[Capes][DexCon] The impact of judgment

[Hans]

I am totally getting a better understanding of why Fred won, and I think it involves aggressively challenging everyone at the table, which then begs you to challenge him in return, in addition to playing characters in ways that makes you desperately want to thump them. ;)

Capes really is the street-level three-man basketball of role-playing games.

[TonyLB]

Capes really is the street-level three-man basketball of role-playing games.

Why, oh why did you have to wait until after I'd printed off 1000 information cards before saying that?  It would totally have been on the card.  >sob<

[Hans]

Capes really is the street-level three-man basketball of role-playing games.

Why, oh why did you have to wait until after I'd printed off 1000 information cards before saying that?  It would totally have been on the card.  >sob<

For $40 I'll personally hand write it on all 1000 cards for you before GenCon starts in black marker.  That way, when I'M a big famous game designer like you, they will be collector's items!  *grin*

[Matthew Glover]

He'll also write "throwing popcorn" on the back of each one, though.  :D

[Callan S.]

I'm honestly not sure, however, that my feeling unsettled had much (if anything) to do with a sense that you were hurt.  Okay, yeah, there was some fear of that.  But a lot of my feeling was ... I dunno ... that I was violating taboo.

Fishing here: Would talking about doing better suddenly make the game already played about players improving themselves, here in the real world? With that as priority over over any emotional roleplay shit you did in the game (making the nar component more like colour). I'm using derogatory words here to underline what a second priority would mean.

Your tip toeing around the facts of 'X was better than Y'. Perhaps not because it's a tender spot, but because it's an incredibly fascinating real life issue. And because it's so big, you either stay the hell away from it or go right for it - there's no in between.

How does that go?

[TonyLB]

Fishing here: Would talking about doing better suddenly make the game already played about players improving themselves, here in the real world?

It would introduce a viewpoint from which the game could be interpreted as a learning experience.

I don't think that viewpoint would be privileged though, which you seem to be implying.

I have no idea where you're planning to go with that, but that's my answer to the question I think you're asking.

[Callan S.]

Fishing here: Would talking about doing better suddenly make the game already played about players improving themselves, here in the real world?

It would introduce a viewpoint from which the game could be interpreted as a learning experience.

I don't think that viewpoint would be privileged though, which you seem to be implying.

What stops it from becoming priviledged? It's not entirely in your hands to decide - if another players sense of enjoyment shifts to this, that's where they are. That moment you describe - it's the sort of moment which facilitates that shift over.

However, if that isn't related to what your trying to pin down in your account, dang!

[TonyLB]

Oh, okay.

Yes, that could happen.

No, I don't think it happened in this case.

But, again, I don't tend to buy into "if X is a priority then Y can't be" dichotomies.  So I can look at this and say "Man, yeah, that was a killer emotional session.  The very coolness of it from a narrative point of view makes me immediately think 'Hey, what did people do here that I can learn from so I can have those killer emotional sessions more reliably?' " ... which I think is more about appreciating both questions as facets of the same overall experience than prioritizing one over another.

[Callan S.]

I getcha. Perhaps means to an end is a better way to put it. For example

'Hey, what did people do here that I can learn from so I can have those killer emotional sessions more reliably?'

Clearly the end desired is the killer emotional sessions. The means is mechanics use. But any interest in the means is purely because they get you to the end.

What was the end Bret sought when he asked what he could do better? Was the end he sought simply to get better, to self improve? Bret, you still out there? :)

[Bret Gillan]

Yeah, I'm watching. The end I sought was to improve my score and win next time.

[TonyLB]

'Hey, what did people do here that I can learn from so I can have those killer emotional sessions more reliably?'

Clearly the end desired is the killer emotional sessions. The means is mechanics use. But any interest in the means is purely because they get you to the end.

>sigh<

Its "clearly" that to you, because you are coming in with the axiom that one of them must be the important thing and the other must be subordinate.  Call it "means to an end" or "highest priority" or "primary focus" or whatever ... that hierarchy is the thing you are looking for in analyzing the play, and if it's not there (as I would contest it isn't in this case) then you'll perceive it anyway.

I'm sorry if I'm coming across as aggressive or anything.  I'm really just ... frustrated and tired about this whole issue.  I feel like no matter how many ways I try to say this, nobody can hear it except the people who aren't coming in with those assumptions.  It all starts to sound like the same conversation.

Suppose I were playing basketball, and I talked about how I really worked hard, and practiced my free throws, and all that stuff.  Suppose, further, that you came in and said "Ah, I get it ... you want to have a good game, where you're demonstrating athletic skill.  Trying to sink baskets, earn points and win the game, those are just means, completely secondary to your goal.  So when you're confronted with a choice between showing how good you are at the game or winning points, you'll choose to show your talent and lose."

It seems to me that would completely miss the point.  In basketball (barring cheating, bad calls, etc.) "Who gets the best score?" and "Who played the best game?" are the same question.  Trying to play a good game and trying to score the most baskets ... those aren't different things.  They're different ways of looking at the same activity.  And that is the case to exactly the extent that (a) the scoring system is an accurate measure of the athletic activity involved, or (to put it another way) (b) the athletic activity involved is oriented completely to the things that the scoring system rewards.

Before I go any further, does that make sense to you?  And, if it does, do you see how I could at least think that the same thing is happening in Capes tournament play?  That a certain style of emotional stories is the play that is identically matched with the given scoring system?

[Callan S.]

Yes, that makes sense and I understand it. But I'll ask, if there was an easier way of winning basket ball than training, althetics and dunking (that was rules legit), would you take it? Even as your muscles wained from lack of exercise and your reflexes dulled?

I think such a game wouldn't be about personal improvement anymore. But I think that yes, getting the most points is exactly the same as playing the best game in that game.

Which is to say, playing the best game doesn't automatically mean personal improvement is a priority. Because if you could ditch the training, you would.

I understand that 'most points' and 'played the best game' are the same thing. But 'self improvement' and 'played the best game' don't automatically come arm in arm or force self improvement to be something you actually want as a player. Which means a player who actually wants it, could be very different from his fellow players.

[TonyLB]

Wow.  Deja vu.

No, I am not using self-improvement as a subordinate means to my primary end of winning the game.  Neither am I using winning the game as an inferior second priority to my main focus of self-improvement.

One of the reasons I enjoy and play the game (whether basketball or Capes) is that the two go hand in hand:  in order to win, I need to be constantly challenging myself.

As to your really questionable "What if" scenario:  If there were an easy way to win basket ball without effort or fitness then I would find a different game to play.

[Callan S.]

Wow.  Deja vu.

No, I am not using self-improvement as a subordinate means to my primary end of winning the game.  Neither am I using winning the game as an inferior second priority to my main focus of self-improvement.

One of the reasons I enjoy and play the game (whether basketball or Capes) is that the two go hand in hand:  in order to win, I need to be constantly challenging myself.

As to your really questionable "What if" scenario:  If there were an easy way to win basket ball without effort or fitness then I would find a different game to play.

Does that parralel into capes? If you could somehow get those killer emotional scenes without having to go through self improvement - you'd go and play something else?

I've repeated myself (and apparently others) a few times now, so I'll end my input here and take any replies by PM (if something is mutually agreed upon via PM though, I'll post it here).

[TonyLB]

Does that parralel into capes? If you could somehow get those killer emotional scenes without having to go through self improvement - you'd go and play something else?

What I was trying (and clearly failed) to get across was this:  If you posit a game called "basket ball" that can be won without athleticism or effort then it doesn't share much with real basketball except the name.  When you talk about separating the athleticism from the scoring you are entering the realm of fiction.

And, y'know what?  I think that's also true when you talk about separating killer emotional scenes from self-improvement.  You can't get those scenes if you're not pushing your limits.  And not just in Capes.  In any RPG.

If you aren't challenging yourself then you're not wholly engaged.  Because if you were wholly engaged, you'd be challenging yourself to do justice to the raw coolness of the story you're trying to tell.

It's like when an athletic coach tells you to go out and give one hundred and ten percent.  They're not telling you to give one hundred and ten percent of what you possibly could do ... they're telling you to go out there, push as hard as you'd ever pushed before this game, and then push some more.  Take your effort into new territory.

All of this, by the way, is giving me tools to be more comfortable with the prospect of talking to people about how they could do better.  I just need to remember to phrase it not in terms like "Well, where you failed was by not doing X, Y and Z," but rather "It would really jazz your roleplaying even further if you tried X, Y and Z!"