New Supplement: Capes: The Internet Forum RPG

[Valamir]

Seriously, check out This Thread and This Thread.

Imagine the first posts of each as first Tony then Sindyr throwing down a Goal Conflict of "Prove my Point about X".

Then sit back and read each post as a narration that goes along side rolling the die for one side or the other.

Tell me someone isn't staking huge debt and someone isn't raking in huge story tokens...


In fact rename Story Tokens as "Forum Cred" and instead of Super Hero conflict you can pretty much recreate all of the flame wars and bear pits of the hey dey of RPG.Net using Capes mechanics.

"Goal: Prove Exalted is the Greatest Game Evar:"
"Goal: Mock GNS"
"Goal: Prove that I'm the level headed logical one, ready to compromise"
"Goal: Prove <handle> is a Nazi"

I mean...its uncanny.  Not only does Capes capture with debt the insane lengths people will go to "win" a thread, but it also captures the enormous amount of baiting that goes on as folks (like Tony in Capes) push people buttons just so they can sit back and watch the carnage and collect the Forum Cred...

Someone totally has to write this up...

[TonyLB]

Heh.  This is funny.  It makes me smile.  I have two things to point out.

First, individual threads (and even individual posts) would be addressing more than one goal.  Things like "Goal:  Make my point" and "Goal:  Prove that I'm the victim" clearly interact in intriguing ways as people decide what to address and how to slant their argument.

Second, the internet (and discussions generally) would benefit very much from a defined mechanic for resolving such back-and-forths.  They do tend to stretch on until somebody gets bored and wanders away, and that basically takes both the fun and the producitivity out of things in a lot of ways.

[Zamiel]

Heh.  This is funny.  It makes me smile.  I have two things to point out.

First, individual threads (and even individual posts) would be addressing more than one goal.  Things like "Goal:  Make my point" and "Goal:  Prove that I'm the victim" clearly interact in intriguing ways as people decide what to address and how to slant their argument.

Second, the internet (and discussions generally) would benefit very much from a defined mechanic for resolving such back-and-forths.  They do tend to stretch on until somebody gets bored and wanders away, and that basically takes both the fun and the productivity out of things in a lot of ways.

I think its probably more apt to connect individual subject threads to Scenes; the OP is the Scene Setter, and others mutate the course of events by introducing Conflicts with implications and repercussions. Thus, additional Conflicts come into being that must be resolved simultaneously (in parallel, at least). This includes Events. How many times have you gone in knowing that "Event: Someone gets banned from the forum!" is going to go off very soon, and you want to be the one controlling the Conflict so that someone is not you? Making sure that the Events that everyone knows are inevitable hit the table keeps everyone just that bit more invested.

Notably, there is a defined means to resolve Internet Conflicts; the problem is that it involves a set of mechanics too many Players reject out of hand. Logical Argument has been house ruled out of a prime resolving position in favour of non-stop Conflict escalation without even the hope of Gloating to give it value. Really, a treatise on the danger of instituting house rules without really understanding the underlying mechanisms of the game, but we have what Players we have to game with, I suppose. Too much protection of their sacred, untouchable ideas and too little invitation to challenges with concomitant danger of invalidation. I find that style of play weak, myself.

Action - Roll up Tony's side of "Implicate the Net."