We Broke Capes

[Josh Roby]

So last night my group got together and played a little Capes, and it... really didn't work. I'm not entirely sure why.

The Players & Characters: I myself played Moose-Boy, preteen animal-powered wannabe superhero; Judson played Lt Krug, a space bounty hunter come to do something unpleasant on earth; Mark played Senor Demiurgo, the guilt-ridden godling who was depressed that creation sucked so much.

We played two scenes. In the first scene, we started off with the Conflict: Football players bully Moose-Boy. I was pretty engaged here, but I got the feeling that Judson (who started the conflict) didn't quite know how to forward it, and Mark had Senor Demiurgo look on morosely as the world he created displayed its pettiness. On the second page, Mark and I both threw out conflicts concerning Lt Krug's spaceship, which he had just landed in. Mark's was that its regeneration drives started sapping the life out of the park; mine was that the spaceship would get a parking ticket. The bullies conflict resolved and we focused more on the spaceship, with Lt Krug trying to distract the meter maid, Moose-Boy pointing out the obvious ("It's so big it doesn't fit in a parking space!"), and Senor Demiurgo vaporizing the parking lines from existence so that now it did fit into a double-wide space.

Those conflicts resolved and we very nearly stopped there. It seemed like there was tons of fiddly bits to toy with but that nothing was really driving the fiction in an interesting direction. We decided to give it one more try, with a more active scene with something really at stake.

So Mark started up the next scene where Senor Demiurgo was going to get so fed up with the universe that he was going to drink himself into a coma so he could forget about existence, thus negating it. He put out a conflict to that tune; I put out an Event where Senor Demiurgo explained his motivations to Krug and Moose-Boy (minor point: this was a slight bit of strategy since my conflict would have to be resolved before his, at least sensibly, although there really isn't anything in the rules to stipulate that). We then went around the table with actions a few times; Demiurgo tried to drink himself into oblivion while Krug tried to talk him out of it and Moose-Boy ended up trashing the entire bar to stop him. Eventually, Demiurgo decided to take up a rewarding career helping underprivileged youths, who he promptly named the Destruction Patrol because they were going to help him destroy the universe by hand (two more conflicts that got introduced).

We ended with the same slightly dissatisfied sense, where the game really didn't seem to take off or create anything significant or meaningful or engaging. The entire experience seemed to entail a lot of spinning wheels but nothing that made anybody care about what was happening.

Now, one thing that I know we did wrong was that we were spending more debt than the rating of the drive they were being spent out of; we missed that rule until the end of the game. So it was common for me to spend three or four debt out of my Hope drive, which was only rated 2, for splits. This meant there were more and smaller dice out there than there might normally be, but on the other hand I don't see why the only sensible character build is to rate one drive at 5 and the other four at 1, which would make just about everything we did legal.

One possible disconnect might be in our characters, which were high on the silly and low on sympathy. If Capes is about investing in conflicts that you care about and you don't especially care about your character, it's hard to try and capture the other players' attentions with conflicts you throw out there.

In any case, the entire night was flat and pretty uninteresting. Nothing popped or sizzled or went anywhere; after the first scene we kept playing because we wanted to try again to "do it right" but after neither scene did I want to play again because of any intrinsic quality of the game. Now, I've played Capes (Lite) before and didn't have this problem, and I've read tons and tons of AP reports that didn't have this problem, so it seems to me that something went wrong, but I can't figure out what. Any thoughts?

[Vaxalon]

Capes, more than any other game, is GIGO.

[drnuncheon]

The funny thing to me is that nobody would be surprised if you said that any other RPG fell apart when you tried to put Moose-Boy, Lt. Krug, and Senor Demiurgo together.

I think what happened here was that all three players made joke characters that they didn't really care about, so it's no surprise that they didn't care about what happened in the game, either.  You characterize the night as "flat and uninteresting" - would you describe the characters the same way?

On to some specific questions:

All of you played the same characters in both scenes?  Did anybody consider changing characters?  Did you make the characters with the scenes in mind?  When we've done Capes, the scene starter gives the setting, and then we pick the characters we're going to play with that knowledge.

The first conflict you mention is "Football players bully Moose-boy", that Krug's player apparently threw down.  I'm not surprised he had trouble thinking how to forward this if he were playing Lt. Krug rather than "The Football Team", especially since Krug didn't seem to be present.  So I'm asking myself: why did he put down a conflict for the football team?  Why not something like: "Krug bullies Moose-boy into telling him where the MacGuffin is?"

One more question - what were your superior Capes Lite experiences like?  What kind of characters did they have?  What kind of conflicts?  Why do you think you didn't get those sorts of characters and conflicts this time around?

J

[Josh Roby]

Vax: GIGO?

J: I think we were all pretty positive about our characters, and I certainly wouldn't describe any of them as flat or uninteresting.  I think the more puissant problem was that none of them were interesting in complementary ways.

We played the same characters in both scenes, with the exception of Judson who made a second character at the end of the second scene, to see how that worked.  He created one of the Destruction Patrol, but he only got to use him for one page.

The scenes were made with the characters in mind.  The first scene was Lt Krug's landing; the second scene was Senor Demiurgo's binging.  We started both scenes by framing the scene and then deciding who to play.

As for the first conflict -- are all conflicts between PCs?  That's an interesting limitation on conflicts that is not noted in the rules.

My superior Capes experience was a very very basic scenario with a villain and henchman doing a smash-and-grab with hostages while some superheroes tried to stop them, and then a chase scene and an evil lair scene.  Those characters were put together with even less care, and were all super stereotypical.  Ditto for conflicts.  I don't know what the difference was, though -- the last time I played, everything gelled together and went along at a good clip.  This time was awkward and painful the entire time.

[Larry L.]

Garbage In, Garbage Out. It's an old computing term.

[jburneko]

Hey Josh,

Here's the key to Capes play that is not well stated in the text and I think is only evident from repeated play.

It is not enough for a single player to be invested in his character or even a set of conflicts relevant to your character.  You must be be invested in your character and a set of conflicts *that threaten something the other players value*.

When I first played Capes I created The Raven who was sort of a cross between Batman and The Scarecrow.  He was a psychologist.  His exemplar was a patient of his who he just couldn't get through to.  I kept throwing down these conflicts about him trying to get through to his patient or setting up situations where she could get into danger.  Know what?  Nothing happened.  Why?  Because I brought these things in too fast and too early into play.  No one was invested in The Raven and his psycho-drama with his patient, so no one did anything interesting with the conflicts I put down.

Then I had a revelation.  I realized, "Hey my wife's built three characters.  They're all about being a family.  I know my wife cares about family issues.  I'm going to setup a situation that threaten's the stabilitiy of the family."  So, in the next scene I opted to play the grandfather character in her pile of characters.  She played the father and "son" (the father's a gageteer and the "son" is a robot).   I put down the conflict: The Grandfather Set's the Father Up On Date.  She throws down the free exemplar conflict: "The (Robot) Son displays a genuine emotion."

We fight each other tooth and nail over these.  I have the grandfather rant and rave about how the father needs to get a *real* family.  I lose both conflicts.  No date for the father.  And the son's genuine emoiton?  Hatred for the grandfather who won't recognize him as a person.  Brilliant.

The game worked the way it's supposed to work because I threatened something my wife values.  It doesn't work unless that dynamic is happening.

Jesse

[Josh Roby]

Hey, Jesse.

I get all that -- it simply didn't happen in our game, and I'm wondering why.  There are very few flagging mechanisms in Capes, so I have very little sense of what the other players will latch on to except by watching what they do in scenes, and if the scenes aren't very compelling to begin with, I don't have much grist to go on... and so on.

[Eric Sedlacek]

Hey, Jesse.

I get all that -- it simply didn't happen in our game, and I'm wondering why.  There are very few flagging mechanisms in Capes, so I have very little sense of what the other players will latch on to except by watching what they do in scenes, and if the scenes aren't very compelling to begin with, I don't have much grist to go on... and so on.

One thing you don't mention is exemplar relationships.  They are supposed to signify what you care about, to give other players big red buttons to push.  In the early game, they are a key tool to getting the ball rolling.  This is also why the rules require you to share exemplars.  They are supposed to be ready made connectors to characters that you can run with right away.  They aren't discussed much, but in many ways, they are the most important part of character creation.

What were the characters' Exemplar relationships?  Were they not engaging or were you just not using them?  That's a trick question because if you weren't using them, they couldn't be that engaging.  Why weren't they engaging?  What could you do to juice them up or build ones next time that will pull you in from the start?

[Josh Roby]

We hadn't gotten to the point where we made Exemplars yet.

[TonyLB]

Well, maybe you could have benefitted by more willfully trying to violate what you knew about the other characters:

The Players & Characters: I myself played Moose-Boy, preteen animal-powered wannabe superhero; Judson played Lt Krug, a space bounty hunter come to do something unpleasant on earth; Mark played Senor Demiurgo, the guilt-ridden godling who was depressed that creation sucked so much.

So, for instance, people could target Moose-Boy with the classic "Goal:  Prove who is the better superhero" conflict.  I mean, look at the alternatives.  Moose-Boy's got to be a better superhero than the bounty-hunter scum, right?  Or "Goal:  Turn Moose-Boy to the side of evil" is also a classic.

Likewise, you can go after Senor Demiurgo with "Goal:  Persuade Demiurgo to declare, of the world and all that is in it, 'IT IS GOOD.' "  Or, on a more personal note, "Goal:  Cheer Demiurgo up."  You could offer him some Skittles, for instance.

I can't really tell from the outside, but I'd guess that for Lt. Krug you could have gotten some interest with "Goal:  Krug impresses an earthling," if only because of its delightful blocking possibilities (he cannot be impressive, even for a moment, until he wins it).  Also, though, you could have "Goal:  Prove that Krug isn't really an alien," and show him to be an elaborate hoax.

I mean, your mileage may (and obviously, in this case, did) vary but it looks to me like these characters are basically nothing but flags.  Each player clearly said "Okay, I'm going to do one thing with this character, that's all I want."  You want Moose-Boy be a striving hero.  Judson wants Krug to be a scary alien.  Mark wants Demiurgo to be a moping divinity.

Those are things that the players want.  To get them to react, all you really have to do is say "No.  I don't grant you the right to do that.  I'm going to do my best to take that one, exact thing away from you.  If you don't fight for it then you will lose it, and then the character will be nothing.  If all you want is to wear your pants in peace then I will take your pants away!"

[drnuncheon]

J: I think we were all pretty positive about our characters, and I certainly wouldn't describe any of them as flat or uninteresting.

OK - what made them interesting?  The one-liners you give make them sound like one-off parody/joke characters.

Did any of them have exemplars?  What were their drives like?  Did anyone think about either of those things as flags?

The scenes were made with the characters in mind.  The first scene was Lt Krug's landing; the second scene was Senor Demiurgo's binging.  We started both scenes by framing the scene and then deciding who to play.

As for the first conflict -- are all conflicts between PCs?  That's an interesting limitation on conflicts that is not noted in the rules.

They don't have to be, but throwing down a conflict where the active party is not actually a character is a little more difficult to handle.  What kind of abilities was Krug using?  Did Demiurgo roll on it at all?

Hmm.  I guess I'm looking for a reason that Krug's first conflict was 'football players pick on Mooseboy'.  Was he just trying to farm some story tokens from you?  It would certainly seem like you would be the only one involved/invested.

My superior Capes experience was a very very basic scenario with a villain and henchman doing a smash-and-grab with hostages while some superheroes tried to stop them, and then a chase scene and an evil lair scene.  Those characters were put together with even less care, and were all super stereotypical.  Ditto for conflicts.

You say "stereotypical", I say "archetypal".  I know I'd have an easier time throwing down conflicts and figuring out how to influence them in that scenario.  (Can you imagine trying to write a comicbook starring those three characters?)

When you ran that, were both sides involved/invested in the conflicts, stereotypical though they may have been?  That may have been why it didn't feel flat.  I suspect that during those scenes you had people rolling on both sides of some key conflicts, reacting to other rolls, and actually being invested (both as character and player) in the outcome.

J

[Josh Roby]

You want Moose-Boy be a striving hero.  Judson wants Krug to be a scary alien.  Mark wants Demiurgo to be a moping divinity.

Those are things that the players want.  To get them to react, all you really have to do is say "No.  I don't grant you the right to do that.  I'm going to do my best to take that one, exact thing away from you.  If you don't fight for it then you will lose it, and then the character will be nothing.  If all you want is to wear your pants in peace then I will take your pants away!"

Even when you're frustratingly belligerent, Tony, you make me smile.  I can see what you're saying, although I know I didn't say outloud that Moose-Boy was a wannabe hero, which might have been an error on my part.  I was under the impression that the Click-n-Locks were snap-n-go, but a little more communication might be in order.  I can dig that.

OK - what made them interesting? The one-liners you give make them sound like one-off parody/joke characters.

This may be partly me, but I have an odd habit of making what would normally be joke characters and then playing them earnestly as if they weren't.  I've made characters that were bad puns but played them to the hilt.  But Senor Demiurgo was pretty much the Problem of Sisyphus made manifest, and there's a lot of potential depth, there.  Thing of it was, as Tony's pointed out, that the conflicts surrounding him were started by him and were created as things he wanted to do and not created by the others and concerning things he really didn't want.  Perhaps we were not vicious enough. :)

Did any of them have exemplars? What were their drives like? Did anyone think about either of those things as flags?

No exemplars.  Drives were picked from the ten listed, but they're all so broad and vague I don't get much flag-value out of them.  That said, attaching exemplars to drives would probably make specific the very general nature of the drives.

You say "stereotypical", I say "archetypal".

Well then, I'd be using the word correctly and you wouldn't be.  When I said stereotypical I didn't mean it perjoratively, I meant it as living up to what everyone expects from a genre character.  The fact that they were that and nothing more might earn my eventual dissatisfaction for being shallow, but there's nothing wrong with starting on a stereotypical footing.

[Tuxboy]

I doubt think the nature of the characters was the issue, looks to me it was more the lack of connection between the characters that caused the issues. There was simply little or no reason for them to interact with each other so engaging conflicts were not obvious and would have required more work.

The one-liners you give make them sound like one-off parody/joke characters.

It shouldn't matter whether they were parody/joke character or not, as long as the players are invested. I've played several highly successful Tick-esque games of Capes, high on both comedy and drama mainly because the characters were well connected to each other and the players were committed to them...

If all you want is to wear your pants in peace then I will take your pants away!"

ROFL...permission to use that as a sig file somewhere else...

[drnuncheon]

It shouldn't matter whether they were parody/joke character or not, as long as the players are invested.

True - but I think that overall, people are less likely to invest heavily in a silly character.  And since the OP was having problems with people not being invested, it bears looking at as a possible cause.

J

[Eric Sedlacek]

True - but I think that overall, people are less likely to invest heavily in a silly character.  And since the OP was having problems with people not being invested, it bears looking at as a possible cause.

Just because a character starts silly doesn't mean he has to stay silly.  Silly can flip to tragic in a heartbeat playing this game.