Does Capes need a GM?

[TonyLB]

Because ... they're not allowed to think differently?

[Sindyr]

Well, apparently they can't play Capes together.

[Sindyr]

To clarify: most people seem to find unlimited and uncontrained retconning abusive and intolerable.

In as much as that is true, my comments stand.

If one however can accept it as tolerable, then the above comments may not apply to one.  For example, if after every conflict Andrew wins, I immediately, without even creating a conflict, find a way to free narrate the retconning of Andrew's conflict, but yet no player at the objects or minds, than what I said above does not apply.

If that is not the case however, then everything I said above is underlined.

[joshua neff]

Personally, in the playing of Capes, I would have absolutely no problem with characters declared "dead" through narration returning into play--"You thought I was dead, but you were wrong!" or "I was dead, but I made a deal with a demon, and now I'm back!" or whatever. That's a tried & true superhero cliche.

[Sindyr]

Yes, but would you have a problem if you (as Nekro) won the Conflict: Nekro kills the Guardian, and in your victory narrate Nekro's ultimate defeat of the Guardian, and at the next available moment for narration the Guardian's player simply unimaginatively says "...and by the way, the Guardian is here and was never defeated by Nekro" without even playing a conflict? And expects to be taken seriously?

So would I.  And therein lies my point - Capes permits this.  Only the Social Contract does not.

[Sindyr]

Yes, but would you have a problem if you (as Nekro) won the Conflict: Nekro kills the Guardian, and in your victory narrate Nekro's ultimate defeat of the Guardian, and at the next available moment for narration the Guardian's player simply unimaginatively says "...and by the way, the Guardian is here and was never defeated by Nekro" without even playing a conflict? And expects to be taken seriously?

So would I.  And therein lies my point - Capes permits this.  Only the Social Contract does not.

[TonyLB]

So would I.  And therein lies my point - Capes permits this.  Only the Social Contract does not.

By the way, if there's anyone other than Sindyr who doesn't see why heavy retcon is abyssmally unsound strategy, please speak up.  It's hard to tell where there's widespread confusion, and where there's just Sindyr.

[joshua neff]

So would I.  And therein lies my point - Capes permits this.  Only the Social Contract does not.

By the way, if there's anyone other than Sindyr who doesn't see why heavy retcon is abyssmally unsound strategy, please speak up.  It's hard to tell where there's widespread confusion, and where there's just Sindyr.

Well, I see a huge difference between:

1) Nekros kills Captain Alpha dead. Another player then brings Captain Alpha back later, with the explanation, "Yes, I was dead. But I went through a profound mystical journey through the Other Realm and realized my work here wasn't done. Now I've returned, but...changed."

...and...

2) Nekros kills Captain Alpha dead. The next scene, another player says, "I'm playing Captain Alpha." "But I killed him last scene!" "Yeah, whatever! The Capes rules don't say I can't do this, so I'm playing Captain Alpha--as if nothing had ever happened! Eat it, sucker!"

[TonyLB]

I particularly like option #1 if you actually play out Captain Alpha's profound mystical journey, so as to allow people who (say) don't want him back to have their say.

[Sindyr]

So would I.  And therein lies my point - Capes permits this.  Only the Social Contract does not.

By the way, if there's anyone other than Sindyr who doesn't see why heavy retcon is abyssmally unsound strategy, please speak up.  It's hard to tell where there's widespread confusion, and where there's just Sindyr.

Well, I see a huge difference between:

1) Nekros kills Captain Alpha dead. Another player then brings Captain Alpha back later, with the explanation, "Yes, I was dead. But I went through a profound mystical journey through the Other Realm and realized my work here wasn't done. Now I've returned, but...changed."

...and...

2) Nekros kills Captain Alpha dead. The next scene, another player says, "I'm playing Captain Alpha." "But I killed him last scene!" "Yeah, whatever! The Capes rules don't say I can't do this, so I'm playing Captain Alpha--as if nothing had ever happened! Eat it, sucker!"

Well it's nice that you see a huge difference, but my point is that Capes does not.  Without the social contract, both are equally valid forms of Capes play.

[Sindyr]

I particularly like option #1 if you actually play out Captain Alpha's profound mystical journey, so as to allow people who (say) don't want him back to have their say.

This is what the social contract generally permits.  However, if you don't play out his mystical jouney and do not allow anyone that doesn't want him back to have a say, under the Capes rules alone you would be committing equally valid and acceptable play.

The only difference is in the social contract.  Which Capes needs desperately in order to function without devolution, more so than most RPGs.

[TonyLB]

And, Joshua ... you get why the one where (a) there's more recognition of the importance of the "Kill Captain Alpha" conflict and (b) there's more "grip" for other players to get in on is better strategy, right?

[Sindyr]

And, Joshua ... you get why the one where (a) there's more recognition of the importance of the "Kill Captain Alpha" conflict and (b) there's more "grip" for other players to get in on is better strategy, right?

Because if you don't... well, let's not go there.

Of course the importance of the Kill Captain Alpha conflict is vastly reduced if immediate, total, and uncontestable retcons are permitted.  Something I am not in favor of.

[TonyLB]

Because if you don't... well, let's not go there.

Of course the importance of the Kill Captain Alpha conflict is vastly reduced if immediate, total, and uncontestable retcons are permitted.  Something I am not in favor of.

Sindyr, I am specifically talking to Joshua.  Like I said, your constant hammering home of your own personal opinions is starting to make it hard for me to provide support to ... oh ... anybody else.  I'm trying to address that in a sociable way, still leaving this channel open for you to talk on when somebody is talking to you, or talking generally.  But at the same time, I need you to leave some room for other people to have discussions that are not all about you.

[joshua neff]

And, Joshua ... you get why the one where (a) there's more recognition of the importance of the "Kill Captain Alpha" conflict and (b) there's more "grip" for other players to get in on is better strategy, right?

Well, it seems to me (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong--I've only played Capes Lite twice now) that the conflict that is more recognized and grabby means more players really getting involved, probably staking Debt. When the conflict resolves, people will be getting Inspirations and Story Tokens--and people will likely build conflicts off of that grabby conflict. (At least, that's what's happened when we've played. Conflicts that people got invested in spawn new conflicts, while conflicts people weren't all that interested in got quickly resolved and then forgotten about.)

Is that what you were asking?