Breaking Reality from Perception

[TonyLB]

What's the motivation for not getting into an interpretive rut, the same willful misinterpretation over and over again?  Static attitudes sound very lucrative.  Why should there ever be change?

Fictionally speaking:  Would getting into such a rut be a bug or a feature?  I'm honestly not sure.

That having been said, I do lean toward there being a negative feedback cycle, so that the more often you think "Darla loves me" the more the system mathematically tends to encourage you to think "Darla doesn't love me" next time.  I'm torn between a passive and an aggressive option:

• Passive:  You get Comfort dice when she loves you and Misery dice when she doesn't ... and spending one Comfort and one Misery is a more powerful synergy than spending either two Comfort alone or two Misery alone.
• Aggressive:  The sum total Comfort dice you've ever earned from it can never be more than five more than the sum total of Misery dice, and vice versa ... if you've earned 5 Comfort dice and 0 Misery dice than you can't earn a sixth Comfort die, even if she totally, totally loves you, until you earn at least one Misery die for doubting her.

Thoughts?

[Hans]

But in order to reward themselves they must interpret your actions.  I don't really see how that can become narcissistic solo play.  They have to be constantly referring to what it is that you're doing, every time they think about those keys.

If my key was "I get points whenever I don't care about something," then yeah, I could have my character sit in a corner being completely apathetic, pluck tokens out of a bowl one after another and not connect with the other players at all.

If we have the following three keys:

"I get resources when Darla dislikes Bobby"
"I get resources when Darla hates Bobby"
"I get resources when Darla detests Bobby to the point of wishing him dead"

If it is completely up to me as a player when I get resources off of these things, how can I tell when to do so with these keys?  And what happens in the game that lets me know I can do so?  I am not that concerned about a dishonest player just willfully taking resources on the most tenuous of justifications because they want to win, although I have seen perfectly good people, including myself, playing Capes willfully narrate something just plain stupid, and they knew it, because they were desparate to take an action on a goal.  I am more concerned about an honest player really having a hard time figuring out when they can honestly take resources based on their keys.  A lot of people have a hard time figuring out when and how to use their characters attributes in Capes, and this seems like an even more dicey area.

I have been throwing out a bunch of stuff, but I am now thinking that you and I may be talking about different things. The kind of game play I am picturing in my head could be completely different from what you are picturing.  I don't even know what the physical props of the game play are: are there dice?  Index Cards? Character Sheets?  Do you picture the keys as being freeform text, based on some semantic rules, or preselected from a list?  I think the answers to those questions would probably cause a lot of my concerns about secret keys to evaporate, and since you may not even know those answers yourself yet, I may have said all I can on the subject.  Could you provide us with a brief vision of what play would be like under your system, with some examples of the way the keys would be phrased?    I just noticed you are talking about comfort and misery dice in your reply to Eric...not knowing what those are, or how they are used, its hard to know what to say. 

For example: I like the idea of giving rewards to others, instead of taking them yourself.  It seems intuitively more valuable to me.  It means that you are sending very active signals to the other players about what your secret keys are, and motivates you to figure out what the other peoples secret keys are because that is the way you get resources.   But again, there could be other elements in your head that make it impossible, or at least much less appealing than it seems to me.

So, when do we get to apply to be in a playtest?  Any chance of a play test at GenCon?

[TonyLB]

If it is completely up to me as a player when I get resources off of these things, how can I tell when to do so with these keys?

Uh ... I dunno.  I was mostly thinking of it from the other side:  not so much "What circumstances authorize me to take these rewards" but more "What does it say about my character when I choose to take this reward at this moment?"

Like, when I was running DitV, one of the players had a trait "I won't let no animal get the better of me: 2d10" and he used it in an argument with a fellow Dog.  He earned that 2d10 (in spades!) by making the statement that he considered the other character as an animal, rather than a man.

If Darla reprimands you for having been caught with drugs, and you decide to take a Misery point because she's not fulfilling your hope of "Darla loves me" ... you've earned that point because of the statement you're making there.  You have decided that your character does not see what she is doing as an act of love.  That helps you to know who your character is (and, indirectly, as people observe the outcomes of your expectations, it helps them to know who your character is as well).

Could you provide us with a brief vision of what play would be like under your system, with some examples of the way the keys would be phrased?

That is, clearly, what I need to do.  I'd much rather keep imposing on you folks by floating vague ideas and having you give me back really good notions, because it's way easier than writing up an example of play.  But I think it is, indeed, time to put my nose to the grindstone and get some sort of provisional example of play written up.

So, when do we get to apply to be in a playtest?  Any chance of a play test at GenCon?

I have hopes, but I can't say for sure.  The first playtests will probably be online, and I'll certainly post about them here.

[Eric Sedlacek]

Like, when I was running DitV, one of the players had a trait "I won't let no animal get the better of me: 2d10" and he used it in an argument with a fellow Dog.  He earned that 2d10 (in spades!) by making the statement that he considered the other character as an animal, rather than a man.

True, but in the DitV example, he is making this statement to the table.  Within a hidden Key arrangement, he would be making it only to himself.  That doesn't necessarily invalidate it, but to my mind, it makes it less powerful.

[TonyLB]

Hans, Eric:  I have not forgotten the need for the example of play.  On the contrary, I've been tearing my hair out over it.  So you have prompted me to a really important exercise in helping to define the game.  I thank and curse you.  Stay tuned.