Coercive/Push versus Enticing/Pull Capes Play

[TonyLB]

I ... don't think you've made as clear-cut a case as you think you have.

All these examples go, essentially, like this:  "Jack comes into play conscious of Narrative Goal #1.  Jack plays.  The opportunity to pursue Narrative Goal #2 is offered to Jack.  It comes with certain mechanical incentives which are the direct consequence of how much Dan prefers Narrative Goal #2 over Narrative Goal #1.  Jack takes Narrative Goal #2.  Therefore competitive play has interfered with Jack's ability to pursue his narrative goals."

I just don't see the bright line you're drawing between competitive goals and narrative goals.  If I really, really want Necro to take over the city ... is that competitive?  Yes, yes it is.  Is it narrative?  Yes, yes it is.  Pretty much everything is going to be both.

So if Jack really wants A, and Dan really wants B, and they end up doing B ... that's not competition squashing narration.  That's Jack not getting his way, but rather getting something else instead.  Often, as your own examples point out, something that he's pretty happy to have.

Are you using "narrative goal" to refer to "pre-made plans"?  Because if you're saying that Capes is inhospitable to pre-made plans then I'm right with you.  Capes ties pre-made plans in duct tape, brutalizes and tortures them, then dumps then in a ditch to bleed to death.  It's a design feature.

[Sindyr]

I just don't see the bright line you're drawing between competitive goals and narrative goals.  If I really, really want Necro to take over the city ... is that competitive?  Yes, yes it is.  Is it narrative?  Yes, yes it is.  Pretty much everything is going to be both.

Simply saying it's so doesn't make it so.  *Sometimes* narrative and competitive goals are not in conflict, and sometimes they are.  *When* they are, the test is what you do.

So if Jack really wants A, and Dan really wants B, and they end up doing B ... that's not competition squashing narration.  That's Jack not getting his way, but rather getting something else instead.  Often, as your own examples point out, something that he's pretty happy to have.

I have illustrated that in some cases a player may abandon their narrative goal for their competitive one, which proves my point.

Are you using "narrative goal" to refer to "pre-made plans"?

No.

[TonyLB]

I have illustrated that in some cases a player may abandon their narrative goal for their competitive one, which proves my point.

And here I thought you were writing...

for illustrative purpose, not to exhaustively proove something and not to get drawn into an debate

But hey, if you want to declare victory, that's cool.  I'm pretty well content letting other people judge which of us has raised the more valid points.

[Sindyr]

But hey, if you want to declare victory, that's cool.  I'm pretty well content letting other people judge which of us has raised the more valid points.

It's illustrative that for you the significant subject seems to be how other people judge us, and which of us has has scored more points with those reading these points.  This goes back to your alpha male competitive nature - the only thing that seems important to you is *winning*.

For me, it really isn't the most important thing to me which of us gets the popular vote.  The important thing to me is simply raising ideas, making sure that they get aired (and not shut down), and having discourse with people who does not use it as a just another venue for competition.

If I am wrong in what I have said on any thread, then I hope people realize this, and I have done no harm.  But if as I believe I am right, it doesn't matter to me whether people can see it or not - not right now.  It just matters that my ideas are out there for all to see, so that people can absorb them and use them in their own way and time.

Heck, I don't even expect to be given credit.  I am not naive.  The social phenomena going on here has not excaped my notice.

I just love that I was the one to put most of these ideas out there, fearlessly and without any idea that there would be any satisfaction or reward apart from being the one to do so.

You are obviously very competitive Tony, and I bet you beat the competition in most any event you engage in.

For me victory is not in the mano a mano stuff, its in speaking the ideas (and defending them) in the first place.  Even no one else speaks up in support.  Because once the ideas and information gets out, if it proves to be as correct as I think, there will be no stopping it, regardless of how many adherents any poster (or moderator) attracts.

Ooohhh... warm fuzzy glow...

[ubergeek2012]

So if Jack really wants A, and Dan really wants B, and they end up doing B ... that's not competition squashing narration.  That's Jack not getting his way, but rather getting something else instead.  Often, as your own examples point out, something that he's pretty happy to have.

I have illustrated that in some cases a player may abandon their narrative goal for their competitive one, which proves my point.

Is that really true though?  In the above example it doesn't seem like Jack is abandoning anything, but rather seeing something that interests him more and then pursuing it instead.  Isn't that really just changing his narrative goal?

[Sindyr]

So if Jack really wants A, and Dan really wants B, and they end up doing B ... that's not competition squashing narration.  That's Jack not getting his way, but rather getting something else instead.  Often, as your own examples point out, something that he's pretty happy to have.

I have illustrated that in some cases a player may abandon their narrative goal for their competitive one, which proves my point.

Is that really true though?  In the above example it doesn't seem like Jack is abandoning anything, but rather seeing something that interests him more and then pursuing it instead.  Isn't that really just changing his narrative goal?

That would be true if he were swapping one narrative goal for another, but what he is really doing is swapping the narrative goal (peace conference) for a competitive goal (more tokens).

Despite the fact that tokens can be used to facillitate narrative goals at some later time, unless he is gathering the tokens with a specific narrative play in mind - then he is gathering tokens for tactical pruposes - as part of a tactical competition with the other playes.  Yes, it's true that with Capes competitive and narrative goals are intertwined - but that does not mean in any way that the are automatically equal.

He he is gathering tokens because that's good overall strategy in general, then he is working at a competitive goal.  If he abandons his narrative goal (peace process) to rake in the tokens, then he is swapping his narrative needs for his tactical needs - and placing the value of his competitiveness higher (in the moment) than his narrative fidelity.

[Andrew Morris]

You keep saying "narrative goal" and "competitive goal" like they are these different things. In both cases, they are what the player wants to happen. I mean, I could talk about "interior goals" (things a player wants to happen in relation to his character) and "exterior goals" (things a player wants to happen in relation to other characters), but what's the point in doing so? They're still just things the player wants to happen.

So, what is your purpose in separating "narrative goals" from "competitive goals?"

[Sindyr]

You keep saying "narrative goal" and "competitive goal" like they are these different things.

That is because they are.

In both cases, they are what the player wants to happen. I mean, I could talk about "interior goals" (things a player wants to happen in relation to his character) and "exterior goals" (things a player wants to happen in relation to other characters), but what's the point in doing so? They're still just things the player wants to happen.

So, what is your purpose in separating "narrative goals" from "competitive goals?"

This is a very long thread, as are other I have participated on, in which I have spoken about this an extreme and unfortunately repetitive length.

If it isn't clear to you at this time, after all of that, what makes you think I am able to explain it further?

Short stab at it:
Capes can be a RPG first and foremost, or it can be primarily a tactical game of out-doing your opponents.  It has elements of both.

Which it is depends exactly on whether the players are valuing in general primarily narrative goals or competitive ones.

I think Capes played with one attitude, can make for extraordinary role-playing.
I think Capes played with another attitude can make for a veru competitive game, like chess or monopoly.

The tactics are serving the narrative needs of the players.  The narratives are serving the competitive needs of the players.  In any gmae those two formulas could be exactly equal, but usually in practice thats not the case.

Capes players seem to divide in two just the same: One's that desire primarily narrative rewards from a game and one's that desire primarily competitive rewards from a game.

No one which one is, and finding other of similar bent, seems to be the best way of getting the msot from Capes.

Putting 2 of one extreme and 2 of another extreme is, on the other hand, asking for trouble.

I have said all of this in more depth in previous posts, I encourage you to check them out.  The above is a mere snapshot.  Hope it helps - if it doesn't, not sure what else I can do for you.

[Andrew Morris]

Huh. At no point in your response did you address anything I said, other than to say a) I'm wrong, b) you've covered this before elsewhere, implying that it's somehow my job to have read that and accepted it, and c) you're right based on the fact that you're right.

Yeah. I've got a bit of a problem with that.

Let's step back a second. Please address my point, so we can actually have a conversation. Do you agree or not that any goal in Capes is about what the player wants?

[Tuxboy]

Capes players seem to divide in two just the same: One's that desire primarily narrative rewards from a game and one's that desire primarily competitive rewards from a game.

My issue is with the assumption that there are only two types of Capes play and that they are mutually exclusive in the practice...IME this is not even close to being true.

In the vast majority of situations, the narrative and resource aspects of the game have been played equally and interdependantly.

Statements like:

In any gmae those two formulas could be exactly equal, but usually in practice thats not the case.

...beg the questions, 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?

[Sindyr]

Do you agree or not that any goal in Capes is about what the player wants?

Yes.  If you mean goal with a small "g".  Whether it's to stop one plot thread, protect another plot thread, rake in more tokens, make yourself look good, make someone else look bad, avoid embrassment - they are all goals.

[Sindyr]

My issue is with the assumption that there are only two types of Capes play and that they are mutually exclusive in the practice...IME this is not even close to being true.

There are millions of kinds of Capes play (well, maybe not millions, but a lot) but they each fall into one of two categories, primarily motivated by narrative goals, and primarily motivated by competitive goals. (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.)

Each of those two categories further subdivide:
Category 1: primarily motivated by narrative goals
---Category 1a: primarily motivated by narrative goals, but not in conflict with secondary competitive goals.
---Category 1b: primarily motivated by narrative goals, and indeed in conflict with secondary competitive goals.
Category 2: primarily motivated by competitive goals
---Category 2a: primarily motivated by competitive goals, but not in conflict with secondary narrative goals.
---Category 2b: primarily motivated by competitive goals, and indeed in conflict with secondary narrative goals.

Unless ALL Capes play falls into either 1a or 2a, then my point is valid.  If ANY Capes play falls into either 1b or 2b, then we have one mode of playing interfering with another.

Furthermore, I hypothesize that given a specific Capes player, either the population of 1b will greatly overshadow that of 2b, or the reverse.

The players who have a larger 1b than their 2b I term primarily narrative players.
The players who have a larger 2b than their 1b I term primarily competitive players.

It is not a stretch to imagine a Capes table with an equal number of primarily narrative players and primarily competitive players (2 and 2) may be in for some unhappy gaming.

[R. Jason Boss]

It is not a stretch to imagine a Capes table with an equal number of primarily narrative players and primarily competitive players (2 and 2) may be in for some unhappy gaming.

Isn't that basic Forge theory on dysfunctional/incoherent play, though, if you have the group divided on Creative Agenda down the middle like that, such that it's causing conflict?  I'm not admitting the point that you are correct about it, just clarifying.  Seems if I grok properly it's a player problem more than a Capes problem.  I mean, you could create a pretty bad D&D game out of two primarily Gamist oriented players and two mostly Narrativist players, after all.

Seems to me that if anything Capes is an unusually successful (insert jargon term for dual agenda game).  : )  That dysfunctional play could potentially arise is not really proof of a fundamental problem with the system though.  Is any game so robust that people can't screw it up for the other players?  Dunno.

The difference between RPGs and Monopoly (which you've been mentioning lately) that's pertinent here is that players don't come to a board game with different agendas, usually.  Everyone has the same goal more or less and there are only so many possible variants of play.  I think you are exaggerating the Social Contract issue by this sort of somewhat spurious comparison.

Jason

[Sindyr]

I think you are exaggerating the Social Contract issue by this sort of somewhat spurious comparison.

Jason

Well, you are of course entitled to your opinion.  It may not come as a shock that I believe you are wholly incorrect.

But addressing the body of your response above the stinger, it may be simply a sifference with some people prioritizing a creative agenda, and other people prioritizing a competition.

Which has pretty much been my point all along.

[R. Jason Boss]

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?

Nevermind, I am not good enough at GNS to bring it into the discussion, so I won't.  I'm not confident enough in my use of the stuff to argue it, really, but you definitely misunderstood at least part of what I said based on the language of your reply.

Jason