Threatening vs. Enticing and its meaning for Capes

[Threlicus]

Hans,

I think you're exactly right about how this is a design feature, and I agree wholeheartedly that for many players and groups it's not a problem in the least.

What I was trying to do with this thread was to get a better understand of the nature of the problem (for those for whom it is or might be a problem) and then, with that understanding, see if it suggested ways to tweak the Capes ruleset so it is better useable by such groups.

Tony, I don't understand what you're getting at by saying it's putting it into a positive light. I have some thoughts about what you might be thinking but I've been proven poor at reading your mind already in this thread, so if you could elaborate I would appreciate it.

(N.B. For myself, it's a purely theoretical problem. There are things I can imagine people putting down that might trigger Threat/coercion feelings, but I don't think I'm likely to play with people who would put those things down (and if they did I'd probably resort to the popcorn). Still, I think the thought-experiment lets me see where others might be coming from in this regard.)

[Sindyr]

First, for a given player assume that we have a utility function for the narrative. That is, just a measure of 'how happy' that player is with the narrative. Now, in general this is a very complicated function of innumerable variables, but it doesn't matter since I'm never going to write one down. :) Now, suppose someone in Capes puts down a conflict. For simplicity of explanation I'm going to assume a simple two-sided conflict in which only two players are interested, though I think the idea generalizes. For each side in a conflict, imagine a circle of 'possible resolutions' around each of two points (Yes or No on the conflict). Now, I'm going to define two things, using the terminology I threw out in the other thread:
1) Enticement is the *maximum* of the player's utility functions over those circles. This is the utility he gets if he gets to pick the narrative outcome.
2) Threat is the negative of the integral of the utility times the player's perceived likelihood of the other player choosing each other possible result. This is what he's likely to end up with if he doesn't win the conflict. (I probably would add additional Threat to cover the variance -- the more uncertain the value is, the more threatening it is -- but I don't think that's essential to understand what I'm saying).

Just off the bat, while I will try to engage to the best of my ability this thread, I do not have the math background to parse or understand that, so I will be commenting from a perspective of general principles.

[Sindyr]

Sindyr:  I have to disagree completely with your implication that narrativist play is somehow the antithesis of competition.  Here is the reason; if you and I disagree profoundly as to how the story should go from this point forward, how are we expected to resolve this disagreement.  We have already tried negotiation, and there is simply no point of common ground.  Is this not a kind of competition?  In my own experience in playing other narrativist games (such as Heroquest, Dust Devils, Burning Wheel) it is exactly those moments in which you and I disagree about which direction the story should go that the most fulfulling and interesting fiction occurs.  Even in games with a very high level of common veto power (like PTA), there still has to be a conflict resolution mechanic.  Personally, I'm just about the least gamist player you could ever meet.  I do not value the competetive aspect of Capes because I like competition; I value it because it leads to good fiction.

I am not saying that narrativist play is somehow the antithesis of competition.  Capes contains both competition and narrative.  But when Competitive goals and Narrative goals are contradictory, and it happens, one must choose to either use the tools of competition to fight for and hopefully win the right to achieve your narrative goals; or to use the tools of competition for proving that you are a "better" competitor.  Sometimes those two are incompatible.  But I have no problem with competetion when the primary goals of each player at the table are narrative in nature - when each player is *not* trying to "prove" themselves so much as they are trying to each achieve narrative ends that may or may not be in conflict.

[Sindyr]

See, I don't get what you think the functional distinction is between Threat and Enticement.  They're that tightly intertwined.  When somebody threatens me, I immediately begin salivating over the enticement I can create for myself (if they haven't already offered me one).  I don't feel that it's coercion, I feel that it's inherent opportunity.

Here's a note: Other player's may in fact not have the same feeling as Tony.  FYI.  Perhaps a lot of them.  Tony's unique. ;)

[Sindyr]

OK, read through the thread.  Whew!

Threatening play, which if I understand you correctly is what I call coercive play, occurs when one players tries to motivate another by threatening an outcome unnacceptable to the targetted player.  Tactically speaking, the more unacceptable the outcome, the greater the target will be motivated to engage to stave off the threatened outcome.  This leads to coercive play like "Captain Good empties his bowels on live TV" or "Captain Good's reckless driving puts 12 people in the hospital".

In my opinion, coercive play has it's place - when the threatened outcome is really important for the one who created it.  If Jack is playing Captain Good and Dan is playing Nekro, perhaps Dan puts down "Captain Good's reckless driving puts 12 people in the hospital" because Dan sincerely wants to explore the story of Captain Good being responsible for something bad.  Or maybe Dan for some reason really wants the story to be about traffic safety - perhaps in real life he lost his dad to a reckless driver and Jack's narration of the Captain's reckless driving has been stressing him.

But if the goal was only created to 1) generate resources or 2) engage in player versus player domination, than I find coercive play used that way boorish and uninteresting.

To my way of thinking, a Capes game with players that primarily value narrative goals can do no wrong, whether its coercive or enticing play.  But if the goal is to prove how you can outplay the other players first, and worry about the story a distant second - well that's just so much macho posturing and ego stroking in my opinion - and I do not value it.

What does this all boil down to?  Context.  I can find coercive play much more acceptable to me if I know that the player sitting accross for me really want to win the conflict not for resources of competitiveness, but because the outcome of the Conflict is important to him narratively.

Hope that helps.

[Tuxboy]

To my way of thinking, a Capes game with players that primarily value narrative goals can do no wrong, whether its coercive or enticing play.  But if the goal is to prove how you can outplay the other players first, and worry about the story a distant second - well that's just so much macho posturing and ego stroking in my opinion - and I do not value it.

What does this all boil down to?  Context.  I can find coercive play much more acceptable to me if I know that the player sitting accross for me really want to win the conflict not for resources of competitiveness, but because the outcome of the Conflict is important to him narratively.

Pretty much goes for any game system, it simply gets dragged into the spotlight due to Capes' Conflict resolution mechanic being central to narration.

In any game someone trying to hog the limelight for player-based ego purposes is unacceptable, and no more or less in Capes, but at least the Conflict mechanic can be used to rein this kind of behaviour in by denying them narrative control through winning conflicts.

I think the issue is knowing when it is resource, ego or narratively based coercive play and acting accordingly.

[TonyLB]

Tony, I don't understand what you're getting at by saying it's putting it into a positive light. I have some thoughts about what you might be thinking but I've been proven poor at reading your mind already in this thread, so if you could elaborate I would appreciate it.

I'm mostly saying that if most of what people read as "coercion" will, in fact, lead to them finding new ways that the story can go, and appreciating and valuing those ways then the end product of the coercion is that they're playing a better game that they value more.

Likewise, one of my sons is a picky eater.  I have to absolutely insist that he tries any new food ... even (I kid you not) new flavors of ice cream.  I have to coerce him to give Chocolate-Chip-Cookie-Dough ice cream a try.  I do not feel bad about applying that coercion.  It's for his own good.

And before people jump on it as if it's a flaw in my statement:  Yes, I feel that sometimes other players know what's good for me better than I do.  I am totally fine with the idea that they can force me to do something I don't think I want, and that it turns out to be not merely okay but actively cool.  And I think the same applies for every last one of you, too.  There are things you can learn from your fellow players, but you have to get past your own defense mechanisms before that can happen.  When that happens you're going to feel coerced, and that is not a bad thing.

[Threlicus]

Right. So, the reason to let people force you into things you don't think you want is because you trust them to know better than you what you want.

That is to say, you have to trust your fellow players to be *good* fellow players, and not throw yet another plate of Brussels Sprouts at you when you don't like Brussels Sprouts, and you're right about not liking them. You are forced, by the mechanics of Capes, to reward the other players for sticking Brussels Sprouts in front of you, by fighting not to have to eat them. Other than throwing popcorn (holy mixed food metaphors, Batman) -- which is to say, using the Social Contract, and thus I include saying "Hey Tony, that's stupid and I really don't like it, please take it back." -- does the honest, correct Brussels Sprouts hater have any recourse?

Yes, this whole line of inquiry is very much about a safety net that you emphatically don't need with good players who know you well enough to stick stuff in front of you that you'll turn out liking.

[TonyLB]

Okay, see ... I think we're stretching the food metaphor too far.

What I'm saying is that most roleplayers (at least in my experience) can continue to play no matter what happens to their characters. 

Like, suppose you handed me a pre-gen character that said "Your character was once a proud northern barbarian, but has been enslaved for ten years, during which time he has been repeatedly humiliated, tortured and degraded.  That's where you start."  That, to put it bluntly, rocks on toast.  I am all over playing that character.  I can do all sorts of stuff with that character.

Now, suppose I'm playing a proud northern barbarian, and you say to me "So how about if we enslave you for ten years, during which time you are repeatedly humiliated, tortured and degraded?"  Odds are I'm going to say "Uh ... I don't think I could enjoy playing the character after that," and I would (obviously) be completely wrong.

Trust is a very cool thing.  It makes it easy for me to realize that whatever (say) Eric narrates, it will leave me with a character that I can be psyched about playing.  But that's true even for people I don't trust ... I just have a harder time realizing it.  I play Capes with random folks at conventions all the time, and I have never seen a single one of them have difficulty playing their character forward from the strange and often nonsensical places that people put them in.  They just do it.

I think, in terms of the metaphor, I deny the existence of Brussels Sprouts.  I think that if you sit down to the gaming table and say "Whatever my character was five minutes ago, this is what my character is now, and playing it is why I'm here," then you will find ways to play the character and get excited about it.  It's scary in theory, but easy in practice.

[Threlicus]

Well, I don't think I want to debate the question of whether genuine Threat (which is all the Brussels Sprouts are) really exists. I don't have enough personal experience with Capes to say for sure one way or another, though I'm certain perceived Threat does. Certainly if the problem doesn't really exist there's no need for a solution.  For those who feel it does exist, I hope my theory has helped you towards figuring out how to use Capes in ways you like better.

I'm done here.

[Sindyr]

Same. (if permitted)