Awarding tokens: another possible flaw in Capes?

[Andrew Cooper]

Of course I vote (ie give ST) to the people who provided play I liked.  Why in the name of all that is holy would I vote for the stuff I didn't like.  If popular and charismatic people provide more fun in the game, I'm rewarding them.  The other folks at the table need to emulate them and I'll be happy to dish out ST to them too.  I'm in this to have fun.  I'm not going to reward boring people, even if they work hard at being boring.  That's not shallow.  That's holding the other players up to a certain standard of excellent play.  Sink or swim, dude.

[Sindyr]

Of course I vote (ie give ST) to the people who provided play I liked.  Why in the name of all that is holy would I vote for the stuff I didn't like.  If popular and charismatic people provide more fun in the game, I'm rewarding them.  The other folks at the table need to emulate them and I'll be happy to dish out ST to them too.  I'm in this to have fun.  I'm not going to reward boring people, even if they work hard at being boring.  That's not shallow.  That's holding the other players up to a certain standard of excellent play.  Sink or swim, dude.

Yes, but how do you deinfe play?  If the people you are rewarding actually did very little creative or other work in the game, and were just the jesters on the sidelines, then you are rewarding them not for how they played, you are in effect rewarding them for non-play.

[TonyLB]

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.

[Andrew Cooper]

They have to actively participate in order to get the Tokens.  That's in the rules.  Still, what if I like comedy?  Why shouldn't I reward that if it is my preference?  If the guy working hard is shoving serious, gritty shit at me and I'm wanting The Tick, I'm going to reward the guys who give me The Tick, even if they worked less to get the effect.  The smart player will start to give me what I want, if they want my resources.

Hell, this isn't even unique to Capes.  If you sit around a table to play D&D, you figure out what the DM likes and you give him that kind of play.  It results in XP.  If he is a stickler for staying in character and not using meta-knowledge and dark, gritty storylines, that's what you give him or your character doesn't advance as quickly.  If the DM like some other style, you do that.  It happens in every game I've ever been in.  Why shouldn't it work that way in Capes?

[Sindyr]

I am not saying Capes is any worse than any other rpg when it comes to rewarding popularity. D&D may indeed suffer the same issues - which would make sense as this is a *human* problem.

But what if a player does not do really much of anything, doesn't introduce any conflicts, doesn't participate much in the ones that others make, doesn't add much in the way of narration, BUT his kibitzing has players in stiches, even though it is not relevant at all to the game.

That player way wind up with most of the rewards for the session, for doing nothing more than kibitzing on non Capes related stuff.

It may be a completely different, no charismatic guy who is really responsible for all the Capes fun that was had - and he may get very little in the way of reward.

Is that OK?  There is not one right answer to that, but it is an important question and an important possibility to keep in mind.

[Bret Gillan]

Sindyr, that's not going to happen.

You can't get Inspirations if you're not engaging in Conflicts and winning them.
You can't get Story Tokens if you're not providing resistance to people who are staking Debt on Conflicts.

It is simply, by the rules, as impossible for someone to get resources when they're not playing the game as it is for someone to win Monopoly if they're just having a beer nearby and watching.

[Valamir]

You really haven't grasped anything I've tried to say have you?  Are you even trying?  

Greed and ambition solves all of these problems.

What's to stop me from giving all my resources to "the popular one"?  Greed and Ambition.

I want resources...I need the rest of the players to give them to me.  If ALL of the other players are regularly giving me resources than I become greater and more powerful.  If, however, I play these stupid popularity games like you're suggesting will be automatic, I shoot myself in the foot.

If you've busted your ass to provide me with opposition but I award all the debt to someone else who doesn't "deserve" it (whatever that means) but whom I "like" better (whatever that means).  Who have I hurt.  Well, I've hurt you.  I've hurt Sindyr.  But I've also hurt ME.  I may not give a rip about you (which is why you keep seeking protective rules) but I do care about me.  If I completely hose you for asshat reasons (as opposed to cool, in-game, reasons you can appreciate) I've now lost a source of future resources for ME.

Don't you see that...can't you see how rampant selfish behavior on my part actually means I HAVE to cater to your desires at at least a minimal level to keep those resources flowing?

Why would I alienate you?  Why would I treat you like garbage? Why would I piss all over your efforts?  Why would I...when the game expressly punishes me for doing that.  It doesn't punish me explicitly...there's none of those protective rules you keep looking for, but punish me it does.  I can't AFFORD to alienate you.  I can't AFFORD to treat you like garbage.  I can't AFFORD to piss on your efforts...because if I do...someone else who treats you better gets your resources.  

I have to make you like me (and what I'm narrating in the game) as much or MORE than you like Tony, otherwise he gets more resources than I do.  I have to make Tony like me (and what I'm narrating in the game) as much or MORE than he likes you, otherwise you get more resources than I do.  If I'm an asshat...you guys freeze me out...and I LOSE.

Can you see that?  Can you see how my own sense of self preservation prevents me from engaging in any of the hypothetical behaviors you're so afraid of?  

Its a brutal system...and it might be hard for you to see because it sounds like you normally prefer a kinder gentler environment where everybody is "excellent to each other" simply because they're all warm and fuzzy.  Well Capes isn't a warm and fuzzy game...but it still requires me to "be excellent to you"...not because we're all warm and fuzzy and are going to sit around holding hands singing kumbaya...but because I NEED you.

I NEED you so that I can win at Capes.  Therefor I can't afford to alienate you.  And ultimately...that's a higher degree of protection for you than any set of rules or "GM authority" could ever provide to you.  I won't piss on you Sindyr...even though the rules allow me to and there's no GM to stop me.   I won't piss on you because I need you...I need you to help me win.

Also, playing with better people isn't [i[A[/i] solution...it is THE solution.  Its not a "patch" its common sense.  Do you really need big bold letters on page one of every game saying "don't play this game with asshats"?  I would hope you have the sense to understand that those words are there for every game (and every social activity) without needing to read them in black and white.  There is no "issue inherent in the system" for you to address.  There is only you making the decision to only play games with people you can trust.  If you can't do that, no game and no game rules can save you.


There is no possible way for me to explain it any more clearly than that.  If after reading this you still don't get it, if you still have to reply with some objection...then there's nothing more to say.  If you do get it but don't like it...maybe you'll see why Tony and others have suggested this isn't the game for you.  Maybe you'd prefer Universalis better, because Universalis doesn't have such a cut throat approach (although ultimately it...like most social activity...comes down to the same concept, just presented in a kinder gentler wrapper).

You are correct about one thing.   The "end stinger" of my last post was not appropriate, I apologize.  The concept, however, is accurate.  Until you've had a chance to actually play and see these forces in action and learn how the game corrects for them already, time spent worrying about something (or worse drawing conclusions about something) which you have no first hand experience for is time wasted.  Time spent argueing points with people who DO have that first hand experience as if somehow you can offer superior instruction, is just foolish back street driving.  I did that for awhile...then I gave the increasing number of veteran players who said otherwise the courtesy of assuming they aren't stupid, and stopped.

As for the crack about mobs self perpetuating...if it seems like people are piling on you...you might want to look at yourself and see if you aren't giving them the reason.  There are alot of players who've spent alot more hours than you playing Capes...you might try doing them the courtesy of assuming they aren't idiots and that the game actually does work the way they say until you have some experience of your own to contrast with theres.

Now I'm going to take my own advice and stop posting to these threads for awhile.

I seriously suggest (again) that you do the same...of course, in the time it took me to type this you shot off 3 more posts in rapid succession...so clearly you haven't grasped how counter productive that is.

[Andrew Cooper]

But what if a player does not do really much of anything, doesn't introduce any conflicts, doesn't participate much in the ones that others make, doesn't add much in the way of narration, BUT his kibitzing has players in stiches, even though it is not relevant at all to the game.

That player way wind up with most of the rewards for the session, for doing nothing more than kibitzing on non Capes related stuff.

In all the Actual Play posts here on the forums and all my personal play, this has never once happened that I know of.  Ever.  It's impossible to prove that it can't ever happen due to simple rules of logic but who cares?  The point is that it hasn't ever happened yet (and been reported at least).  Until it does happen, why is it an issue?  Even if it happened once in all the hundreds of games played, why would it be an issue?

[TonyLB]

But what if a player does not do really much of anything, doesn't introduce any conflicts, doesn't participate much in the ones that others make, doesn't add much in the way of narration, BUT his kibitzing has players in stiches, even though it is not relevant at all to the game.

Those can be really fun sessions!

Are you trying to say that it is not a valid choice for people to decide that the kibbitzing is where they're getting their entertainment, and therefore they'll reward it (so as to get more of it)?  Because if you are ... I disagree.  I hate to keep dragging out this quote, but it really is just this simple:

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.

[Sindyr]

Sindyr, that's not going to happen.

You can't get Inspirations if you're not engaging in Conflicts and winning them.
You can't get Story Tokens if you're not providing resistance to people who are staking Debt on Conflicts.

It is simply, by the rules, as impossible for someone to get resources when they're not playing the game as it is for someone to win Monopoly if they're just having a beer nearby and watching.

I didn't say he wasn't providing ANY resistance, I said "doesn't participate MUCH in the ones that others make" - so maybe he does a token roll down once per conflict.

See?

[TonyLB]

Its a brutal system...and it might be hard for you to see because it sounds like you normally prefer a kinder gentler environment where everybody is "excellent to each other" simply because they're all warm and fuzzy.  Well Capes isn't a warm and fuzzy game...but it still requires me to "be excellent to you"...not because we're all warm and fuzzy and are going to sit around holding hands singing kumbaya...but because I NEED you.

Very true.  In fact, I find people behave better in Capes than in many of the systems where they're certain that people will be excellent to them no matter what.

"Civilized men can be more uncivilized than barbarians because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split open, as a general thing."  -- R.E. Howard

[Andrew Cooper]

I didn't say he wasn't providing ANY resistance, I said "doesn't participate MUCH in the ones that others make" - so maybe he does a token roll down once per conflict.

See?

If he's giving people what they want, then he's the better player.  Give him the reward.

[Sindyr]

stuff

(sorry, the flood is starting back up, must be quick)

The point you made about greed and ambition is somewhat good.  If the other guys is kibitzing more than playing, you can't depend on him for resources.  Therefor you can't afford to alienate me if you want to get resources back from me, you have to consider what I think is fair when you award resources.

Thank you.

That may be advanced play though.

[Sindyr]

But what if a player does not do really much of anything, doesn't introduce any conflicts, doesn't participate much in the ones that others make, doesn't add much in the way of narration, BUT his kibitzing has players in stiches, even though it is not relevant at all to the game.

That player way wind up with most of the rewards for the session, for doing nothing more than kibitzing on non Capes related stuff.

In all the Actual Play posts here on the forums and all my personal play, this has never once happened that I know of.  Ever.  It's impossible to prove that it can't ever happen due to simple rules of logic but who cares?  The point is that it hasn't ever happened yet (and been reported at least).  Until it does happen, why is it an issue?  Even if it happened once in all the hundreds of games played, why would it be an issue?

Not saying it's an issue, saying it's and interesting question.

[Sindyr]

But what if a player does not do really much of anything, doesn't introduce any conflicts, doesn't participate much in the ones that others make, doesn't add much in the way of narration, BUT his kibitzing has players in stiches, even though it is not relevant at all to the game.

Those can be really fun sessions!

Are you trying to say that it is not a valid choice for people to decide that the kibbitzing is where they're getting their entertainment, and therefore they'll reward it (so as to get more of it)?  Because if you are ... I disagree.  I hate to keep dragging out this quote, but it really is just this simple:

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.

I find that fasincating and it counters an above post that said it would be a bad idea to hose me off, because they are gonna want to not alienate me - maybe you 2 should debate each other?

In any case, Tony, it seems you are actively saying that rewarding popularity is not a flaw, it's part of the system.

I *thought* it was part of the system, but then a lot of folks seemed to want to argue with me.