Awarding tokens: another possible flaw in Capes?

[TonyLB]

Such as if I throw down a conflict, work hard and gain double debt for making it interesting, if a third player who is a very popular guy briefly joins me side, then when I eventually lose the conflict to get the tokens, the popular guy may be awarded the bulk of the tokens, though I did the bulk of the work.

Yes.  Suppose you work and slave to set up a conflict, but people find all of your input ... well, boring.  Then I come in, roll the dice one time, and narrate something so mind-bogglingly awesome that everyone immediately forgets about your contributions and thinks of me as having been the main antagonist.  They will award all of their Story Tokens to me, because I am making the game awesome.

[Sindyr]

Then every game is broken. Every one.

Nope.

Let's say my wife and I are playing D&D with a female DM. (snip)

D&D invest all its authority into the DM.  As such it cannot be broken.  It has a failsafe.

For example, if a player at the table know I have six cats, and that I love the little buggers, apart from SC consdieration, he would potentially find it rewarding to come up with a conflict that threatens to off a cat in a gruesome and painful way, to motivate me to engage.

Has this actually happened to you? If so, why would you play with these people again? If it hasn't...then who cares? You can come up with a zillion hypotheticals, but they're meaningless, because all they reveal is your own psychology, not any weakness in the rules of Capes.

Since the above is meaning and content free, there's no need for me to respond to it, save this line.  Thanks.

[Sindyr]

I keep seeing, in this and several other threads that Sindyr's started, a persistent angling to get someone to say something to justify the need for a GM at the table, like some kind of grade-school playground monitor.

Ah, now there's angling, beware the angler!  Rouse the populace!

(laughter)

[Sindyr]

Such as if I throw down a conflict, work hard and gain double debt for making it interesting, if a third player who is a very popular guy briefly joins me side, then when I eventually lose the conflict to get the tokens, the popular guy may be awarded the bulk of the tokens, though I did the bulk of the work.

Yes.  Suppose you work and slave to set up a conflict, but people find all of your input ... well, boring.  Then I come in, roll the dice one time, and narrate something so mind-bogglingly awesome that everyone immediately forgets about your contributions and thinks of me as having been the main antagonist.  They will award all of their Story Tokens to me, because I am making the game awesome.

Or, suppose that I am more popular than you with the players and have more charisma.  You slave over this conflict, but unfortunately, you are not all that likeable a person (in this hypothetical example) - whereas I do one same thing and everyone *loves* it - not because what I did had any comparetive intrinsic value compared to all the tons of stuff you have done, but because these guys love me and will eat up anything I do.  When the time comes, they give me all but one of the token, because in the final analysis, they just like me more.

Yup, I see your point.

[Doyce]

I keep seeing, in this and several other threads that Sindyr's started, a persistent angling to get someone to say something to justify the need for a GM at the table, like some kind of grade-school playground monitor.

Ah, now there's angling, beware the angler!  Rouse the populace!

(laughter)

You're right.  You're statement, above, about D&D having a failsafe because all the authority rests in the DM... yeah. That's just a clear and obvious agenda.

It's also utterly laughable.

Don't play Capes. Seriously.  My personal, unaffiliated advice to you.  Don't.

[joshua neff]

What Doyce said.

Having a DM in D&D is not a failsafe. Having a DM in D&D does not mean that D&D is not "broken." Regardless of whether there's a DM or not, it all boils down to social contract. And there will never be a player at the table besides yourself, Sindyr, who will protect you from being hurt.

[Sindyr]

I keep seeing, in this and several other threads that Sindyr's started, a persistent angling to get someone to say something to justify the need for a GM at the table, like some kind of grade-school playground monitor.

Ah, now there's angling, beware the angler!  Rouse the populace!

(laughter)

You're right.  You're statement, above, about D&D having a failsafe because all the authority rests in the DM... yeah. That's just a clear and obvious agenda.

It's also utterly laughable.

Don't play Capes. Seriously.  My personal, unaffiliated advice to you.  Don't.

Nothing here is relevant.  Next.

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

[Valamir]

Sindyr, I'm having alot of trouble with your posts.  I'm trying to not be dragged into a pit of Sindyr bashing but its becoming increasingly difficult for me to see your threads as anything but trolling.

See, here at the Forge we don't permit trolling, and so our natural inclination is to take peoples issues and questions as if they are serious issues and questions.  But more and more your posts seem like baiting.  Are you just trolling and laughing every time somebody uses up valuable time in response to you?  If not, I highly recommend reevaluating your posting style, because increasingly you're looking awful trollish to me.

I also don't understand why, in this thread especially, you are dismissing as "without content" peoples responses that are actually exactly the right answer to the question you're asking.

Who are these people whose sole goal at the table is to make you miserable?  If they actually exist...don't friggin' play with them any more...any game...at all.  Hell...don't even ASSOCIATE with these people.  If the majority of people in your life treat you the way the majority of people in your posts treat you...find a better class of people to hang out with. 

If those people don't exist...then quit wasting everyone's time worrying about a situation thats total fiction.  And don't give me any baloney about stress testing the game with extreme examples.  That's complete bunk.  You don't need to build a game that can stand up to asshat play.  You simply trust your players not to play with asshats and then its not a problem.  A game that breaks down under the efforts of jerks and dickheads is not a broken game.  EVERY game breaks down under the efforts of jerks and dickheads, and no vesting all power in a GM is not a solution

Games are just a form of social interaction...like hanging out with friends, having a movie night at your house, going out to dinner, or any other activity you do.  Gaming is not a job where you need an HR manager to protect you from harassment by co-workers.  Gaming is a social activity where you simply don't associate with people who harass you.  Since you don't associate with jerks and dickheads while you game, you don't need rules to protect you from jerks and dickheads.  You certainly don't need a GM to play "playground monitor" to protect your from jerks and dickheads. 

Deal with people like people and if they're your friends you won't need protection from them.  If they're not your friends you won't need protection from them, because you'll just stop playing with them.

Solution found, case closed. 

In the future I would REALLY appreciate it if all further conversations about rules that might need to be tweaked come with actual real world examples of play that you've personally experienced where certain chains of events actually took place.  Not these hypothetical "maybe this could happen and what then" bull shit threads.  And don't tell me that you're trying to find folks to play with but haven't been able to.  If you spent as much effort looking for a group as you do posting on this board you'd have played a dozen games by now. 

Frankly...if you don't have any actual play experience where your fears have been realized...just shut the hell up until you do.

[TonyLB]

Or, suppose that I am more popular than you with the players and have more charisma.  You slave over this conflict, but unfortunately, you are not all that likeable a person (in this hypothetical example) - whereas I do one same thing and everyone *loves* it - not because what I did had any comparetive intrinsic value compared to all the tons of stuff you have done, but because these guys love me and will eat up anything I do.  When the time comes, they give me all but one of the token, because in the final analysis, they just like me more.

Yup, I see your point.

Well, I sure hope so.  My point is I don't care how hard you slaved over a conflict, or how much you are absolutely sure that your stuff is better than the stuff people reward.

It may be totally true.  You may be an unappreciated genius of roleplaying.  I do not care, and neither does my system.

The system isn't built to reward what the players should like and appreciate.  The system is built to reward what the players actually do like and appreciate.

If some putz can manage to do that without even approaching your genius then ... well ... you gotta figure out how he does that.  He's doing something (maybe just being sociable) that lets him game the system successfully.  If you figure out how to do that then you, too, will game the system successfully.  Simple as that.

[Sindyr]

Sindyr, I'm having alot of trouble with your posts.  I'm trying to not be dragged into a pit of Sindyr bashing but its becoming increasingly difficult for me to see your threads as anything but trolling.

It is very hard to resist joining a forming mob, it tends to self-perpetuate,

Your post (minus the unhelpful end stinger, which I shall ignore) is very true.  Selecting better people with is one solution.  But my goal is exploring the issue inherent in the system to better understand it, not in only patching it.

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

[Sindyr]

The system is built to reward what the players actually do like and appreciate.

You have missed the point (I think).  The system rewards also players who do nothing constructive, but happen to be charismatic and popular.

Not that this is entirely avoidable.  But I want to embrace Capes, warts and all, not simply ignore the warts.

Just because Capes has a couple of warts does not invalidate the game nor make it anything less than the triumph it is.

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]

You have missed the point (I think).  The system rewards also players who do nothing constructive, but happen to be charismatic and popular.

The system rewards people who bring fun to the game.  If they do that by being charismatic and popular then I say "Rock on."  As long as the result is more awesome fun in the game, who cares how it happens?

[Sindyr]

You have missed the point (I think).  The system rewards also players who do nothing constructive, but happen to be charismatic and popular.

The system rewards people who bring fun to the game.  If they do that by being charismatic and popular then I say "Rock on."  As long as the result is more awesome fun in the game, who cares how it happens?

In many cases, in certain schools and classes, jocks and cheerleaders are given automatic A's, while an intelligent fellow might struggle to get a B.  The popularity effect is of course entirely unfair, not that there is much you can do about it. (I got all A's, FYI, grin - but was not a jock or a cheerleader)

Same here.  If Capes is a game that rewards natural charisma and punishes those that lack it, then it is a game for the charismatic only, the way you won't see Bill Gates playing in the football major leagues.

I like to think Capes is not that potentially shallow.  But realistically, it's probably no different than American Idol - people vote for who they like, and that's it.

[TonyLB]

Same here.  If Capes is a game that rewards natural charisma and punishes those that lack it, then it is a game for the charismatic only

That's one way to look at it.  Another way to look at it is to say "Hey ... this is a game that gives me a constant feedback metric for how charismatic I'm being at any given moment.  That lets me train to be more charismatic."

[Sindyr]

Same here.  If Capes is a game that rewards natural charisma and punishes those that lack it, then it is a game for the charismatic only

That's one way to look at it.  Another way to look at it is to say "Hey ... this is a game that gives me a constant feedback metric for how charismatic I'm being at any given moment.  That lets me train to be more charismatic."

There is much truth in that.

Still, there is such as thing as inheretted qualities.

No matter how Bill Gates trains, he is gonna get crushed on the football field through no fault of his own.

The same is true in Capes.