Conflicts are about what you *can't* do, not what you *can*.

[Tuxboy]

I'm getting it fine...we had this conversation in PM a while ago.

I understand that you don't think the social contract is strong enough to protect you...I think we all get that, but no amount of, frankly, spurious argument from you is going to prove the Capes needs a rule that NO other game in the history of the RPG industry has ever had, needed, or wanted.

The game is down to who you play it with and what you expect...I think you expect different things from a game than myself and many others on this forum. I suspect you wouldn't enjoy gaming with me much as I wouldn't enjoy gaming with you.

[Sindyr]

Well, I of course think you have missed it - I find your own arguments irrelevant and spurious, while we are on that topic.

Now that we have each said our piece, let's move on to something with content:
I strongly suspect, as much as we argue, that in practice we *would* have fun playing engaging games of Capes.  In practice, I suspect that 90% of the Capes players are not asshats, incluing you and I.  I believe that any actions you took that I strongly objected to at the table, you would be agreeable to modifying, and vice versa.  And when all is said and done, with the amount of intelligence and creativity we possess, I believe the game would turn out to be cool and amazingly fun.

Just my opinion.

[TonyLB]

OK, tux, I don't know why, but you just are not hearing me.

Y'know this kind of assumption is incredibly common:  "You disagree with me and therefore must not have understood me."

From the outside it looks very much as if Tux completely understands what you're saying, and disagrees with both your reasoning and your conclusions.  And ... y'know ... he's not alone.

[Sindyr]

Sorry, that's not good enough.

[Glendower]

That;s my point. 
1) Capes games are broken without the use of the Social Contract.  D&D for example, is not. (Although personally I hate that game)
2) Capes seems to intentionally leaves gaps where it could employ rules.  In other words, where broken play could be highly ameliorated or fixed with a simply rule addition, Capes seems to choose to be as light a framework as possible, eschewing extra rules and putting the burden on the Social Contract to make Capes work.

I am not saying the above things are wrong, they just are.

Here's my counter points.

1) ALL social games are broken without the use of the Social Contract. 

The social contract are a list of rules that allow us to interact with other people in a successful manner.  Social games, from Bridge to Monopoly to D&D to Capes, involve interaction with people.  Without these rules, we will not interact with people successfully.  Without these rules, we cannot play social games. 

Singling out Capes serves no purpose.  Sure, Capes won't work without a functioning Social Contract.  Neither will Monopoly.  Imagine playing Monopoly and the opposing player sets you on fire.  No where in Monopoly does it say "dont' set your opponent on fire".  But the social contract is pretty clear on this.  Setting people on fire breaks social contract, which thereby breaks the game, as you can't play while on fire.  Your money would burn at your touch, for one.

2) Capes has rules that deal directly with the social contract.

Want story tokens?  Don't piss off the other players with lame conflicts, or narrated reversals.  That actions will get you no tokens.  In addition, incredibly lame additions to the narrative will not survive contact with the other players.  If you grow annoyed that your contributions are getting tossed away, then play the game the way it's indended.  Toss a goal or event down that someone ELSE cares about. 

I have a personal philosophy about games.  You have to play games with people you like and are prepared to trust in some capacity. That establishes the social contract, as these are your friends!  These people will want you to have a good time!  And you want them to have a good time.  If you work hard to make your fellow players shine, and they do the same, it creates an exchange of energy that you can feel!

In Capes, the very best Goals and Events are those that interest and effect other people at the table.  If you can interest and engage someone with a goal, either to support it or to oppose it, and excitedly, then you succeeded.  If no one cares, you failed. 

[Sindyr]

That;s my point. 
1) Capes games are broken without the use of the Social Contract.  D&D for example, is not. (Although personally I hate that game)
2) Capes seems to intentionally leaves gaps where it could employ rules.  In other words, where broken play could be highly ameliorated or fixed with a simply rule addition, Capes seems to choose to be as light a framework as possible, eschewing extra rules and putting the burden on the Social Contract to make Capes work.

I am not saying the above things are wrong, they just are.

Here's my counter points.

1) ALL social games are broken without the use of the Social Contract. 

The social contract are a list of rules that allow us to interact with other people in a successful manner.  Social games, from Bridge to Monopoly to D&D to Capes, involve interaction with people.  Without these rules, we will not interact with people successfully.  Without these rules, we cannot play social games. 

Singling out Capes serves no purpose.  Sure, Capes won't work without a functioning Social Contract.  Neither will Monopoly.  Imagine playing Monopoly and the opposing player sets you on fire.  No where in Monopoly does it say "dont' set your opponent on fire".  But the social contract is pretty clear on this.  Setting people on fire breaks social contract, which thereby breaks the game, as you can't play while on fire.  Your money would burn at your touch, for one.

What I am saying is that the Capes ruleset by itself encourages a tactic which if used breaks the game (retconning).  Nothing in Monopoly's ruleset *requires* that the Social Contract step in - no rules in Monopoly encourage us to set our opponents on fire.  However, the Capes ruleset does encourage use to fight over narrative control, *and* it also allows us to seize that control and gives us no constraint about it.  The Capes very ruleset creates a situation where without the social contract players will be compelled to contributing to broken gaming.  Monopoly does not do that in its ruleset.

2) Capes has rules that deal directly with the social contract.

Want story tokens?  Don't piss off the other players with lame conflicts, or narrated reversals.  That actions will get you no tokens.  In addition, incredibly lame additions to the narrative will not survive contact with the other players.  If you grow annoyed that your contributions are getting tossed away, then play the game the way it's indended.  Toss a goal or event down that someone ELSE cares about. 

To me this point is a mere extension of the idea of the social contract.  If you piss people off, not getting tokens will be the least of your worries, people more than likely won't even play with you, making not getting tokens a moot point.

I have a personal philosophy about games.  You have to play games with people you like and are prepared to trust in some capacity. That establishes the social contract, as these are your friends!  These people will want you to have a good time!  And you want them to have a good time.  If you work hard to make your fellow players shine, and they do the same, it creates an exchange of energy that you can feel!

In Capes, the very best Goals and Events are those that interest and effect other people at the table.  If you can interest and engage someone with a goal, either to support it or to oppose it, and excitedly, then you succeeded.  If no one cares, you failed. 

Yep, I agree with you there.  I would add playing with friends means playing with people who will respect what you want to explore and respect what you don't - regardless of game system.  And will actively search for ways to achieve their own success while contributing to yours.

[LemmingLord]

To me this point is a mere extension of the idea of the social contract.  If you piss people off, not getting tokens will be the least of your worries, people more than likely won't even play with you, making not getting tokens a moot point.

I have a personal philosophy about games.  You have to play games with people you like and are prepared to trust in some capacity. That establishes the social contract, as these are your friends!  These people will want you to have a good time!  And you want them to have a good time.  If you work hard to make your fellow players shine, and they do the same, it creates an exchange of energy that you can feel!

In Capes, the very best Goals and Events are those that interest and effect other people at the table.  If you can interest and engage someone with a goal, either to support it or to oppose it, and excitedly, then you succeeded.  If no one cares, you failed. 

Yep, I agree with you there.  I would add playing with friends means playing with people who will respect what you want to explore and respect what you don't - regardless of game system.  And will actively search for ways to achieve their own success while contributing to yours.

What I love about this system is it encourages resolution of conflicts in-game and outside-game.  If you have someone who is occasionally a jerk because they speak above everyone or has to have the best character around, everyone he pisses off is very much empowered to call him on it by letting him story starve (story token starve that is).  These kinds of jerks become jerks because they become aggressive and can badger the GM into a kind of "the rules say my character can do this nah nah nah;" in capes a jerk needs to fight off all his players to continue to be a jerk.  It cuts right to quick; get with the program or starve and LOSE.  :)

I do think jerks will have a problem with the game for awhile... Like all of us, they will play for awhile not sure how to play.  They will start out with their own conception of what is WINNING (because jerks tend to be the I WIN YOU LOSE types anyway) which is that their character outshines everyone else.  They will learn that they can only do this as long as it works for everyone else. As soon as they start to "get' the game they will realize they only win by GIVING as well as taking...

Also, I want to point out that I have been a jerk before; and by playing capes I will see when I am a jerk right away if players aren't picking up on my conflicts.  If there's no demand for the conflicts I'm manufacturing, I don't get what I'm seeking in "points" Story Tokens nor in ATTENTION... 

[Sindyr]

Also, I want to point out that I have been a jerk before; and by playing capes I will see when I am a jerk right away if players aren't picking up on my conflicts.  If there's no demand for the conflicts I'm manufacturing, I don't get what I'm seeking in "points" Story Tokens nor in ATTENTION... 

This Capes game is the first system I have seen that turns storytelling into an effective, capitalist, economy supply and demand driven game - and that is one of the main reasons I love it so.

The fact that you can only fund your narrative victories, and therefor the storyline that's most importnat to you, by earning resources by caring about what the other guy needs is an exquisite balance.

Conversely, if you don't play conflicts that get other player's passionately involved, you won't get their resources, and will not be able to effectively pursue your own agenda.

The only possible flaw that *just* occured to me I will break out into another thread:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20589.0