Does Capes need a GM?

[Sindyr]

At any rate, that's a good point. Sindyr's arguments all seem to stem from "but what if someone I'm playing with is a jerk?" But the actual situation might very well be "what if everyone playing is trying to one-up each other, pushing each other to create a mad narrative?" No RPG needs a GM--that's a design choice (whether it was a conscious choice or an unconscious assumption that RPGs "should be" designed a certain way). Having a GM-player is just one way of distributing responsibility--it doesn't solve any problems in play, and it doesn't patch any perceived holes in the rules.

I see how that's how my points may appear, but let me reassure you, I am not interested in the players at all in this conversation.  I am interested in the theoretical underpinnings of Capes, and what choosing to NOT disallow retcons means, vis-a-vis the meaningfulness of fighting for and earning the right to narrate a conflict, and also in relation to Capes dependence on the Social Contract, which seems to be decidedly more than monopoly.

For me its a fascinating interplay where Capes and the SC intersect, and their interaction actually changes the fundamental gameplay one experiences in a way that isn't true for any other game I have encountered.  It's very powerful and, if intended, very clever.

The only downside is that it can result in popularism triumphing over effort in certain circumstances - which can in such occassions completely deny the stronyl implied purpose of Capes itself. Unless the actual purpose of Capes is something altogether different.

[TonyLB]

The only downside is that it can result in popularism triumphing over effort in certain circumstances - which can in such occassions completely deny the stronyl implied purpose of Capes itself. Unless the actual purpose of Capes is something altogether different.

Well, it sounds like you're saying "Sometimes you can try really hard, but people still don't like what you create, and the system doesn't care how hard you tried."  Does that sound just about right?

[Sindyr]

The only downside is that it can result in popularism triumphing over effort in certain circumstances - which can in such occassions completely deny the stronyl implied purpose of Capes itself. Unless the actual purpose of Capes is something altogether different.

Well, it sounds like you're saying "Sometimes you can try really hard, but people still don't like what you create, and the system doesn't care how hard you tried."  Does that sound just about right?

It sounds completely wrong - as in not what I said.

Sometimes people value the contribution based on how they value the person.  The same reason why celebrities endorse prodects. 

Why is Sindyr so terse and rude? Read the below topic with my apologies to find out:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20593.0

[TonyLB]

Sometimes people value the contribution based on how they value the person.  The same reason why celebrities endorse prodects. 

There's probably some of that, yeah.  But, of course, it's a chicken-and-egg problem (possibly also a misattribution of causation to correlation ... hard to say).

Which is to say:  Contributing things to the game that people appreciate is correlated with people liking and respecting you as a player.  Totally agreed.  That's observed phenomenon.  Now ... why does it happen?  What does the correlation mean about causation?

Does that mean "If I like and respect Joe as a player then therefore I will appreciate the things he contributes to the game"?

Does it mean "If I appreciate the things Joe contributes to the game then therefore I will like and respect him as a player"?

Does it mean "There is some third, yet-unmeasured, element that causes me to both like Joe's contributions and like him as a player?"

Or is the reality some middle ground, where there is a constant feedback back and forth?

[Bret Gillan]

If this were a multiple choice, the answer would be all of the above. I think it'll be an interesting thing for me to pay attention to in actual play - how much does how I reward players seem tied to me liking them vs. how much I like their input into the game, and how much does their input affect my liking them, etc.

In the Dexcon game where it was me, Tony, and Fred, Tony was the only person that I'd ever met before, so that definitely made me cast more of an eye towards creating conflicts that involved and engaged him just because of a comfort thing. Fred, on the other, took my tokens by force and made himself impossible to be ignored and just generated some intense opposition to my Conflicts. And he took way more of my tokens than Tony did. Dave, being both an unknown and a pretty laid-back player, was barely engaged by me at all (which I feel bad about in retrospect).

And now, here's an interesting thing, I came away from the table feeling like I knew Fred better than I did Dave. I'm not saying I'd let him babysit my imaginary kids, but his contributions and opposition or that I liked him better than Dave, but I had a better sense of who he was.

Another thing to note is that, outside of game, my best friends-who-game are also people I click with really well in games. There is a direct correlation there. Is my friendship born out of good gaming experiences? Or does our friendship make us more likely to work well in games where we're gaming together?

Regardless, with respect to gaming I have something called "the beer test," which is simply "don't game with someone you wouldn't have a beer with."

Interesting stuff, thanks guys.

[Bret Gillan]

In the Dexcon game where it was me, Tony, and Fred,

Poor Dave. I even forgot him when introducing the cast of players. I'm such an ass.

[Sindyr]

Which is to say:  Contributing things to the game that people appreciate is correlated with people liking and respecting you as a player.  Totally agreed.  That's observed phenomenon.  Now ... why does it happen?  What does the correlation mean about causation?

Does that mean "If I like and respect Joe as a player then therefore I will appreciate the things he contributes to the game"?

Does it mean "If I appreciate the things Joe contributes to the game then therefore I will like and respect him as a player"?

It can mean any of that.  The truth is, you may sit down with someone you despise, love something he does in game, and reward him richly even though you do not like him as a person.  You may also sit down with someone you like a great deal, and feel drawn to handing you resources over to him, even though objectively he is not doing much besides entertaining chit chat.

Popularity can defintely be a factor.  It isn't always.  But I would never blind myself to the fact that it happens.  Just like beautiful women can get jobs that more qualified yet less attractive women don't.

It's a fact of life.  It just has a greater impact in Capes than monopoly.

[Bret Gillan]

It's a fact of life.  It just has a greater impact in Capes than monopoly.

NO. Do you think if I'm looking to trade away my railroad Monopoly somehow makes me less likely to cut a deal with the person I like instead of the person I don't?

[Sindyr]

It's a fact of life.  It just has a greater impact in Capes than monopoly.

NO. Do you think if I'm looking to trade away my railroad Monopoly somehow makes me less likely to cut a deal with the person I like instead of the person I don't?

I make no judgements about what you would do, but most people will in almost all cases sell to the person who is willing to pay them the most, unless doing so is tactically wrong, like they have the last one he needs to complete a set.

Capes is entirely more subjective, and therefor suffers more from what I am now going to call "the American Idol" effect.

[Bret Gillan]

Sindyr, have you seen this effect in play? I mean, I already know the answer to that, but this is getting ridiculous. I have never seen any sort of "American Idol Effect" in any of the games I've run. Sindyr - I've run a lot of Capes games. I typically run 2-4 sessions at every con I attend as well as one-shots for friends. And I know you haven't seen this effect in play either.

Let me back my observation up with Actual Play. I sat down at a table of four people at Dexcon - Tony, Dave, Fred, and me - and I knew Tony. I like Tony. I didn't know either of them. Fred got nearly all of my tokens because he engaged me and created some great narrative. Using Tony's scoring system Fred won that game, and a lot of his resources came straight from me.

I didn't dislike Fred, but I can say I liked Tony more simply because I know Tony. How did he get all of my resources? How have I never seen someone have an unpleasant time at a table complaining that "the cool kids get all the tokens"? I'm not saying it's not a possible effect, but I think it is one small factor in a pile of factors that determine who gets the resources.

[Sindyr]

Sindyr, have you seen this effect in play? I mean, I already know the answer to that, but this is getting ridiculous. I have never seen any sort of "American Idol Effect" in any of the games I've run. Sindyr - I've run a lot of Capes games. I typically run 2-4 sessions at every con I attend as well as one-shots for friends. And I know you haven't seen this effect in play either.

Let me back my observation up with Actual Play. I sat down at a table of four people at Dexcon - Tony, Dave, Fred, and me - and I knew Tony. I like Tony. I didn't know either of them. Fred got nearly all of my tokens because he engaged me and created some great narrative. Using Tony's scoring system Fred won that game, and a lot of his resources came straight from me.

I didn't dislike Fred, but I can say I liked Tony more simply because I know Tony. How did he get all of my resources? How have I never seen someone have an unpleasant time at a table complaining that "the cool kids get all the tokens"? I'm not saying it's not a possible effect, but I think it is one small factor in a pile of factors that determine who gets the resources.

It's entirely possible that the player's of Capes are self-selecting - that the people who know about Capes and choose to play it are one's that make an effort to break out of the standard subconscious reactions of the hoi polloi.

It's also possible that the American Idol effect is already occurring, but no one is noticing.

It's also possible that some as yet unmentioned counterforce prevents the above effect.

Finally, it is further possible that I am simply wrong.

I am not rulling out the last, or any other possibility yet.

What I do know if how people are in general.  And I do know how Capes mechanically functions.  Those two things should generally produce certain patterns.  If they seem not to be, there is definately a reason.  Just not sure what it is yet.

[Andrew Cooper]

What I do know if how people are in general.  And I do know how Capes mechanically functions.  Those two things should generally produce certain patterns.  If they seem not to be, there is definately a reason.  Just not sure what it is yet.

There are two possible reasons for this really.

1.) You don't understand people as well as you think.
2.) You don't understand how Capes functions as well as you think. (This doesn't mean you don't know the rules.)

Go play.  Jeez.  If you want to know why Capes doesn't produce the effect you think it should, go play.  Play a lot.  You'll probably figure it out.  The reason is likely all the reasons everyone as been throwing at you for the last couple of months.  Then again, you might run into someone (or a whole group) who actually exhibits the complete dysfunction that you are afraid of.  That'd make an extremely interesting Actual Play post from you.  I know I'd love to hear it.

[Sindyr]

What I do know if how people are in general.  And I do know how Capes mechanically functions.  Those two things should generally produce certain patterns.  If they seem not to be, there is definately a reason.  Just not sure what it is yet.

There are two possible reasons for this really.

1.) You don't understand people as well as you think.
2.) You don't understand how Capes functions as well as you think. (This doesn't mean you don't know the rules.)

Go play.  Jeez.  If you want to know why Capes doesn't produce the effect you think it should, go play.  Play a lot.  You'll probably figure it out.  The reason is likely all the reasons everyone as been throwing at you for the last couple of months.  Then again, you might run into someone (or a whole group) who actually exhibits the complete dysfunction that you are afraid of.  That'd make an extremely interesting Actual Play post from you.  I know I'd love to hear it.

There are two main problems with your reply.

1) You don't admit that perhaps I am right.
2) You ignore all the effort I have posted about in search to find actual play.

Since the flood seems to have died down a little, let me be more specific:
a) Starting my own weekly local Capes group.
This is in process, just looking for approval from a non-profit to use their space.
b) Looking for VOIP games.
Major issue: me and my SO spend from 9:30PM on together, so any game would have to conclude by then.  Otherwise am generally available from 9am to 9pm 7 days per week.
c) Attending Jiffycon, the only Capes con game close enough to me.

Not sure why that is not enough to some.

[Bret Gillan]

The reason why that's not enough, Sindyr, is because you have yet to have any actual play experience though I appreciate your attempts to correct that. In the meantime, though, you keep doggedly asserting things that fly in the face of the actual play experiences of basically everyone in this forum, and you tell us that our actual play experiences do not justify our disagreement. What's left for us to do at that point but shrug and be like, "Dude. Play for yourself and get back to us."?

[Andrew Cooper]

Sindyr,

I'm not saying that this isn't enough.  I'm happy you're doing all that.  My point is that maybe you should hold off throwing all this stuff onto the forums until you actually have some experience to back up what you are theorizing.  I'm not entertaining the fact that you might be right because in hundreds of reported games of Capes, the problems and issues you think should arise, don't come up.  You have very little experience but even what you have doesn't seem to support your posts very much.  I've read them all.  I don't want you not to post.  I don't want to squash your enthusiasm for the game.  I just think you should slow down, participate without hijacking the whole forum, and get some play experience.  THEN... if you find a problem in play that is consistent, I think all of us here would love to hear about it and comment on it.  We'll all certainly give your arguments a whole lot more weight with Actual Play examples backing them up.  Until then, all your posts about theoretical problems is just a bunch of mental masterbation, energetic perhaps but ultimately unproductive.