Free Narration, Bad Narration Recourse, "Character" Incapacitation, and Places

[LemmingLord]

Love the game..  Finally had a chance to playtest it for rules understanding on three occasions... Once with my wife; once with a friend; and once just on my own acting as several players...  There are three things I'd like to discuss to help me grokk (by the way, I also love Tony; he's created an awesome game AND he uses Heinleinisms casually):

At the beginning of every page is "free narration" until the starter of the page decalres an action, right?  How does the narration work?  What limits are there for this free naration?  How does one decide who's narrating?  Is it a free for all?  Is the only way to stop the madness of the free narration for the starter to declare that action?

I understand that when using abilities to narrate a scene, that it should be the use of that ability that is the primary focus of the narration.  What happens when someone's use of an ability is questionable?  Is this just an honor rule?  If Alex has only a level 5 style "smile that lights up the room" and does a terrible job narrating how it might move along the story (i.e. that ability is NOT the focus of the narration, but the player claims it is) is there any recourse for the other players, or do they just have to call them an asshat and move on?

Along a similiar line; if a character a player is narrating is incapacitated, can the player narrate an ability of the character?  Back to smile lighting up the room; I suppose a character might involuntarilty/unconciously use an ability; is that allowable, or must a use of an ability be based on that character "attempting to use the ability"?  I can see an asshat narrating "The alien shoots Poly Purebread with his deathray and there's a 13 inch diameter hole where her heart and other internal organs used to be" and then the player of Poly Purebread, journalist without powers, just kind of stares at the first player, pondering what event he's going to narrate, 'cause Polly's not gonna be using much of any of her powers is she now!  Once narrated, the action HAS taken place, am I right (assuming no house rules or hero's code to the contrary of course).   Of course there are also dozens of ways to incapacitate someone without killing them, even if you do have a "no killing main character's" rule.  Even IF the character can be made alive again or un-incapacitated, would not their alive-again or un-incapacitated be the focus of their narration?

An addition; what does a player do if he/she is playing a place and the other players just decide to leave?  What recourse has the player at this point?  Again, are they relegated to event duty? 

AND if someone is relegated to declaring events for whatever reason (such as crossing off every single one of their abilities; for example) how does the scene end?  You can't resolve a new event...  There will always be new events in such a case... Can a player "pass" ?

[TonyLB]

Free narration:  Other than the Not-Yet rule, it is a free-for-all.  The only way to stop it is for the starting player to start.  I have once had to say "Hey ... I'm getting sick of free narration, can we get to the action?" in a PBP game, so I totally recognize that it can be a problem where (either due to medium or due to unfamiliarity among the players) people aren't picking up the "move it along" social cues.

Using Abilities:  Doesn't have to be primary.  It has to be included.  If you call upon the ability "Smile lights up the room" then you can narrate smiling that way while also executing a double-backflip kick with thunder-chi power-bolts.

Incapacitated characters:  Apart from "narrate away the incapacitation" which you've touched upon, there are a host of other more "artsy" narration techniques.  I watched a player at a convention play Major Victory for something like two hours after the brain was pulled out of his body.  "Oh, if only I could deliver my Star Spangled Punch now!  As it is all I can do is flop my ganglia in a feeble attempt to influence events," is a perfectly good narration for using Star Spangled Punch.

Likewise, I've played a character who was not in the same room (or the same planet) as the scene, and narrated my use of powers through the memories and reactions of other characters.  "Remember Zak's hopeful demeanor?  Surely we can't simply leave him to be tortured by aliens.  We must act!"

Passing:  Usually people choose to boost an inspiration.  I've seen a few situations that called for a pass ... when you would increase an inspiration, but you have no check-off abilities left, and don't want to take the debt.

[Hans]

At the beginning of every page is "free narration" until the starter of the page decalres an action, right?  How does the narration work?  What limits are there for this free naration?  How does one decide who's narrating?  Is it a free for all?  Is the only way to stop the madness of the free narration for the starter to declare that action?

I have found that the "free narration", once you get into the game, ends up being VERY short, if not nonexistent.  People are usually eager to start dropping conflicts and rolling dice.  But others might have a different experience.

I understand that when using abilities to narrate a scene, that it should be the use of that ability that is the primary focus of the narration.  What happens when someone's use of an ability is questionable?  Is this just an honor rule?  If Alex has only a level 5 style "smile that lights up the room" and does a terrible job narrating how it might move along the story (i.e. that ability is NOT the focus of the narration, but the player claims it is) is there any recourse for the other players, or do they just have to call them an asshat and move on?

I refer you to the "Popcorn" entry in the F.A.Q., in my continued attempt to coin a new gaming term.

I can see an asshat narrating "The alien shoots Poly Purebread with his deathray and there's a 13 inch diameter hole where her heart and other internal organs used to be" and then the player of Poly Purebread, journalist without powers, just kind of stares at the first player, pondering what event he's going to narrate, 'cause Polly's not gonna be using much of any of her powers is she now! 

I actually had a player narrate their character (a confederate of my character's) shoving a metal stilleto heel through my character's skull, and then run off.  There are actually two main options when something like this happens:
a) Popcorn throwing.  You say something like "What, really, deathray?  13 inch diameter hole?  Seriously?  And this doesn't violate the comics code how?"
b) Clever or not so clever narration around the fact.  In the stilleto skull spiking incident, described above, I had my character stand up after the other character left and say something along the lines of "I wish she would stop DOING THAT!  Good thing we have had our brains transferred to a secure storage facility.  Somebody get me a towel to get this blood off my face!"

What?  I was desparate, give me a break.

[Bret Gillan]

Looks like all your questions have been answered. I just wanted to add one thing.

I can see an asshat narrating "The alien shoots Poly Purebread with his deathray and there's a 13 inch diameter hole where her heart and other internal organs used to be" and then the player of Poly Purebread, journalist without powers, just kind of stares at the first player, pondering what event he's going to narrate, 'cause Polly's not gonna be using much of any of her powers is she now!  Once narrated, the action HAS taken place, am I right (assuming no house rules or hero's code to the contrary of course).

Remember, we're talkinga bout comic books here. People die and come back to life all the time. Things I've used, inspired by comics:

- Poly comes back as a zombie!
- That was actually Poly's clone/robot double!
- The superhero's quest to go back in time and stop Poly from ever getting shot!
- Poly is healed using comic book superscience!

And so on. I probably shouldn't admit this, but I take a sinister pleasure in using Capes's capabilities for wide open narration to creatively counter asshattery.

[Eric Sedlacek]

What?  I was desparate, give me a break.

There was nothing remotely weak or lame about what you did.  It was the original narration that was weak and lame.

And so on. I probably shouldn't admit this, but I take a sinister pleasure in using Capes's capabilities for wide open narration to creatively counter asshattery.

Again, why the shame?  This is a good thing.  Narration is not some big exploit.  It is a tool.  The player who uses the tool well will be rewarded by the other players.  The player who just is a tool won't.  You guys are each being a force for good.  Be proud.

[Bret Gillan]

My one concern would be that resolving issues with asshattery in-game is passive-aggressive and not as good a solution as talking it out outside of game or even popcorn-throwing.

[Hans]

resolving issues with asshattery

Wouldn't that be asshaberdashery?

[TonyLB]

My one concern would be that resolving issues with asshattery in-game is passive-aggressive and not as good a solution as talking it out outside of game or even popcorn-throwing.

I think there's room for this type of tactic to not be passive-aggressive.  Sometimes it can be just plain aggressive, in a way that (bluntly) isn't as toxic.  Here are my rough thoughts on the topic:

• "Oh, fine ... you just blew a hole in Polly's chest.  Not that there's anything wrong with that.  Far be it from me to indicate that you should have shown more restraint than that.  Even if I were thinking it, I would never say such a thing.  I'll just soldier on.  It turns out that was only Polly's clone."  Passive aggressive.
• "Ah, yeah!  Boom!  Burnt charred hole right in her chest.  Yucka!  But, see, it turns out that's only what you're fondly imagining ... an insight into your character's deep and abiding hatred for Polly.  Now I'm playing 'Goal:  Get up the nerve to act on your hatred of Polly.'  Yes, you hate her, but do you hate her enough to actually do anything?  If so then prove it!"  Just plain aggressive.

If you've got two people consistently doing a back-and-forth where they're narrating over each other then it seems to me that you probably have a conflict brewing somewhere there.  So, refer it to the conflict system.  That will put an end to the unstructured slap-fighting (by structuring it) and will also give people a more productive outlet for their back-and-forth tendencies ("And Then" narration and action/reaction).

[Bret Gillan]

That is a really interesting idea, and one I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around. The idea of using metagame conflicts as fuel for in-game conflicts strikes me as simultaneously dangerous and brilliant. It seems like it would be difficult for me to seperate my frustration with someone doing things that strike me as asshat-ish to gain the sort of distance you need to maintain from in game events to be able to do things like lose a conflict without punching someone in the face (hyperbole, but you know what I mean). Damn I wish I had a regular Capes game going so I could try this stuff out in action.

Or maybe I'm seeing this differently from how you meant it. I can also see you meaning this as, "You want to narrate Poly getting smoked, it's not going to be that easy. Prove it," and throwing down a relevant conflict like the one you described. This doesn't seem to be much recourse against some of the Mass Murderer players I've run into at cons who only drop Conflicts like, "Goal: Kill Poly," and "Goal: Kill Captain Freedom," and so on, but maybe that's just a situation for popcorn throwing.

[Eric Sedlacek]

My one concern would be that resolving issues with asshattery in-game is passive-aggressive and not as good a solution as talking it out outside of game or even popcorn-throwing.

Tony is very big on settling issues in game whenever possible.  Yes, Tony can be a wild and crazy guy.  This makes him an interesting fellow to know, but by far his most irritating quality is that even when he is being wild and crazy, he is very often right.

At one point, I thought the way you do, but I've changed my mind.  I think training your fellow players in game is not only appropriate and effective but also efficient.  It also isn't one-way.  You train them while they train you.   I don't think this is passive-aggressive.  I think it's trusting the rules.

The problem with taking someone to task outside the game is that asshattery is in the eye of the beholder.   Was the person really being an AH or did you just not get what you wanted?   Is what he wants from the game wrong or just different from what you want?  Competing vision is what the game is all about.  Where is the line?  Sure, if another player is throwing soda cans at you, call him out, punch him in the nose, etc., but if the problem is in the game, I think it should stay in the game if at all possible.

The danger is that when you step outside the game to criticize someone's play, you are claiming authority over the game and how it is played.  Since this is a GMless game, it is backed up by very little actual authority, so you are by definition overstepping.  Chastising a player outside the game over in-game choices either disrupts the very important dynamic of equal players in Capes, or it opens the door for everyone to step out of the game and criticize anything they don't like for whatever reason.  Since all the cool moments in Capes comes from disagreements between equals, either outcome is potentially very limiting.

I'm not advocating total silence about the game outside of play or any such extreme position, but I do think you should keep almost everything within the context of mechanical play whenever possible.  Instead of "You aren't playing the game right," or "You are narrating inappropriately," I far prefer, "Look, Dude, you aren't getting many story tokens.  There's a reason for that,"  or "I don't really care about that conflict, so you should know I'm not going to oppose you on it," or "That's a violation of the comics code." or pointing at a goal and saying "not yet!".  Don't underestimate the latter one as a powerful tool.

"Popcorn-throwing" as it has been labelled, is really in-game communication.  It is making explicit the judgement of what is seen as cool and what is not, what will earn story tokens and what will not.  But it should never be a veto, only an expression of disapproval.  Keeping it in-game does not mean you need to (or should) keep it subtle or passive.  In fact, my above examples of communicating within the context of the game are pretty damn blunt.
 
If a player is never fun to play with and is nothing more than a management challenge in scene after scene, you just need to better select who you play with.  Yeah, I know, getting a Capes game together isn't necessarily easy, but the old chestnut about sex and pizza is definitely not true here...bad Capes is not better than no Capes at all.  (I personally don't think this is true about sex or pizza either, but that is a discussion for another forum.)

I'm not saying it is always easy to trust the rules and let the game handle things.  I have lapsed on this score, so has Tony.  Early on in our game (before it even started actually), Tony and I both ended up apologizing to Sydney for making creative criticisms instead of just letting the game play out.  We were wrong to do so and were overstepping our authority in the game.  It was a learning experience.

[Bret Gillan]

Eric, this is exactly what I needed to hear and makes perfect sense. I can see in games in the past where I was doing the exact same thing you described you and Tony doing and can see where that was Bad Idea. Thanks!

[Eric Sedlacek]

Eric, this is exactly what I needed to hear and makes perfect sense. I can see in games in the past where I was doing the exact same thing you described you and Tony doing and can see where that was Bad Idea. Thanks!

Glad to have helped out, Bret.  I'll hasten to add that in a game where you are the GM, you have legitimate authority and thus it is a different situation.

Incidentally, I love playing Capes with Sydney because we disagree on the course of the game what seems like close to 100% of the time.  If I'm on one side of a conflict, he is on the other.  Our styles and preferences are just radically different.  We have in spades what so many people worry about in Capes, and not only is it not a disaster, it is a wonderful, beautiful thing.

[LemmingLord]

Thanks everyone for your replies..  Good stuff..

If you don't mind, I'll just add another question - how do inspirations work again?

If I have a 1 point inspiration do I add the actual die to the mix almost like a split or does it change the current die to a 1? 

[Eric Sedlacek]

Thanks everyone for your replies..  Good stuff..

If you don't mind, I'll just add another question - how do inspirations work again?

If I have a 1 point inspiration do I add the actual die to the mix almost like a split or does it change the current die to a 1? 

You raise a die to the value of an inspiration, so if you have a level 5 insp, you can raise any die lower than 5 to a 5.  This means that level 1 insps do not have any use unless they are raised in value.  Level 2 insps are nice to have because you can raise a 1 to a 2 and then split it into two 1's.

[LemmingLord]

You can raise your inspirations??  How do you do that?  And where is that in the rules?  I probably need to reread that section!!