A bodiless, persona less character?

[joshua neff]

Isn't "persona-less character" an oxymoron?

[Tuxboy]

*LOL*

Cutting straight to the point...like it!

[Sindyr]

The dictionary definition of drive blows the first reason out of the water, to have

A strong motivating tendency or instinct related to self-preservation, reproduction, or aggression that prompts activity toward a particular end.

you must have a self to preserve which presupposes a body or at least a persona.

...which is irrelevant.  Drive used in this setting is a Capes term which Capes defines.  The dictionary defination is irrelevant.  should we consult the dictionary on "debt", "conflict", "goal", etc, I am sure we can find more loopholes and invalidation of any Capes play one cares to eliminate.

So basically, unfortunately, you are wrong.  According to the Capes rules, I can play a PLC with drives.  It does not have to be sentient and posses an ego in the conventional sense.  The only (the ONLY) two limiting factors are that:

"They may Stake Debt on any number of Conflicts that provoke the character to prove themself in the relevant moral Drive."
-and-
"But when they Stake Debt, it must be on a Conflict that is morally charged for that particular character and Drive."

I will attest that if my PLC stakes debt, it *will* be on a conflict that is morally charged for it, and that the conflict does provoke the character to prove itself in the relevant moral drive.

This results in two things:
1) The players know that this conflict my PLC stakes debt on is morally charged for it, and that the conflict does provoke the character to prove itself in the relevant moral drive.  This does not help the player in any way determine what other potential conflicts might also fit into that category.  In fact, this information really is not at all helpful to other players in any way that I can conceive.

2.) Given that I do attest that if my PLC stakes debt, it *will* be on a conflict that is morally charged for it, and that the conflict does provoke the character to prove itself in the relevant moral drive, no player within the scope of the Capes ruleset can prevent me from playing a PLC.

Now, nothing prevents you from saying you don't like and refuse to play with me under those circumstances - just the same way nothing prevents me from saying I don't like gritty brutal games and refuse to play with those that do.

But ultimately, you not liking a debt-enabled PLC is like me not liking gritty games - both are legal and valid, and both are nothing more than a matter of taste.

[Sindyr]

Isn't "persona-less character" an oxymoron?

No.

[Sindyr]

*LOL*

Cutting straight to the point...like it!

Hope you find my rebuttal as amusing. :)

[TonyLB]

According to the Capes rules, I can play a PLC with drives.  It does not have to be sentient and posses an ego in the conventional sense.

Dude, totally.  In the next iteration of the Invasion from Earth Prime scenario packet I'm totally going to give the rough and tumble neighborhood of Foundry Row a set of drives and powers.

[joshua neff]

Isn't "persona-less character" an oxymoron?

No.

Well, if you and I were playing together, and you made a character that you claimed was a "persona-less character," I wouldn't buy it. If you create a character with Drives, I don't care if it's sentient or has an ego "in the classical sense." You either make a character for the game or you don't play the game. You either engage with the other players or you don't play the game. You either take the risk of another player doing something to or with your character or you don't play the game. If your character can do things in the game, then other players can do things to and with that character. In all of this thread, I've seen you argue for nothing besides being able to play Capes without running any of the risks that come with playing Capes.

[TonyLB]

But Joshua ... you don't need the character to have a personality in order for it to be at risk.  If I play "Foundry Row," a working-class neighborhood, and some punk supervillain puts down "Prove that the people of Foundry Row are defenseless insects before me," I don't need Foundry Row to have some anthropomorphic sentience in order for me to say "Oh like hell you will!"  I just need to be engaged with the neighborhood as a character, right?

I mean, if you want to object to the idea that a person will profit from playing Capes in a completely disengaged fashion, that's cool.  But don't lump that together with the perfectly workable technique of playing characters that don't have a face or a voice.

[Sindyr]

According to the Capes rules, I can play a PLC with drives.  It does not have to be sentient and posses an ego in the conventional sense.

Dude, totally.  In the next iteration of the Invasion from Earth Prime scenario packet I'm totally going to give the rough and tumble neighborhood of Foundry Row a set of drives and powers.

If I am not mistaken, the game author himself (FWIW) seems share my opinion on this - whihc is significant since we seem to disagree about everything else.

Although we do agree on one other thing - that Capes is a fantastic game. 

[Sindyr]

Isn't "persona-less character" an oxymoron?

No.

Well, if you and I were playing together, and you made a character that you claimed was a "persona-less character," I wouldn't buy it. If you create a character with Drives, I don't care if it's sentient or has an ego "in the classical sense." You either make a character for the game or you don't play the game. You either engage with the other players or you don't play the game. You either take the risk of another player doing something to or with your character or you don't play the game. If your character can do things in the game, then other players can do things to and with that character. In all of this thread, I've seen you argue for nothing besides being able to play Capes without running any of the risks that come with playing Capes.

And if you wanted to play a gritty Capes game, I wouldn't be OK with that either.  Same thing. Social Contract stuff.  The rules let us do either.

[Sindyr]

It is ironic to note that both Tony and I embrace the idea of PLC's.

Where we differ on this subject is in our opinions of what can constitute effective play and what PLC play can be engaging and fun.  I tend to have a very wide scope of the above.

[joshua neff]

No, Tony, I'm pretty much trying to say what you're saying. What I'm quiestioning is Sindyr's argument that playing a "persona-less character" means that if I put down an event "The Hand of Fate manifests in human form," the player of the "persona-less character" (Sindyr) can claim, "But that's not my Hand of Fate, it's a different one!" If you can use your character (a "persona" or a force of the universe) to do things to other players, other players can do things to your character. It doesn't matter whether your character has a personality of not, it's not "safe."

[Tuxboy]

...which is irrelevant.  Drive used in this setting is a Capes term which Capes defines.  The dictionary defination is irrelevant.  should we consult the dictionary on "debt", "conflict", "goal", etc, I am sure we can find more loopholes and invalidation of any Capes play one cares to eliminate.

Sure...why not...that sounds like fun ;)

Debt (n): Something owed, such as money, goods, services, resources
Conflict (n): Opposition between characters or forces in a work of drama or fiction, especially opposition that motivates or shapes the action of the plot.
Goal (n): The purpose toward which an endeavor is directed; an objective.

Nope they all seem to work fine in context...

It is ironic to note that both Tony and I embrace the idea of PLC's.

Ah but Sindyr...

I'm willing to bet that Tony's Foundry Row can be interacted with while you have gone on record as stating that Kismet can't be.

As I said I don't have an issue with PLCs just the way you are trying to use them to set up an involilate character...come on...loosen up, have some fun, actually play the game ;)

[Sindyr]

No, Tony, I'm pretty much trying to say what you're saying. What I'm quiestioning is Sindyr's argument that playing a "persona-less character" means that if I put down an event "The Hand of Fate manifests in human form," the player of the "persona-less character" (Sindyr) can claim, "But that's not my Hand of Fate, it's a different one!" If you can use your character (a "persona" or a force of the universe) to do things to other players, other players can do things to your character. It doesn't matter whether your character has a personality of not, it's not "safe."

OK, so first off, you have agreed with me and Tony that I can play a PLC within the rules of Capes - Such as Kismet, or the Golden Path, or Poetic Justice, etc.

That's a very important point, and I guess from your words, you are granting that.

Secondly, your idea of the Event, "The Hand of Fate manifests in human form" would never come off because in any event, no matter how we agree or disagree on the other stuff, any player may veto any event.  Any to keep things simple, that one gets vetoed.

So, for the sake of argument lets assume that you are either trying to free narrate my PLC becoming embodied, or you are making it a goal like "Nekro forces (insert PLC name here) into a body"

Problem is, my character concept for the PLC "Poetic Justice" for example, is not only that it does not have a human form, *it cannot*. 

Consider this:
Let's say you play such a goal, and win it, and narrate Poetic Justice being pulled into a corporeal form.  Let's say through further won Conflicts that body is put into a coma, shut down, isolated, locked up.

Let me ask you two very important questions:
1) Is poetic justice gone from the world?  I would say that as long as a single good guy has a success of some kind, or a single bad guy has a failure of some kind, then poetic justice is present in some amount.  In order for it to be completely gone from the world than good guys could never have any joy and bad guys could never have any frustration - and that simply is not gonna to happen, no matter how close you get to eliminating poetic justice, there will always be some.
2) Am I as a player limited in any way from using the abilities on my Poetic Justice character sheet to influence the cause of poetic justice?  Of course not - nothing that happens narratively can ever affect my ability to use my character sheet and what is on it.

Now if you as a player want to think that you have my character locked up, that's fine.  As long as 1 and 2 are both yes's *I* am going to continue to think that the essential essence of poetic justice lies forever beyond your reach.

How can you make it otherwise?

Sure, you can make everyone in the narrative world believe that you are holding Poetic Justice hostage.

But you can't make *me* the *player* believe it, as long as it simply isn't true functionally.

And as long as I can use my character sheet abilities, I can always narrate a boy doing the right thing, getting a karmic reward, and slowly realizing that that wouldn't have been possible if the *real* poetic justice was on ice. :)

And so the revolution begins.

[Sindyr]

Tux - sorry, again, not enough time and energy to type debate you, but my invitation for voice chat remains open.

As I said I don't have an issue with PLCs just the way you are trying to use them to set up an involilate character...come on...loosen up, have some fun, actually play the game ;)

I am trying to start a weekly capes game here, and I will be playing VOIP Capes soon.  So I am doing everything I can.

On the other hand, if its good Capes play to tactically attack, it must be equally good Capes play to tactically dodge the attacks one doesn't find of value - which is one use of a PLC. :)