Son of Inviolate characters

[LemmingLord]

I'm sorry; I have no idea what you meant by that post!  Is there some inside information I need to know to make sense of it?

[Glendower]

I'm sorry; I have no idea what you meant by that post!  Is there some inside information I need to know to make sense of it?

I haven't got a hot clue either.  I know the Monkey King and Buddha encounter, but I don't understand how peeing in Buddha's hand has anything to do with with Tony's position.  Or dropping a mountain on someone. 

Calliclès, I imagine you're probably pretty intelligent.  I'd just want to maybe ask that maybe to get people to understand you the metaphors and flowery prose might want to be scaled back a bit.  It's hard to discuss things when you don't know what the heck the other person is even saying. 

I mean, Big Model talk is complicated enough without tossing in Zen Koans.

[Tuxboy]

'm not sure this has been touched upon here, but Capes, to me, is conflict based and not character based; so while there maybe some great house rules available for those who don't want to risk their favorite character suffering from nasty conflict, I believe the system as it is written (and again, I've only read these threads, went through the tutorial and read the lite rules) is based on the concept of being attached to conflict management and not to character management.

That is true to some degree, but some degree of investiture in the characters is required to allow for the conflict system to work, you can't challenge a belief that no-one is invested in defending, well you can but in game terms it results in very little reward.

I still think there is some room for comprimise here, of course, between inviolate characters versus free-for-all.  Just as in other roleplaying games, players may want to set about certain expectations.  While I agree with Tony that there are great gains to be made by relying on your own play methods to point things in the direction you want the system to go; I must also point out that there are situations that many people simply don't find appropriate.  Just as the system makes it clear (at least in its lite form) that characters should not die without the players permission (and this is certainly not consistant with the free for all point of view) many players would rather not have their character raped or sexually molested.  I, personally, hate it when games break genre and sub-genre expectations; so character death, rape and even swearing should be innappropriate accept in "gritty" games...

And this is where the Comics Code comes into play, it will establish the boundaries for the type of setting you will be using whether it is straight Four-colour Golden Age through to Gritty dark Street-level by agreement between the players.

There has been a lot of discussion of Comic Codes in the past, and I think this whole issue spun-off from one of those discussions...it basically boiled down to "Is the CC and the gamer's social contract enough to protect a player from situations they don't want to play?". In past discussions a lot of people think it would, whereas Sindyr didn't...I'm not sure what Calliclès stance would be on this.

I haven't got a hot clue either.  I know the Monkey King and Buddha encounter, but I don't understand how peeing in Buddha's hand has anything to do with with Tony's position.  Or dropping a mountain on someone.

Calliclès, I imagine you're probably pretty intelligent.  I'd just want to maybe ask that maybe to get people to understand you the metaphors and flowery prose might want to be scaled back a bit.  It's hard to discuss things when you don't know what the heck the other person is even saying.

I'm in agreement with Glendower on both counts:

I'm not sure how Buddha teaching Sun Wukong a lesson in humility as the result of a bet has any bearing on the discussion.

Calliclès, you might want to try simply stating your point, then the reasoning behind it as it will make  discussing your position that much easier for everyone and hopefully lead to a much more fruitful discussion.

[WiredNavi]

Hello!

I am, I admit, a little lost in this whole dispute.  I have not played Capes, though I have read through the rules and read a bunch of AP stuff about it.  I'm probably not as experienced a roleplayer, and certainly not a designer, as many of you.  Like Nicolas, though, I have an issue with Tony's statement:

"Putting your character on the table as something that other players can effect makes you a better player than you would be otherwise."

It's very tempting to try to boil this down to a problem with definitions - 'roleplayer' and 'better' both seem to be somewhat in dispute here - but that's a cheap rhetorical method and I don't think it really gets us anywhere.

Also, Tony might be talking about inviolate characters in the manner of online freeform play, where the general rule is that nothing happens at all to your character without your consent, whether it be a deep-seated change in their persona or a punch in the nose.  I don't think that's the case, though, as this whole thing started out as a discussion of Capes and how a character you created can be changed on pretty much any level by a conflict started by any player.  We're all used to our characters being punched in the nose without their, or our, consent.  We're not used to having our characters beliefs and nature altered from outside, though, and I think there may be a good reason or two for that.

So here's my spiel for character ownership:  I create characters as tools to get what I want out of play.  I make their beliefs, their capabilities in all arenas, their personalities, their relationships with that thought in mind.  If they don't work right for that purpose or I'm done with that particular tool or way of interacting with the system, but until that point I'm still getting what I want out of the character, and if someone came along and changed that then I've missed out on a lot of what I've been pushing towards since I created that character.  It doesn't matter whether there's other cool stuff that could be done with the character now, because that's not the cool stuff that I want to do with it.  It's not fun for me to have to fight about that with the other players.

Now, Capes may be different, in that the characters aren't the sole point of contact for the players.  They are still the major one, though, and you can't really get anything out of the game unless a character is involved.  And it's easy for me to see why someone would be distressed by losing.  I know that it's been said that you can just force it right back where it was - but, you know, that's not the kind of conflict that I would be interested in.  I don't want to have conflicts with the other players about who my character is.  I want to have conflicts that demonstrate who my character is.  I don't want to have conflicts about whether a character chooses to change dramatically.  I want to have conflicts that give my character a choice about whether to change dramatically.

That probably means that Capes is not the game for me - though I do think I should try it and see.  I don't think that makes me a worse roleplayer.  Maybe it does; I'm certainly not as flexible as those who can roll with those punches and take their character in a wholly new direction.  But I don't believe the purpose of roleplaying is to demonstrate a superiority of technique.  I think the purpose of roleplaying is having fun, and if one can have as much fun with character ownership as without then I don't think that facet of roleplaying can make me 'better' or 'worse' than another.

(Darnit, I couldn't escape from this thing without arguing definitions a little.  Oh, well.)

[Hans]

I'm not sure how Buddha teaching Sun Wukong a lesson in humility as the result of a bet has any bearing on the discussion.

The Buddha uses "One with Everything (5)" to roll down Monkey King's die, after Monkey King rolled it up using "Leap 180,000 li (3)" on the conflict "Goal: Monkey King becomes ruler of heaven"

[Eric Sedlacek]

That probably means that Capes is not the game for me - though I do think I should try it and see.  I don't think that makes me a worse roleplayer.  Maybe it does; I'm certainly not as flexible as those who can roll with those punches and take their character in a wholly new direction.

And that has been the entire point all along.  Skill A and Skill B together makes one more skilled than just Skill A alone.  All the previous masses of postings against Tony's original position have either avoided the real claim entirely or resorted to "you shouldn't be so judgemental" whining.

It shows good critical thinking on your part that you can not like Tony's claim but still zero in on its essential truth.  Nobody ever said you had to game this way to properly enjoy the hobby, but Tony, myself, and others do say it teaches valuable role playing skills and contributes to your growth as a gamer.  No one has made a dent in that argument because they can't.

[Andrew Cooper]

Also, Wired (do you have a real name?),

A quick note to point out that "preferring" one way of playing to another wasn't ever an issue.  Preference is just that... a preference.  If you are perfectly capable of playing well with either type character but prefer inviolate characters, you are quantitatively just as good a player as someone who can play well with either type of character but prefers vulnerable characters.  Whether you like playing one of the other just isn't the point.

[Eric Sedlacek]

Also, Wired (do you have a real name?),

A quick note to point out that "preferring" one way of playing to another wasn't ever an issue.  Preference is just that... a preference.  If you are perfectly capable of playing well with either type character but prefer inviolate characters, you are quantitatively just as good a player as someone who can play well with either type of character but prefers vulnerable characters.  Whether you like playing one of the other just isn't the point.

And I want to explicitly state the following corollary: being able to play vulnerable characters makes you better at playing inviolate characters.

[LemmingLord]

While I agree that a gamer will find growth in a game where their character does not have the spotlight protected status; I must give you big noogies and ribbing for making the bogus claim that "no one has made a good claim against it because they can't."  That would be one of those fallacies the people always talk about.  It may be still be true, but it certainly doesn't further the argument either accept in the same way saying "nyah" might.  ;)

Yes there is growth to be won by this system.  There is probably growth to be won by every system... even HarnMaster... But Capes provides a few areas of growth you don't see in many other systems, and you disable one of these areas of growth by making a character inviolate like most any other game system...  At the same time, even with the spotlight houserule, Capes still looks like it has much to offer in the way of gamer growth.

[De Reel]

Logic won't work ? Go koans !
You know, he's right about that "nya" thing : Kant gave the proof it is impossible to proove Tony's statement wrong. Why ? We're just on different grounds and Tony won't agree on anything with me in that regard, yet understanding. The koan reference was about assumptions (shame on you for making me kill a good one). Maths heads westerners will understand better the Achille paradox, but it's meaning is really limited. In a nutshell : from my point of view, Tony's still in my hand, and I am in his from his perspective. We could argue on many things, without proving our grounds true. Many mistakes to get there, but as much fun in the making (the peeing maybe ?). Thanks again.

Kill them koans ? Let's experiment then !
I will see for myself how all this will hold with my "inviolate only" gamer. I will offer him to play Capes. He won't refuse the challenge. I accept all material and advice (the clickn' locks I should hand him, what setting goal would work best, all you have). Then I tell you.

[TonyLB]

Callicles, Mouth-of-Darkness, whoever you are (and I regret that changing your nickname mid-argument is not helping us to know you better) I applaud your intention to play Capes and see how it works.  I hope you will, once you have formed an internal conviction of how you will interpret the rules, double-check it against the examples of play (in the book and online).  Before you set yourself up as the arbiter of the rules for any real, physical players, make sure that you would produce the same results demonstrated in the examples.  It is a useful "systems check."  But that is not, primarily, what I want to talk to you about.

Kant gave the proof it is impossible to proove Tony's statement wrong. Why ? We're just on different grounds and Tony won't agree on anything with me in that regard, yet understanding.

This is not at all cool.

Rhetorically, what you have said is not an argument for or against any position ... it is a clear statement that you do not think any discussion on the matter can have value.  Retreat to zen koans (with their anti-lingual basis) is very much the same thing.  It is saying that words and reason cannot convey any value.

Such a retreat to solipsism is abandoning all your partners in this conversation.  It is an offense against them which I will not let slip idly by.  Andrew, Doug, Eric and Jon have all given you valuable and respectful feedback.  They haven't agreed with you, but they have devoted their time and energy (and, I rather suspect, a great deal of patience and self-restraint) to the proposition that there is value to be had in talking this thing over with you.

A person of consideration and integrity would not knowingly spurn their efforts.  I will grant you the benefit of the doubt and assume that though you have done this it was not done knowingly.  If you were quite unaware of the social message that underlay your argument then I expect that, now that it has been pointed out to you, you will be very eager to redress such a wrong.  I know of at least two courses by which that may be done, though perhaps your mind will suggest others:

• More clearly indicate what grounds you think discussion may usefully proceed upon, or ...
• Thank your partners for their contributions and (all the while honestly maintaining that you are not yet convinced of their position) ask to be excused from further discussion on the topic until you have expanded your experience through actual play

We may seem very rough and ready to you, but there is something of an informal society on this forum.  One principle my internet neighbors here hold valiantly to (and I am very proud of them for it!) is this simple one:  Civil discussions are valuable even (perhaps especially) when people heartily disagree.  Valuing and pursuing such discussions (and such disagreements) is a way in which we show respect for one another.  You have made a mis-step, but not a serious one (in a community as forgiving as this) so long as it does not become habitual.

[De Reel]

I just thought : "Did I fail to understand ? Why are you back with such an attitude ? Look ! Look ! It is so stiff ! I can't find any other word. I'd rather not "select an option" in the alternative you offer me if you put it like this !"

Well, yes, I doubt logic sometimes. I don't trust even dialog or language in some cases. How does it offend you ? I have already chosen option n°2 anyway. Why make me repeat ? Did I fail to understand ? (...)

I mean, about presentation, you are doing your best, aren't you ?

[De Reel]

Now, I see your point : It is wise to make a fool of oneself in some cases. I couldn't agree more with you. I realize I have done that in (at least) my previous post : me not logic = me fool.

Well, I would like you to withdraw that I am an inviolate player without actually seeing me play. That was my point in the beginning (You did judge my style of play).

Also I will need more time to review past posts to give credits. I am a bad thinker and sure a slow one :) so I could use some help here as well. The fig was about that, you know, laziness.

Hans : I agree with many things you said, but can Monkey have a "leaping" ability ? I suppose the wording on his sheet (glad I don't have to pronounce this one) would be a bit more general, as it had to be used in previous encounters. Or wouldn't it ?

erratum : "in the making" means something else in english. Should of written "in so doing" or something like that. But then, "every-one is at a dis-advan-tage spea-king with a se-cond lan-guage" (Spoon on "Kill the moonlight").

[LemmingLord]

We may seem very rough and ready to you, but there is something of an informal society on this forum.  One principle my internet neighbors here hold valiantly to (and I am very proud of them for it!) is this simple one:  Civil discussions are valuable even (perhaps especially) when people heartily disagree.  Valuing and pursuing such discussions (and such disagreements) is a way in which we show respect for one another.  You have made a mis-step, but not a serious one (in a community as forgiving as this) so long as it does not become habitual.

Another very common and important part of the societies of other forums of which I've been apart is 1) staying on topic and 2) letting moderator lectures happen in private messages so they don't disrupt staying on topic.

Since we do not seem to be operating under that, I don't feel bad for this post of mine which clearly breaks those rules. :)

[Eric Sedlacek]

While I agree that a gamer will find growth in a game where their character does not have the spotlight protected status; I must give you big noogies and ribbing for making the bogus claim that "no one has made a good claim against it because they can't."  That would be one of those fallacies the people always talk about.  It may be still be true, but it certainly doesn't further the argument either accept in the same way saying "nyah" might.  ;)

It was a bit of a swipe.  I should probably feel worse about it than I do.  There have just been so many straw men and misdirected threads.  I hope I'll be forgiven a split second of snarkiness.