Threatening vs. Enticing and its meaning for Capes

[TonyLB]

Now, I think you're saying that, if someone lays down a high-Threat conflict, there are unspoken rules at play -- basically, "Hey, if you're going to try to rule the cosmos for all time if you win, you'd better have a lot at risk if you lose" kinds of metarules -- that imply Threat and Enticement generally end up correlated.

We really can't get into which rules are "unspoken" in Capes if you don't want to discuss the token economy.  But in other games, yes, I totally agree with your assessment:  unspoken rules of play keep Threat and Enticement correlated.

That seems to me a feature of good, functional Capes play -- players willing to put stuff on the line to get what they want -- and I'm sure it mitigates some of the negativity players might get from feeling coerced; but I don't think it diminishes the coercion arising from Threat.

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.

"Oh, you want to humiliate me on national TV?  COOL!  If I win then I cement my reputation and a grateful city builds me a five story penthouse super-hero complex atop Liberty Tower!  With a trap door and a pool!"

In fact ... come to think of it ... what sort of a pattern do people expect when they do get that feeling of coercion?  Does that indicate that they think they have the right to get something for nothing (enticement without threat)?  Or that they are interested in effectively sitting out the game (getting no enticements in order to suffer no threats)?  Or what?

I guess I just don't get the mindset, even in games other than Capes.

[Threlicus]

"Oh, you want to humiliate me on national TV?  COOL!  If I win then I cement my reputation and a grateful city builds me a five story penthouse super-hero complex atop Liberty Tower!  With a trap door and a pool!"

In fact ... come to think of it ... what sort of a pattern do people expect when they do get that feeling of coercion?  Does that indicate that they think they have the right to get something for nothing (enticement without threat)?  Or that they are interested in effectively sitting out the game (getting no enticements in order to suffer no threats)?  Or what?

I have two answers to this. First, I think you have completely internalized the tradeoff, so much so that when you see a threat you immediately turn it around into the opportunity you can tie to it. That's great, but it may be blinding you to how challenging that can be for other players. It's much like the mindshift between simple failure and 'interesting' failure in task-resolution games, which I'm also only starting to internalize. I can easily see how a player might see a conflict like 'Goal: Major Victory is humiliated on national TV.' and not realize the implicit story possibilities in winning the No side, other than Major Victory not being humiliated. It's just like the mindshift between 'simple' failure and 'interesting' failure in more traditionally based games -- it's the task-resolution GM looking at a player failing to pick a lock and saying 'The door is still locked' rather than, "You fail, and you hear the footsteps of the guard approaching." For such players, Threat is probably harder to mitigate with concomitant Enticement, simply because they don't perceive all the possibilities. For myself, I'm just starting to be able to do it, and it is something I have to consciously work on to achieve.

Second, I think there is a possible playstyle which involves little Threat. Bear in mind that Threat doesn't necessarily mean bad things happening to the characters, it means things happening in the narrative that the player actively doesn't want. This could even been good things happening to the characters. (A player may strongly resent someone getting their Professor Xavier character out of his wheelchair, for example). This kind of playstyle would be what you get if, for example, everyone at the table has an arbitrary veto that they can use for any narration or conflict. They still would fight over specific outcomes, since they will think that some outcomes are better than others, but they would not have any narrations that anyone at the table thinks are 'worse than nothing'. With players who liked inflicting bad things on their characters, this could still be an interesting narrative, but it is an open question how engaging the gameplay would be.

[TonyLB]

First, I think you have completely internalized the tradeoff, so much so that when you see a threat you immediately turn it around into the opportunity you can tie to it. That's great, but it may be blinding you to how challenging that can be for other players.

Okay.  It's challenging.  So?  We can still examine their concerns and say "What sort of a world-view does this indicate?"  For instance, when you write ...

Second, I think there is a possible playstyle which involves little Threat.

I think about the example I listed of people who avoid getting Enticement in order to avoid Threats.  Does that sound about right?  Or are you talking about a play-style where those two are not correlated?

[Threlicus]

Okay.  It's challenging.  So?  We can still examine their concerns and say "What sort of a world-view does this indicate?"  For instance, when you write ...

The fact that it is challenging for some players means that, even though Enticement and Threat are strongly correlated for you, they may not be for others.

I think about the example I listed of people who avoid getting Enticement in order to avoid Threats.  Does that sound about right?  Or are you talking about a play-style where those two are not correlated?

There may well be such players, but I am mostly thinking about players and playstyles in which they are not correlated.

[TonyLB]

There may well be such players, but I am mostly thinking about players and playstyles in which they are not correlated.

Okay so ... we're talking about people who want to be offered cool stuff (say, a Staff of the Magi) but don't want to be threatened in a proportionate way (like, say, a Metal Dragon Golem guarding the wizard catacombs in which the Staff is entombed)?

Or is it something else?

[Threlicus]

Okay so ... we're talking about people who want to be offered cool stuff (say, a Staff of the Magi) but don't want to be threatened in a proportionate way (like, say, a Metal Dragon Golem guarding the wizard catacombs in which the Staff is entombed)?

Or is it something else?

Yes, I think we are talking people who want to be offered the opportunity to drive the story where they want, but don't want the threat of the story going ways they really don't want. But, I disagree with your example. The Staff of the Magi might be something they want (or it might not; it might even be a Threat for some players). I don't think the Metal Dragon Golem is going to be a Threat for such players -- I think it is more of a narrative obstacle, which is likely not a Threat; in fact, the opportunity to beat one and look cool doing it might well be an Enticement. A better example of a Threat here might be 'Your Wizard loses his magic powers permanently,' because that is attacking his conception of his character in a way he doesn't want.

Threat and Enticement are all in the eye of the beholder, and it's in the eye of the player, not the character involved.

[TonyLB]

Oh, come on.  Read charitably.

If we read "Staff of the Magi" as "If you win then your character will get the power to do all sorts of neat new tricks which will reinforce your sense of your character as a bad-ass, and further allow you increased ability to impact the game" and we further read "Metal Dragon Golem" as "If you lose then your character will be eaten, digested and excreted, which will severely limit your ability to further impact the game" are we on the same page?

[Threlicus]

Yes, I think we are. I just wanted to emphasize that I don't think these players believe in their characters getting something for nothing; but they may not see any reason why (assuming the other players don't actively dislike it) the players can't.

[Hans]

Okay so ... we're talking about people who want to be offered cool stuff (say, a Staff of the Magi) but don't want to be threatened in a proportionate way (like, say, a Metal Dragon Golem guarding the wizard catacombs in which the Staff is entombed)?

May I suggest that the question is not the proportionality of the threat, but its nature?  There are certain things that a person may not be willing to live with, regardless of the Enticement.  Here is an example, based on Tony's original one, my changes in bold:

Player #1:  Okay, if I win then I get a clue as to the villain's master plan.
Player #2:  Fine, but if I win then the villain tracks you back to your secret hideout.
Player #1:  Oh man!  But if I win then, in addition to learning his master plan I totally foil it.
Player #2:  Yeah?  But if I win then, in addition to finding your hideout, he kills all your characters family.
Player #1:  Hold up...killing my characters family, I don't think I can live with that, regardless of what I win.

[Hans]

I just noticed I butted in to what could be considered a personal conversation.  My apologies.

[TonyLB]

Nah.  If it were a private conversation then we'd be having it in private, right?

[TonyLB]

May I suggest that the question is not the proportionality of the threat, but its nature?

This seems a bit hard to pin down though, since the "amount" of the threat is a subjective measure to start with (utility function to that player) and therefore figures into the quantity.

But, also ...

Player #1: Hold up...killing my characters family, I don't think I can live with that, regardless of what I win.

... My experience is that people can and do believe that a lot of things will be deal-breakers when, in fact, they totally wouldn't be.  The question "Could you play this character if his family was killed?" will get a lot of "No, I couldn't do that."  The question "Okay, the characters family has been killed ... can you play the character?" usually gets the answer "Yes."

The reason I've seen most people get upset about this stuff is not, in fact, that they've absorbed and meditated upon this stuff (dare I say "owned the tragedy"?) but rather that they balk ... they insist that the conflict is still open for business when everyone else is ready to move on to the next thing.  You get these wierd conversations where people say "No, if that's how the story goes then I'm not part of it!" and the only sane response is "What on earth do you mean 'if'?  It's done.  They're dead.  If you want to go then go, but don't keep talking about 'if' as if we're still negotiating."

[Threlicus]

You may well be right about how people generally feel after the fact, but even so, Threat is clearly something prospective. Unless and until a player finds out that he can actually deal with these things that felt like Threats (and thus they aren't actually Threats anymore), they're still going to feel coerced about them.

[TonyLB]

Okay.  But then, that casts a fairly positive light on "coercion," right?

[Hans]

... My experience is that people can and do believe that a lot of things will be deal-breakers when, in fact, they totally wouldn't be.  The question "Could you play this character if his family was killed?" will get a lot of "No, I couldn't do that."  The question "Okay, the characters family has been killed ... can you play the character?" usually gets the answer "Yes."

I think, though, that here is the "problem" in Capes.  I personally think its a design feature, but anyway...

Think about a Conflict in Dust Devils.  Here is the conversation:

Player: If I win, I rescue the Hidalgo's daughter.
Dealer: OK, then if I win, you get captured.
Player: Hmm, well if arresting is the price to pay, I REALLY want to not only rescue the daughter, but get lucky as well!
Dealer: If you throw in getting lucky, then the if I win you will be captured AND she will be killed.
Player: Hmmm, Ok, lets go back to the rescue vs. capture thing.
Dealer: Lets deal!

Note that the stakes are negotiated before any execution and more importantly, before any thing has happened in the fiction.  Also, note that the Dealer proposed a stake that the player wasn't really ready to accept, and the player backed down; the player was willing to live with less reward in order not to risk the greater punishment.  Also, in Dust Devils, you can Fold, if you get in too deep, and leave the conflict unresolved for later. 

In Capes, however, the stakes are negotiated, in essence, THROUGH the fiction, if one can say they are even negotiated at all.  Moreover, a person can raise the stakes and it can be almost impossible to back down from it; because of the nature of the veto rules and the fact that, as you mention, once someone says something it HAS happened and if you want to back down it might take more creativity than you have.  Therefore, stakes are essentially raised unilaterally; there is no requirement that your opponents agree with those stakes.  Finally, there really isn't any "fold" option either.  That Conflict must resolve, otherwise the game stalls; you can't end the scene.

I have never found any of this problematic.  However, it is different from the other conflict resolution type games I have played.  I believe what people are calling coercion is this unilateral stakes raising I mentioned above, without the recourse of a fold or back down.  But as I said above, I think this is a design feature.  Capes requires either a much higher level of trust between players, and/or, more importantly, a much lower level of caring about any particular detail of the fiction, than other games.  That is, if you are the kind of person for which there are things that could be realistically proposed by the people you are playing with that you just can't live with, frankly you should be playing a different game. 

"Realistically" because many of the hypothetical examples of "coercion" I have seen around simply aren't going to happen in a real game.  They are more examples of someone just being silly or vindictive.

However, I do think this is an important player requirement for Capes.  I was in a game of PTA where a major argument took place because a player could not stand the thought of a particular character wearing a cloak.  While I love this player, I'm not going to be playing Capes with them anytime soon.