Are they actually doing it? I might want to throw down an NPC based on the section of town and get them involved in local colour ("Event: A dog runs along beneath the skycar, yapping"). Do I, personally, find these extended reminiscences kind of boring? Maybe I have them stumble on a robbery in progress ("Goal: Silver Eagle convinces Beholder to stop the skycar and help the helpless," or what we call the "Sorry, lady, level 10 coming through, wish I could help ya" effect). If they're just sitting in the sky garage, shooting the crap, I could be really evil and introduce an NPC, Sexual Tension, and suddenly there's a whole raft of highly-charged Conflicts about to hit the table that have nothing to do whatsoever with actions outside careful conversational gambits and awkward silences between the two.

Conflicts drive a narrative. The content of that narrative is based on what all the Players at the table want. Convince them that there can be interesting, meaning-laden talking-head moments and they'll buy in and you'll have lots of them.

Capes is unique in that it assures that you get Scenes which play to the interests of all the Player; there's no GM handing down events from on high. Everyone gets a significant say in things. In that sense, every Scene is one in which everyone is invested, and any conversation that takes place in that frame will be, by design and intent, meaningful. It just might not be what you, personally, intended.

[Hans]

I also miss freeform conversations. I cant tell from my demo I played how often that happens. I'm used to roleplaying superhero games where we might spend 2 hours in character doing somethign where there really isnt a conflict happening. Other players are invested emotionally in the characters so usually (in our group) are interested in watching a dialog that may not even contain their characters.

Hi Lewis,

I wanted to address this specific bit of your post.  One of the hardest things to get your mind around with Capes is that you may not really get invested in your character, per se, like you do in Mutants and Masterminds or Champions.  If you do get invested in your character, it will be most likely be a different kind of investment than you get in a more traditional supers game.  I've have played very enjoyable, meaningful scenes with a character I couldn't care less about, at least in terms of their success or failure. 

I've said this before, and I will say it again; playing Capes is more like gamemastering other games, not playing.  Capes players are GMplayers.  Your character is, to you, more like an NPC to a GM, than a PC to a player.  This is more obvious when you are using non-person characters (like "Time Bomb" or "Psychadellic Rock Concert") but it is true even when your character is a person.

However you DO get invested in the STORY...and your character is the tool you use to manipulate it.  I have been so invested in a particular outcome of a story that I have thrown the kitchen sink at it in order to win it.  It is best to think of the players of Capes not as Actors acting out a play in character, but as comic book writers writing a story out loud together; each writer has more control over one character than the others.  When you get invested, it is more as an author gets invested in his writing, or, if you have gamemastered before, as a gamemaster gets invested in the ongoing game.  There is "player" level enjoyment as well, but its mixed in with these other kinds of enjoyment in ways that are pretty unique.

In my experience there are usually not too many back and forth conversations between the players in Capes; this is because it is rare for players to really be in "actor" mode with each other.  Instead, you will often have players narrating conversations between people that move the story forward.  That is, when I take my action, I will narrate some conversation between your character and mine, like several panels in a comic book.   Once you finally internalize the rules, so that you don't have to think about them all the time, the story telling becomes a lot more free-form, and you do actually start getting conversations in "actor" mode more often.

And this is where the most important advice comes in...Capes is one of the most challenging RPG's I have ever played.  The first 3-5 times you play, you will probably spend more time trying to figure out the rules than anything else.  In those 3-5 sessions, just enjoy the game for its gameness, and don't worry to much about trying to make a coherent story or have really involving narrative.  But as you finally start getting the rules down, you will be able to expand and pay more attention to the story elements.  THATS when Capes really hits its stride. 

Here is a metaphor: The Princess Bride and Blade Runner are two excellent movies.  But if you went into the Princess Bride expecting Blade Runner...you could be very dissappointed.  If you go into Capes expecting the same kind of enjoyment you get from Mutants and Masterminds, you will be dissappointed.

Hans

[Animation]

All,

Thanks for the replies. I suppose I could express doubts all day but what I should really do is play a a few games in a continuing arc with Matthew and whoever else he can get to commit. BTW, was working late and missed your AIM Matthew, yes Sundays 1-5 work for me.

I guess I have to take to heart the Blade Runner vs Princess Bride comparison. I suppose that means I can play both kinds of games for different reasons. I should think of Capes as a shared GM world where everyone is GM, and not latch onto any one character (at least in terms of not going into Actor mode and letting that drive the character). However, since powers and skills and connections dont really have meaning in Capes beyond telling a story (in that they dont have magnitude or scale and dont create unavoidable consequences or prevent anything from undoing itself), I should use a different system where I want that kind of thing. It is hard to think of converting my Champions character and all the other PCs and NPCs into Capes characters, for example, because the characters who have worked to obtain a large effect on the gameworld would suddenly have little unless the player usually running them had equal command of the game system behind Capes.

Still, I really like a lot of the PCs and NPCs from our old champions game, and since we have lots in our game that is built around character interaction (and we even had 3 GMs so we have lots of story dynamics), it would be kinda interesting to convert them to Capes format. I think I would never ever play a favorite character from a different system though. I would have to make new characters for Capes to play; I would have to take more of an outside-looking-over perspective on all characters.

Could be cool though, will have to give it a run.

Thanks,

Lewis