Retcon: Threat or Menace?

[Sindyr]

Moderation:  What I thought was going to be a momentary tangent on Bodiless, Persona-less character turned into a great big wonderful discussion in its own right.  I was too slow to realize that, and now we have an immense split into a new topic.  Hopefully it won't throw people off too much.

Actually, you could introduce and win a conflict to eliminate poetic justice, or all living beings, or the color green, from the universe in any Capes game; either people would ignore it as soon as it was over or have some funky narration to do thereafter, but you don't have to have a specific character in the game representing a concept before you can attack it.

I think you are functionally wrong here.  For example, if you introduce and win a conflict eliminating all sentient and non sentient life (whether mechanical, artificial or biological) than the Capes story ends - for without actor's, there's no play!

Let's say you play such a goal, and win it, and narrate Poetic Justice being pulled into a corporeal form.  Let's say through further won Conflicts that body is put into a coma, shut down, isolated, locked up......And as long as I can use my character sheet abilities, I can always narrate a boy doing the right thing, getting a karmic reward, and slowly realizing that that wouldn't have been possible if the *real* poetic justice was on ice.

Sindry, everything you've just said applies to any character in Capes. You can narrate my character being killed, put into a coma, or shot into space -- and I may well refrain from using my vast narrative power to say, as soon as the relevant Conflcit ends, "but I'm back!" -- but I can still narrate my character using any ability or drive in any scene I want. Is it other people's memory of my long-dead character influencing them? The strange stirrings of destiny affecting people in a time when my character is not yet born? Pure thematic echoes, with no pretence of a physical connection, between my character and other people who are entirely outside my guy's event horizon and vice versa? It doesn't matter.

I already responded to this idea vis-a-vis Spidey and Poetic Justice above.  That post has my reply.

So if the way you portray your characters makes it dramatically easier for you and the people you're playing with to have fun with "Kismet" than with any of the other infinite possibilities, that's great; if you have more freedom playing a disembodied presence than a specific person, go for it.

Cool, I will (was going to anyways) - Glad you are on board.

But if this kind of character is about making it easier for you not to care about things -- and primarily I've seen you talking, as with Bret's "Anti-Poetic Justice Man," about your ability to avoid being engaged -- then it strikes me as perverse. Why spend all this energy roleplaying something you don't want to care about, especially when you clearly do care about the characters in games you're roleplaying? Why start multiple threads and write innumerable posts defending the idea of not being emotionally invested, when you are clearly emotionally invested enough to write the posts in the first place?

let me say this clearly:
Playing a PLC makes it easier to choose what to care about and what conflicts to invest in without being coerced, forced, or manipulated into it  It also makes it easier for me to make the other players *earn* their tokens - don't be lazy! don't think you can put absolutely no thought into a conflict and just go for the nutsack!  *Craft* a set of conflicts that I *want* to be involved with!  Sheesh, are some of you afraid of a putting forth a little creative effort?

I am passionate about story creation, and the tools that promote it.  PLC's are the bees knees for that.  It lifts the part of Capes that was in the muck of alpha male ego posturing and strutting and returns focus to the story itself.

Which is why I care.  :)

[TonyLB]

I think you are functionally wrong here.  For example, if you introduce and win a conflict eliminating all sentient and non sentient life (whether mechanical, artificial or biological) than the Capes story ends - for without actor's, there's no play!

I don't see that anywhere in the rules.

When we created the Comics Code for our time-travel game, Sydney, Eric and I said "Hey, should we have a rule 'No destroying the entire space-time continuum and everything that ever existed or could have existed'?"  Our reply was "Nah, that would be a cool plot development.  That'd really put our heroes on the spot!"

[Sindyr]

What heroes?

[TonyLB]

You know!  The heroes!  Zak and Fistfire and Ransom and Kettridge (in his own way) and ... well ... Vanessa every odd Tuesday.  The heroes.

Just erasing the entire space-time continuum isn't gonna stop us from using our characters.  Why would it?  I mean ... who's in charge here?  The established fiction or the players?  Sheesh.

[Sindyr]

Apparently not logic.  And once you abandon that, anything goes.

Wanna buy a square circle?

[TonyLB]

Well hey, if you want realism to be a part of the game then play it.  I usually write it up something like this:

                    Actions have consequences    5
Limits       4      Cause must precede effect    4
Rules        3      A and B implies C            3     Remorseless     3
Implications 2      Newton's Laws                2     Whimsical       2
Imperfection 1      Force = Mass x Acceleration  1     Mean-spirited   1[/list]

Otherwise "realism" is just an argument that you make in the social space, and will succeed only as much as everyone agrees that honor it.

[Sindyr]

Tony, you have a talent for reading what I say and then responding to something completely different.

I said "logic", not realism.

[TonyLB]

So, you want to assign powers and attitudes to "Logic"?  I find "Realism" the more useful character, but if "Logic" is more attractive to you then go for it.

[Sindyr]

Now, *you* want to, apparently.

Anyways, if you don't care if the Capes rules are followed at all, then I guess you don't care about this thread.

[TonyLB]

Anyways, if you don't care if the Capes rules are followed at all, then I guess you don't care about this thread.

What rule, precisely, do you think I'm suggesting that people break?

[Sindyr]

Want any rule is an in principle agreement to the base presence of logic, consistency, and continuity between players in their use, implementation, and defense.  Your proposed action was illogical and inconsistent.  When shown that, your response was that logic's only place vis-a-vis your game was to act as a PLC.

Given that you are throwing out the necessity of lgoic *amongst* the players, you are also supporting an illogical action they take.  Such as purporting to play your game while useing and rule or not in the moment as they see fit.

Without a foundation of rational behaviour, rules do not work.  So if you abandon reason, you abandon all rulesets, not exempting Capes.

What a weird turn when the author abandons his own work and the author's most outspoken colleague does not.

[joshua neff]

Sindyr, have you ever actually read any superhero comics? Tony hasn't talked about anything that contradicts the "logic" of superhero stories.

[Sindyr]

I didn't say he did.  I say he is contradicting the logic of the players and his game itself, NOT the characters.

[joshua neff]

And how did he do that?

[Sindyr]

I know that either Tony is seeing this and being willfully obstinate or that he can't see it no matter what I do, but for the rest of you that aren't like that:

When we created the Comics Code for our time-travel game, Sydney, Eric and I said "Hey, should we have a rule 'No destroying the entire space-time continuum and everything that ever existed or could have existed'?"  Our reply was "Nah, that would be a cool plot development.  That'd really put our heroes on the spot!"

If I create a goal "Nekro wipes out everything in all existence." and I succeed (assuming that comic's codes don't stop me), then there is no second act.  In order for the goal to mean anything it must have happened.  The only way to proceed without abandoning reason as a human being playing the game is either:
1) The players decide to step in and by communal fiat make everything come back.
2) The players retcon the last goal, undoing its effect and meaning - which actually is the same as #1
3) The players start a new Capes game.
or of course Tony's option:
4) The players continue to play their characters narratively, ignoring the contradiction between that and the last won goal.

Of course, once one goes this far and permits any contradiction, it is going NO further to embracing any contradiction that one wishes - for example, I may triple up my story token count without warning, even though that contradicts the rules.  So did Tony's action, and he's the *author*!

Of course, any such unpopular illogical behaviour will inevetiably be reigned in by the mob - or the mob will eject the offender.

But *popular* illogical and irrational behaviour won't be punished, it will be rewarded at the Capes table! Even if it breaks the basic Capes rules themselves.

So said Tony.  Peronsally, I don't want to play with anyone who abandon's the ruleset fo whatever game we are playing and then tries to justify by abandoning reason itself.