Does Capes need a GM?

[Hans]

Does Capse need a GM?  Sindyr said elsewhere...

-All games, in fact all social activities have a Social Contract.
-What makes D&D not broken ultimately is that D&D assigns ultimate authority to resolve all issues to a single individual.  This takes ANY hole in the system and patches it with that single rule.  Of course, as much as possible, D&D's authors try to avoid making you use it by trying to have fewer holes.
-Capes has no central authority and proposes absolutely no mechanism for what to do when things break down.  Because the Capes rules allow as valid play nigh instant retconning of any won conflict, the Capes rules alone would tend to result in continual and never ending break-downs - which is what I mean when I say it is "incomplete" as it stands and if used only as written would result in "broken play"
-Capes could "fix" this in different ways, including rules for challenging and ruling on valid play that some in the group nevertheless don't like, or rules for creating constraints on future narrations based on the conflicts that have been won in the past.
-Or Capes could simply have no fix for this problem, forcing the players to fix it themselves within the higher level of the Social Contract. (Or with house mods, which of course drifts Capes.)

I bolded the section that I find particularly interesting, mostly because I disagree with it so completely.  The rules of a game with a GM give the GM a lot of authority, no doubt about it.  However, the rules of any RPG cannot give any one person the right to resolve "all issues".  Regardless of what the actual text says, this authority is invested in the GM by the players, not the rules.  That investment may be as simple as "we all agree to play this game instead of another one", but it is still there.  The "instant retconning" described above still occurs.  It just is the priviledge of only one player, the GM; think of all the "fudge the rolls to make things come out right" rules in many books.

Moreover, a game with a GM still requires trust.  First, you have to trust the GM to do whatever it is you have invested in him the authority to do.  This could be just making sure rules disputes don't happen, or it could be guiding the game story with an iron fist, depending on the group.  Think about a total party kill in a D&D game.  To some people, this could be a perfectly reasonable thing to have happen, but to some people this could only be interpreted as a failure on the GM's part to do one of the things they have the authority to do (keep people alive so the story can move forward).  You also have to trust the GM's veto; that is, you have trust that the GM won't tell you you CAN'T do something that seems reasonable to you.  (This is essentially the opposite concern of Capes, where you have to trust people to not to abuse your lack of veto.)  How many times have we all seen someone say "my character does X" and the GM say "sorry, you can't, X isn't allowed per your alignment/disadvantages/beliefs/whatever".  It takes a lot of trust to let someone do that, and I have seen games break up over the issue.

But you also still have to trust the other players.  Two examples, from my own gaming past.  College, my first D&D game in 6 years.  We all sit down to play, and my friend Chris plays a thief.  Me, I'm all about the team challenge; as a GM for my own Traveller games, the players were always team players.  First treasure horde we find, Chris's character is trying to pick my pocket.  I say "What's up with that?  We are a TEAM!"  But the GM says "its not against the rules" and I sit there muttering.  Or, later in college, playing in a Marvel Super Heroes game.  My friend Leigh is playing Captain America.  To say that Leigh is an iconclast doesn't begin to describe it.  Within moments, she has Captain America is inflitrating a gay bar in leather chaps and doing...other stuff.  Hans, the comics purist and prude says "WHAT?!  Its Captain freaking America!?"  To which, the GM replies "its not against the rules" and I sit there muttering.  Were Leigh and Chris wrong?  Of course not!  No one was right or wrong; we just wanted different things from the game, and none of us had the context or foresight to make that clear before we started.  If anything, I was wrong for being such a bad sport. 

Did the GM "resolve" the issue?  Well, I suppose in one sense he did; his resolution was essentially "Hans, I will do nothing to protect your vision of the way this game should go, like it or get lost!"  But in reality this was a group decision, not one strictly by the GM.  In the first case, only Chris and the GM were interested in playing a game where PC's can steal from other PC's, and the game folded after one session.  In the 2nd case, I was the odd man out, and after I left the game continued on merrily in its comics icon destroying path for a number of other sessions. 

So, bottom line, I guess, is that I simply do not agree that the advantage described above by Sindyr is really an advantage, or even remotely the reason one needs a GM in a game.

That being said, there ARE potent advantages to having a GM.  Here is a short list, I'm sure there are more.
* It is convenient to have all the bookkeeping associated with the game centralized in one person. 
* It is useful to centralize the fiction associated with everyone else in the world besides the PC's in one person.  This allows for immersion into one character that is a lot of fun.  It lets the other players really concentrate on developing just the one character over the long term, while the GM provides the adversity against which their character improves.
* It allows for "challenge" gaming; the classic dungeon crawl, for example, where it is the PC's versus the scenario.
* It is a good idea to have a central authority that everyone agrees has the final say regarding the rules.

I will say that Capes CAN be better if the first and last items above are centralized.  Specifically, I think it is very useful if there is one person who everyone agrees is the rules expert, and who has final say if there is some question about the rules.  This is especially important early on, when everyone is learning the rules.  Also, the bookeeping thing...in our own group it was very convenient, I think, that I was sort of the group secretary, and kept tract of all the character sheets, goals/events, etc. 

But the middle two points above simply aren't what Capes is about; there are plenty of other good games out there that do those things, why make Capes do it as well?

[Sindyr]

This subject is not of passionate interest to me, so I will post my thoghts and move on:

Capes does not need a GM.
-It works fine once the element of the Social Contract is brought in to fill the gaps.
-Having a single GM destroys the fundamental equality of players in Capes, a foundational part.
-Potentially have a ruleset covering a majority rules *board* of all the players to formally settle disputes might be useful.
-Capes as shown in this thread:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20489.msg213837#msg213837
... has a built in problem:

Capes chose the simpler approach.  Capes chooses to make no rules contraining narrations to be contrained in anyway by past resolved conflicts.  This was I think a very shrewd choice, because rule or no rule, no player is going to let another narrate away or retcon the effects of the conflict he fought for and won, no matter how valid the play is.

This problem does not necissitate a GM, though it *does* demand a solution, which must be one of the following:
a) A formal authority that can be appealed to, that can render judgements ("a majority rules *board* of all the players")
b) A informal authority that indirectly and with no formal validity renders judgements (Social Contract: "He's a jerk, we're never gonna play with him again.")
c) A rule modification or addition to remove the frequent problem by coevering it directly within the ruleset.

That's all I have to say.

[Andrew Cooper]

Capes chose the simpler approach.  Capes chooses to make no rules contraining narrations to be contrained in anyway by past resolved conflicts.  This was I think a very shrewd choice, because rule or no rule, no player is going to let another narrate away or retcon the effects of the conflict he fought for and won, no matter how valid the play is.

This problem does not necissitate a GM, though it *does* demand a solution, which must be one of the following:
a) A formal authority that can be appealed to, that can render judgements ("a majority rules *board* of all the players")
b) A informal authority that indirectly and with no formal validity renders judgements (Social Contract: "He's a jerk, we're never gonna play with him again.")
c) A rule modification or addition to remove the frequent problem by coevering it directly within the ruleset.

Capes has a rule for this.  The rule is that you cannot constrain someone else's narration after the removal of a Conflict.  That is the rule.  It deals with the issue.  The problem is that you don't like the rule.  That's fine.  We all get that you don't like the rule.  What we won't acknowledge is that Capes doesn't deal with the issue or that Capes method of dealing with the issue is broken.

[Hans]

Good gad, I just noticed I posted another book length post!  Ok, two paragraph max for me for a while.  Geez.

[Sindyr]

Capes has a rule for this.  The rule is that you cannot constrain someone else's narration after the removal of a Conflict.  That is the rule.  It deals with the issue.  The problem is that you don't like the rule.  That's fine.  We all get that you don't like the rule.  What we won't acknowledge is that Capes doesn't deal with the issue or that Capes method of dealing with the issue is broken.

Wrong.  Correction: I am *fine* with that rule.  OK?  (shakes head, laughs)

However I am simply pointing out in practice is that very few if anyone actually permits this rule to be followed.  The Social Contract of almost every Capes game I have heard of prevents retconning.  Period.  (And with good reason.)

[Tuxboy]

Retconning is a crutch that can be replaced by Conflict creation in the normal course of events. I've always hated it.

Athough retconning is also a tool in the case of dealing with some asshat narration of a previous Conflict, but it should really never get to that stage as the popcorn throwing should start at the point that the winning narrator crosses the line and then the negotiation can begin.

Rules should never replace reason...There is a major difference between:

A: You lost!
B: No I didn't...you did!

and

A: You're dead!
B: My body is crushed, but there is still a spark of life in me.
C: I'll wrap him in the Mystic Shroud of Hippocrates and rush him to the hospital!

[Sindyr]

I agree - however, you first example is either implicitly or explicitly (people keep telling me different things) permitted by the Capes rules - and results in broken play.

[Andrew Cooper]

Capes has a rule for this.  The rule is that you cannot constrain someone else's narration after the removal of a Conflict.  That is the rule.  It deals with the issue.  The problem is that you don't like the rule.  That's fine.  We all get that you don't like the rule.  What we won't acknowledge is that Capes doesn't deal with the issue or that Capes method of dealing with the issue is broken.

Wrong.  Correction: I am *fine* with that rule.  OK?  (shakes head, laughs)

However I am simply pointing out in practice is that very few if anyone actually permits this rule to be followed.  The Social Contract of almost every Capes game I have heard of prevents retconning.  Period.  (And with good reason.)

Ah.  Okay.  That works for me then.  I misunderstood and somehow thought you were saying that the rule was broken.  My bad.  I agree that most of the time people don't just retcon actions in practice.  I've run across it a few times though.  None of the instances actually broke the game or made it unenjoyable but it it did require that I stretch my tolerance a little.  I would also like to point out that the only times I've run into this at all has been with new players.  I have a feeling that it is the result of them testing out just how free they are with the game.  Once the initial stretching of the wings occurred and had been experienced, the issue never came back up.

[Sindyr]

A: You're dead!
B: My body is crushed, but there is still a spark of life in me.
C: I'll wrap him in the Mystic Shroud of Hippocrates and rush him to the hospital!

Also, in truth if the player won a conflict that did indeed result in a death, for B to contest a spark of life remains is still significant retconning, it still negates the outcome that was narrated, and depending on the group, may indeed severely violate the social contract, no matter how clever and interesting it is.

In fact, that is the hope - you know you are retconning and that the other player will be pissed, but you hope the *way* you are retconning gets the other players on your side so that you can overturn the results of the other player's victory without being reprimanded by the social contract.

When you think about it, it feels a little slimey to me - like saying that being popular (for this retcom) means that the implicit social contract rules apply to you differently.  There's an inequality there that seems ugly to me.

[TonyLB]

That is because, as usual, you are ignoring the structure that the rules places on that.

A wins "Goal:  Kill Captain Comet dead!" gaining a 5, 3 and 2 Inspiration.

B then says "Captain Comet is dead ... technically, but there is a spark of life which may yet be revived."

A smiles.  "Go for it.  I'm playing 'Goal:  Revive Captain Comet.'  Plow in the 2 Inspiration, stake two debt, split, play the five and the three.  It's now eight to one against you."

If they do not play that it is because they do not care enough to keep him dead.  Which is also fine.  Sometime you just want to kill somebody because they deserve a heaping helping of hot steaming death, not because you want to remove the character from the game.

[Sindyr]

You are contradicting yourself - either he is dead or he isn't.

Playing word games like this is clearly beneath you - you have many better debating tactics.  I know.

[Andrew Cooper]

It's Comic Books, Sindyr.  Dead people come back to life all the time.  It's almost mandatory.  Should we count the number of times it has happened?  So, Tony is correct.  As long as Player A wants to keep paying to keep Character A dead, he has a good chance of doing so.  At least an equitable chance.  When he doesn't care enough anymore, someone can bring the character back.

That's not a contradiction.

[Sindyr]

If what you were saying was true, then people wouldn't be raising the spectre of being called an "asshat" for immediate retconning.

But they did.  Can't have it both ways.

[TonyLB]

If what you were saying was true, then people wouldn't be raising the spectre of being called an "asshat" for immediate retconning.

Yeah, if what Andrew were saying was valid then Tuxboy wouldn't be saying something else.

Wait ... are you sure that's right?  It looks kind of funny.

[Sindyr]

If what you were saying was true, then people wouldn't be raising the spectre of being called an "asshat" for immediate retconning.

Yeah, if what Andrew were saying was valid then Tuxboy wouldn't be saying something else.

Wait ... are you sure that's right?  It looks kind of funny.

I am sure what I said is correct, yes.  Andrew is claiming that retconning is valid and acceptable, while some else (Tuxboy?) claimed it was valid and unnacceptable.

Therein the problem lies.