Coercive/Push versus Enticing/Pull Capes Play

[Andrew Cooper]

Sindyr,

Jason's use of the term Creative Agenda is a specific usage that has a specific meaning here at the The Forge.  You can read the Provisional Glossary for a definition if you like.  In any case, his usage means that Competition/Gamist play *is* a Creative Agenda just like Narrative play.  His point is that if the group is split on its Creative Agenda, you're in trouble regardless of which game you are playing.  It might not end up being dysfunctional but it will probably tend towards that.

[Tuxboy]

Sindyr...

Actually I'm basing my statements on actual play not extreme theoretical situations.

I'll ask the questions that you sidestepped again:

Have you experienced this in play? If so why are your experiences of play so at odds with those of the majority of posters? If not is this not just another "strawman" example of what you think could go wrong?

[TonyLB]

A third category, equally motivated by both types of goals exists, but is incredibly tiny to exact equality being almost impossible in reality - one will almost always be some amount greater than another.

And, as usual, I am left wondering:  "How do I reconcile Sindyr's suggestion that this is axiomatic with my observation that roughly 95% of the people I've ever played with (including many, many people at conventions who are playing the game for the very first time) fall into exactly this third supposdely non-existent category?"

Y'see, it's not "I'm 50% concerned with narrative, and 50% concerned with competition ... I ride the razors edge!"  It is "Wow.  Telling a good narrative is always good strategy.  So I guess I'm 100% concerned with competition and 100% concerned with narrative ... because they're the same thing."

[Sindyr]

You feel that players of Monopoly come to the game board with potentially disparate ways of play and in-game priorities, which Monopoly's rules successfully and transparently resolve?

I think that Monopoly's ruleset does not encourage play that would break the game in the absence of a social contract to be the safety net.

[Sindyr]

Sindyr,

Jason's use of the term Creative Agenda is a specific usage that has a specific meaning here at the The Forge.  You can read the Provisional Glossary for a definition if you like.  In any case, his usage means that Competition/Gamist play *is* a Creative Agenda just like Narrative play.  His point is that if the group is split on its Creative Agenda, you're in trouble regardless of which game you are playing.  It might not end up being dysfunctional but it will probably tend towards that.

Ahh, then yes, I see what you mean.

The tricky thing with Capes is that you can have a competitive focussed player or a narrative focussed player and both think they are playing Capes right, and both *are* right.  But put them both at the gaming table and they have a good chance to make each other unhappy.

[Andrew Cooper]

You feel that players of Monopoly come to the game board with potentially disparate ways of play and in-game priorities, which Monopoly's rules successfully and transparently resolve?

I think that Monopoly's ruleset does not encourage play that would break the game in the absence of a social contract to be the safety net.

Neither does Capes.  The issue here is that you think certain types of things constitute a "broken" game that almost nobody else here considers the least bit broken.

[Sindyr]

Have you experienced this in play? If so why are your experiences of play so at odds with those of the majority of posters? If not is this not just another "strawman" example of what you think could go wrong?

1) I have not experienced this in play - nor is that relevant.
2) No this is not a strawman example.
3) Do I need to re-re-re-re-explain my general Capes forum goals and purposes again?

[Bret Gillan]

Ahh, then yes, I see what you mean.

The tricky thing with Capes is that you can have a competitive focussed player or a narrative focussed player and both think they are playing Capes right, and both *are* right.  But put them both at the gaming table and they have a good chance to make each other unhappy.

I have found this to not happen at all in my actual play. The way Capes works, the narrative and competitive agendas are wrapped up in one another.

Someone narratively focused will find himself rewarded for good narrative, which will make him competitive.
Someone competitively focused will find that the way to "win" is to create good narrative, which will make him narratively focused.

And everyone's happy.

[Sindyr]

You feel that players of Monopoly come to the game board with potentially disparate ways of play and in-game priorities, which Monopoly's rules successfully and transparently resolve?

I think that Monopoly's ruleset does not encourage play that would break the game in the absence of a social contract to be the safety net.

Neither does Capes.  The issue here is that you think certain types of things constitute a "broken" game that almost nobody else here considers the least bit broken.

I think the issue here is that some people are refusing to see what is obvious, and those people are not me.

[Andrew Cooper]

Sindyr,

Jason's use of the term Creative Agenda is a specific usage that has a specific meaning here at the The Forge.  You can read the Provisional Glossary for a definition if you like.  In any case, his usage means that Competition/Gamist play *is* a Creative Agenda just like Narrative play.  His point is that if the group is split on its Creative Agenda, you're in trouble regardless of which game you are playing.  It might not end up being dysfunctional but it will probably tend towards that.

Ahh, then yes, I see what you mean.

The tricky thing with Capes is that you can have a competitive focussed player or a narrative focussed player and both think they are playing Capes right, and both *are* right.  But put them both at the gaming table and they have a good chance to make each other unhappy.

Those players sitting down to play any RPG have a good chance of being unhappy.  I've seen it in D&D, WoD, Champions and literally dozens of other games.  Creative Agenda incoherence tends to cause trouble.  My experience from actually playing the game is that Capes deals with this problem better than any traditional game I've ever played.

[Sindyr]

Wow.  The three or four of your are sharing communal blinders and are seriously *committed* to it.

Fine.  What I have written is for the others, because its pretty yummy stuff!

The fact remains that comp and nar play are in several cases not reconciliable. Period.

[Tuxboy]

1) I have not experienced this in play - nor is that relevant.

Think you'll find it is...you are arguing theory against empirical evidence...

2) No this is not a strawman example.

See above

3) Do I need to re-re-re-re-explain my general Capes forum goals and purposes again?

Of course not, we all know what your goals and purposes are, to provide extreme examples of theoretical situations that never seem to occur in the rest of of the Capes playing world's experiences then argue that they must be able to happen because the rules would allow them in spite of having the reality and evidence to the contrary explained to you over and over again...

Your goals and purposes are not that difficult to work out its your reasoning that is...

[Andrew Cooper]

I think the issue here is that some people are refusing to see what is obvious, and those people are not me.

It's not obvious.  It's not even true.

Sindyr, you aren't smarter than all of us.  You don't have more experience at gaming than most of us.  I seriously doubt you have half the game design experience as many of the people who have disagreed with you and tried to help you understand.  From reading your posts, you certainly don't have near the grounding in RPG theory as most of the people who have engaged you in conversation.  Yet, you resolutely hold on to the somewhat ludicrous belief that all of us are somehow wrong-headed and that if we would just entertain your arguments that'd we'd surely come around to agree with your "obviously" correct viewpoint.  Your arguments aren't new to us.  We've seen them before.  Some of us have actually made them before.  They didn't hold water before.  Your obstinant, insistence on repeating them over and over despite all evidence doesn't make them hold water now.  We aren't going to agree with you most of the time because most of the time you're just plain wrong... at least to this point.

[Tuxboy]

Wow.  The three or four of your are sharing communal blinders and are seriously *committed* to it.

Fine.  What I have written is for the others, because its pretty yummy stuff!

The fact remains that comp and nar play are in several cases not reconciliable. Period.

Wow a definative statement with a period no less...in that case it must be true...

In spite of the overwhelming evidence against it...*L*

Must try that in all my discussions with others...it is so compelling...

[Sindyr]

1) I have not experienced this in play - nor is that relevant.

Think you'll find it is...you are arguing theory against empirical evidence...

Your empirical evidence is not relevant to the issue at hand.  Just because you have had an experience does not mean that experience is necessarily related to the specific investigation I am pursuing.  That is not to put down your experience, just to sift through what *I* am looking at for only that which applies.

2) No this is not a strawman example.

See above

Please do the same.

3) Do I need to re-re-re-re-explain my general Capes forum goals and purposes again?

Of course not, we all know what your goals and purposes are, to provide extreme examples of theoretical situations that never seem to occur in the rest of of the Capes playing world's experiences then argue that they must be able to happen because the rules would allow them in spite of having the reality and evidence to the contrary explained to you over and over again...

Your goals and purposes are not that difficult to work out its your reasoning that is...

Reading the above, you may find the concept of strawman is indeed relevant - to what you just said.