Non-debt generating characters...how often?

[Ben Lehman]

Holy crap Sydney that's awesome.

yrs--
--Ben

[Tuxboy]

Bah, humbug!

Traditional "roleplaying, not rollplaying!" players are the kind of people who spend sixty frickin' minutes ordering dinner in character (actually happened in a friend's Mechwarrior game once). They escape from the railroad tracks (laid down by the altruistic GM, who lives only for the pleasure of others) by having their characters go shopping, get drunk, play pranks on each other, or mug bystanders (all things I've done).

Here's the thing:

In Capes, you can still spend an hour ordering dinner in character, or shopping, or bitching, and earn game resources all the while. Filtering what traditionally is "downtime" through the conflict resolution system can make it exciting: "Oh, so you think you're going to pay for everybody's drinks? Ha! My three points of Duty debt say otherwise!"

*ROFL* Good point, and I find "roleplaying, not rollplaying!" players equally as irritating as the "rules lawyer", even though I fall into the latter group more often than not.

I agree with assessment of Capes ability to deal with the minutia of roleplaying, but my point is that some of the recent topics (this one and the Gloating one) are drifting towards the "Resources are my ONLY justification for playing any character" area, and I think, and it seems like you if your example is anything to go by, that Capes is more than that.

I think balance is important, but for what its worth I would have had the restaurant hit by a stray artillery shell around minute 16...that'd teach them ;)

[TonyLB]

I think balance is important, but for what its worth I would have had the restaurant hit by a stray artillery shell around minute 16...that'd teach them ;)

Balance between what?  Gaining resources and telling a good story?  That's ... you're confused.  That's like saying "It's important to balance your desire to work hour upon hour of overtime against your need to earn money."

Some things are inversely correlated ... if you get more of one then it is likely at the expense of the other.  For many people, for instance, money and free time.  In seeking more money you sacrifice free time.  They're both valuable, so you have to strike a balance.

Some things are directly correlated ... if you get more of one then you probably get more of the other.  For many people, for instance, friends and happiness.  In seeking more happiness you usually accumulate more friends, and in seeking more friends you usually accumulate more happiness.  There's no need to strike a balance ... you can go crazy.  Until, of course, you hit the balance of friends vs. free time.

You seem to be assuming that "resource seeking" and "telling a good story" are inversely correlated in Capes.  But, in fact, they're directly correlated.  When you seek more resources you usually create a better story.  There's no need to strike a balance.

[Hans]

You seem to be assuming that "resource seeking" and "telling a good story" are inversely correlated in Capes.  But, in fact, they're directly correlated.  When you seek more resources you usually create a better story.  There's no need to strike a balance.

Think mathematically (with all this talk of direct and indirect correlation) the "usually" part in the above quote comes comes due to a third variable...

S = a*R*I + b

S = Good story, R = Resource Seeking, I = Imaginative ideas, a,b = constants

If you think of imaginative ideas as a relative measure (1 being good enough, >1 being better than average, and <1 being worse than average, with 0 being not an idea in sight), then if the ideas are poor, the story will be poor regardless of resource seeking.

In my own experience so far playing games I have found times where I have done something frankly silly in the story because I couldn't think of anything good to narrate, but mechanically wanted to do something.  This did not lead to a good story.  Or, conversely, chosen not to do anything because I didn't want to do something silly.  This probably did lead to a good story, but only because I purposely chose not to seek resources in that instance.  I have seen others do the same thing. 

Directly correlated, but with a confounding variable.



Just for grins...

The Riddle of Steel is the only other game I can think of that also follows the same relationship as Capes (if you count SA's as resources).  D&D often (though not always) follows this relationship:

S = (a*I)/(R+b) + c             (a,b,c = constants)

If you count gold and XP as resources to be sought, although in old-school gamist D&D, a better equation is:

F = a*R + b*I + c                (F = Fun, which may have little or nothing to do with good story)

Note that imaginative ideas can increase the fun, but can never reduce the fun (assuming 0 is as low as the variable can go).  Heroquest and some other narrativist games follow this relationship:

S = a*I + b*R(spent) + c            (R(spent) = amount of resource spent)

where there is no resource to seek, just a resource (Hero points) gained at essentially a constant rate, and spent for extra drama.  And Prime Time Adventures follows the very strange relationship:

S = a*I + b*R(spent) + c           
R(gained) = d*I + e                               (a,b,c,d,e = constants, R(gained) = resource gained)

if you count fan mail as the resource. Spending the resource (fan mail) can improve the story, but never harms it (as the minimum that can be spent is 0).  And the cleverer you are, the more resource you are likely to get.

The only reason I diverge this far off topic is because I started the thread in the first place. :)  MAN, I am a nerd.

[Tuxboy]

You seem to be assuming that "resource seeking" and "telling a good story" are inversely correlated in Capes.  But, in fact, they're directly correlated.  When you seek more resources you usually create a better story.  There's no need to strike a balance.

Nope...that wasn't my assumption, what I was saying was Capes is capable, and is designed, and should be allowed to do both.

I think, and it seems like you if your example is anything to go by, that Capes is more than that.

I think they can be either inversely or directly correlated dependant on player intent...if someone sets out to gain resources without bothering to tell a good story then the situation is much different to someone gaining resources so they can tell a good story. Resources are the Means and the End in the former, but are the Means to the End in the latter.

It just appeared to me that in some of the more recent threads some people were seeming to concentrate on "resource seeking" to the "possible" detriment of "telling a good story" and the avoiding playing non-powered individuals because they do not generate enough or the right resources seems to be a symptom of this.

The conscious decision not to play with a certain aspect of the game is neither a fault of the game nor of the correlation between "resource seeking" and "telling a good story", but purely lies with the player perception of the game dynamic.

The cyclic Gloat thread seems to demonstrate the point of "resource seeking" dominating the goal of  "telling a good story".

The strategic argument for breaking the gloat-fest is very strong.  Not that the story argument isn't (it is) but even if you are going pure strategy, no story, I don't think the gloat-fest is the natural outcome.

I'm not saying that strategically gaining resources isn't important, it is damn important, resources are the life blood of the player,but I feel the story should be as important and as such things like:

Player 1: I resolve and Gloat..ah Story token for me
next page
Player 2: My turn I resolve and Gloat...ah Story token for me
next page
Player 3: .....ka-ching
and so on

or

Player 1: *thinks* "I could bring in a cynical old cop to develop the story...but that won't earn me Story Tokens or Debt so I won't bother...I'll play another hero instead"

don't really seem to be contributing to "telling a good story" do they? Or maybe I'm wrong...

I have no issue with the earning of resources, that would be supremely stupid given the game mechanic, but I do have issues if its abuse negatively impacts the quality of the story.

But this is us heading toward social contract territory again...and I'm not sure I want to go in there again without a whole hell of a lot of Story Tokens and Inspirations on hand ;)

[Tuxboy]

The only reason I diverge this far off topic is because I started the thread in the first place. :)  MAN, I am a nerd.

Them's some fine equations, but man, I think you need to get out more *LOL*

C'mon I'll buy you a pint...

[Sydney Freedberg]

Hans: Wow. I'd be even more impressed if I understood it, of course. Will read again later.

But - my less mathematical way of thinking:

1) Any game consists of instructions and procedures that give players a mechanical incentive for doing certain things, be it as simple as checkers (eliminate all the other guy's pieces to win) or as complex as Capes (Inspirations, Debt, Story Tokens).

2) If the things the game-text encourages players to do are the same as the things the game procedures incentivize them to do, then the game design is coherent. If the game text (e.g. in fiction, setting, back-cover-blurb) encourages one thing (e.g. intrigue! romance! story!) and the game procedures incentivize another (e.g. kill stuff, turtle up), the game design is incoherent.

3) If the things the game procedures incentivize you to do are fun for you, then that game is a good game for you! If the things the game procedures incentivize you to do are not fun, then you should play something else.

4) If you invest money and/or time playing a game on the basis of the things its text encourages, only to discover its procedures incentivize something else, any fun you have is in spite of the game (which is incoherent). The game designer has failed you. It is not your job to make it work.

5) If you nevertheless keep trying to play incoherent games, you will habituate yourself to seeking gaps between game-text vs. game-procedure and grow chronically distrustful of procedure as inherently inimical to fun. This is not "brain damage" but it is mental conditioning that impedes your having fun.


Capes is pretty darn coherent (hardly perfect, mind you, but one of the most coherent games I've ever played): The things Tony tells you he wants to happen are the things the game mechanics consistently encourage. This is good design! Trust the procedures and stop worrying about creating a "good story" -- follow the mechanical incentives and they are very likely to get you there.

[TonyLB]

I think they can be either inversely or directly correlated dependant on player intent...if someone sets out to gain resources without bothering to tell a good story then the situation is much different to someone gaining resources so they can tell a good story.

I think you're giving player-intent way too much credit here.  Not to go all deconstructonist on you, but the quality (or even message) of a book is not dependent on what the author thought while writing it.

If a player stands up, beats her chest, declaims her principles and then goes and fights for them purely for resources does it somehow make a weaker story than if she stands up, beats her chest, declaims her principles and then goes and fights for them because it's the dramatic thing to do?  I don't see it.

(examples snipped) ... don't really seem to be contributing to "telling a good story" do they? Or maybe I'm wrong...

Those sort of examples wouldn't be telling a good story (well, they might, but there's plenty of situations in which they wouldn't).  I'm not arguing "Those have been proven to be good strategy, therefore they must be good story."  I'm making a much simpler argument:  "They're not good strategy, therefore they prove nothing one way or another."

Get the difference?

[Tuxboy]

Not to go all deconstructonist on you, but the quality (or even message) of a book is not dependent on what the author thought while writing it.

Nope its dependant on the perceptions and assumptions of the reader, from the medium that brought us religious schisms based on interpretations of the same written materials, and the reader's intentions and world view.

If a player stands up, beats her chest, declaims her principles and then goes and fights for them purely for resources does it somehow make a weaker story than if she stands up, beats her chest, declaims her principles and then goes and fights for them because it's the dramatic thing to do?  I don't see it.

I agree, your example there is no difference, but that is missing my point again *L*

If a player doesn't stand up,  doesn't beat her chest, doesn't declaims her principles and then goes and trawls purely for resources does it somehow make a weaker story than if she stands up, beats her chest, declaims her principles and then goes and fights for them because it's the dramatic thing to do?

That's my point...do you see it?

Those sort of examples wouldn't be telling a good story (well, they might, but there's plenty of situations in which they wouldn't). 

No argument there...

I'm not arguing "Those have been proven to be good strategy, therefore they must be good story."

I understand that, never said you were :)

I'm making a much simpler argument:  "They're not good strategy, therefore they prove nothing one way or another."

Not sure what relevance the strategic value of the tactic has on the argument that they could negatively impact the story. That they can be used to gain resources, however "inefficiently", rather than drive the story or create plot was the point I was making.

Sure the best way to gain resources is to engage the rest of the players and involve them in the story, but that doesn't mean there won't be occasions when people won't decide to try and get resources in other less story friendly ways, and that was the impression I got from some of the posting in this, and particularly the Gloating thread.

That was all I was saying...use the story to gather your resources, so you can use your resources to drive the story, so you can use the story to gather...and so on.

[TonyLB]

I agree, your example there is no difference, but that is missing my point again *L*

If a player doesn't stand up,  doesn't beat her chest, doesn't declaims her principles and then goes and trawls purely for resources does it somehow make a weaker story than if she stands up, beats her chest, declaims her principles and then goes and fights for them because it's the dramatic thing to do?

That's my point...do you see it?

No.  I don't think I do.

That thing you're talking about?  Where the player doesn't bring their passion to the table?  That's measurably a losing strategy.  People who do that do not earn resources.  They get flat-out run over and marginalized by anyone else at the table who does a better job.

I don't even know what you mean by "trawls purely for resources."  It's one of those phrases that make me think that you're still imagining the resource game and the story as separate, unconnected things.  Like if you said "Well, what if you played soccer, and you only tried to score goals, instead of trying to outplay the other team?"  I just sit there and wonder whether we're talking about the same game. 

I suppose if you'd never played soccer you might think "Hey, the obvious best strategy is whenever you get the ball, no matter how far you are from the goal, you just kick it into the goal as hard as you can ... but that would make a boring game, so instead you should spice it up by trying to dribble and pass the ball a little bit, and then do the strategically smart thing."  I'm trying to point out to you (to continue the metaphor) that just kicking the ball toward the goal means you will lose.  You don't dribble and pass and maneuver in addition to the strategy.  You do those things because they are the strategy.

You don't stand up, beat your chest and declaim your principles in Capes in addition to the strategy.  You do those things because they are the strategy.

[Hans]

That thing you're talking about?  Where the player doesn't bring their passion to the table?  That's measurably a losing strategy.  People who do that do not earn resources.  They get flat-out run over and marginalized by anyone else at the table who does a better job.

I'm going to give an actual play example here, and see what people think about it. 

There is a conflict on the table - Goal: Dr. Hyde determines the extent of the effects of the "green ray" event.

Piers is a player in the game, and he has absolutely no interest in the this conflict one way or another from a story perspective.  That is, there are two people competing for control of the conflict who have claimed the existing sides, but he really doesn't care who wins or loses, because he suspects he knows what each will say, and he's cool with it either way.  Up until now, Piers has been concentrating on other conflicts on the table he does care about, and resolved the last one of those at the end of the last page.

Now, it is what will turn out to be the final page of the scene, and this is the only conflict on the table.  Suddenly, for a number of reasons, there seem to be a PILE of debt on one side of this conflict.  I mean a PILE.  Three people have staked debt on it, so there is about 8 debt sitting on that side.  Suddenly, to Piers, it's looking pretty darn tempting to be on the losing side of this conflict.  Moreover, this is the last conflict on the table, its 10:30 PM at night, he's not going to lay a new conflict and keep the scene going.  I still don't care how it resolves...but being on the losing side looks like he might have a chance at scoring big time in story tokens. 

Note that Piers HAS brought his passion to the table.  In fact, a good proportion of the action that has occurred in the scene has been directly due to the fantastic conflicts he has been laying, and his fighting tooth and nail to win (or lose) them.  But thats all over now; from his perspective, all the good stuff has taken place. 

So, what is Piers to do?  Does he jump in on what seems to be the losing side of the conflict, narrating some stuff that he isn't really invested in, so that he has a chance at the resources?  (note: the real-life Piers is a damn clever fellow, and even his off-hand narrations are golden, but lets assume for a moment Piers is of middling imagination)  Should he just bow out, and use his action to bump up an inspiration or something?  Where does Piers fit into Tony and Tuxboy's perspectives?

[TonyLB]

So, what is Piers to do?

My take?  He needs to choose to care intensely, and damn fast.  If you give me some more sense of what Piers was doing, and which character(s) he was playing, I can start feeding you suggestions for how he can make that side of that conflict into something he can be passionate about ... right now I don't have enough context.

[Tuxboy]

It's one of those phrases that make me think that you're still imagining the resource game and the story as separate, unconnected things.

Nope, my point is that they are completely interdependant and should always be...its just that statements like:

But I'm having a hard time seeing, from a gameplay perspective (not story), how playing a non-debt generator as your main character is ever a good idea.

and

I mean, what's to prevent a player playing a hero from playing "Goal: My Hero tries to do X without dying" and simply choose to Gloat everytime his claims and controls, narrating continual narrow escapes?

are making me think that others are seemingly creating a disconnect between gameplay and story. The first example explicitly states a disconnect with the two aspects as part of the question, and the second implies a disconnect as the cyclic gloating will grind the story to a halt. My posts were highlighting the disconnects I was perceiving in these questions not suggesting that a division between these aspects was either correct or desirable. Could be my faulty perception of the original questions of course.

I do like your soccer metaphor, but living in Europe I have seen a lot of soccer and its not always the most skilled or strategic team that wins, a poorer team can win just by kicking the ball up the field and hoping somebody can get there and score. Its not the best, most entertaining, or fun tactic, but it can have some limited effectiveness, it was basically the kind of tactic that won Greece the European Championship...it wasn't pretty but it worked.

Just because something is the best strategy it doesn't mean that everyone will do it, that's why the best strategy should be encouraged, but may not always be followed if limited success can be obtained through other means even if those other means are undesirable.

You don't stand up, beat your chest and declaim your principles in Capes in addition to the strategy.  You do those things because they are the strategy.

*LOL* and I agree with you...

I have no idea where the confusion has come from, but somewhere the intent of the posts have become twisted and misunderstood ;)

[Tuxboy]

So, what is Piers to do?

I think Piers steps in there and gets himself a side and a chance at those resources.

If as you say he suspects he knows what the end narration is going to be, then he can use this knowledge to start pressing the others buttons with complementary narration...maybe even getting more debt staked if he does it right...

This is a gold mine ;)

[TonyLB]

My posts were highlighting the disconnects I was perceiving in these questions not suggesting that a division between these aspects was either correct or desirable. Could be my faulty perception of the original questions of course.

Well, for my part I clearly misread your intent.  Sorry 'bout that!