[Capes Lite] First steps on the road.

[R. Jason Boss]

Hello everyone.

Not too long ago I finally got around to getting myself a copy of Capes (and a lovely lovely binder of laminated and adhesive click-and-locks - kudos on a fine product Tony).  Today two of my friends and I got a chance to dip our toes in the water.  We decided to use the Capes Lite rules for now as only I had read any rules at all and we didn't have much time to figure out Exemplars this afternoon.

Glen, my roommate and long-time gaming buddy, created Strongbow (Hunter/Older and Wiser) a sort of taciturn Green Arrow.
Irina, my SO, created Isis (Magician/Hotshot) blase wielder of arcane mysteries with quite the superiority complex.
I created JX-112 (Robot/Ex-Victim) self-aware creation of the ambiguously principled Nova Labs.

I opened with the usual script.  JX-112 was rampaging through the labs seemingly searching for something, busting up walls and generally being a boorish quest, imperiling scientists and suchlike.  Goal: Kill Bystanders.

Irina rolled up the hero side of the Goal, protecting the scientists from falling debris and lifting rubble out of their escape paths with magical force.  She rolls a 6.

Glen started off strong, dropping Goal: Kill the robot! 

Here we made our only real mistakes.  A page of my Capes Lite hadn't printed and I forgot to shift the page starter to the left or in fact officially end the page and start the new one.  No huge deal, our first page was just double-sized.

I rolled up my side of Kill the robot with a 6.  Irina and Glen worked to meet my 6.

From here on we got it right.  Irina claimed her side of Kill Bystanders which went untouched and resolved at the end of that page with a 5 Inspiration.  She narrated single-handledly rescuing all the scientists and such while Strongbow competed ineffectively with the robot.  Kill robot ended the page tied 6-6.

Both sides of Kill robot got staked and split.  Irina dropped the Goal: Prove unreliability of technology while Kill robot stayed tied.  I racked up major Debt on JX-112 keeping them tied for a bit.  Irina Claimed and won first Goal: Prove unreliability of technology (disorienting the robot and handily countering its attacks) then Goal: Kill robot (invoking blinding, searing otherworldly light to leave the robot a smoking ruin once she'd saved the people and proved her point.)

We ended with Isis having 1 Debt and Irina owning a couple of small Inspirations, Strongbow having 2 Debt, JX-112 had something like 13 Debt but I won 4 Story Tokens and a 1 Inspiration for later. 

Our small rules hiccup aside we had a great time.  We were all very involved and supportive of one another's contributions to the scene.  The social dynamic was much lighter and more open than the monolithic feel of our usual (D&D or Storyteller) games.  I note that our ST GM wasn't involved nor were some of our other more conventional friends who play.  Irina had been excited about Capes for some time though Glen knew next to nothing about it before we played.  Glen has at least 10 years of experience primarily with AD&D and D&D (and Storyteller games).  Irina has played some D&D 3.5e and a handful of sessions each of Werewolf: The Apocalypse and Orpheus.

Glen noted the lack of an overt system for character advancement per se but didn't seem to have a problem with it.  I told him that I'd read some interesting things about Inspirations along those lines but that I wasn't 100% on that angle yet.  I explained the bits of Capes not present in the Lite rules in brief for the future and all seemed eager to play it again. 

I have to say that as my groups first Forge AP this was a very positive experience.  Both of the other players were excited and talkative about it afterwards, together and privately, and the feel while playing was as if weight had been lifted from the gaming experience.  I don't mean to be superlative here.  Glen, usually rather dour, was smiling and listening the whole time.  Irina, who can be tentative and hesitant about contributing or alternatively somewhat antagonistic during group RP, was readily narrating her actions.  I'd say she's normally one of the quietest at the table and the opposite was true here.

Glen spoke with our usual Orpheus GM, his brother Chris, about Capes and reported that he was rather dubious about the lack of a personal character and conventional sheet.  I mentioned the optional rules for Spotlight Characters and he felt that addressed Chris's concerns (Chris is our biggest supers fan and Glen expected big enthusiasm).

I don't have questions or concerns quite yet.  I'm still processing this session which, while brief (we just played the one scene, we'd been having trouble finding a good time to play so just took the first window regardless of size) was I think very informative for us.  I'll post some of my thoughts about reasons for our reactions in a bit most likely and am open to questions or comments.

For reference: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20078.0 is my prior post on the Orpheus game.  Since that post we have only played a handful of shorter sessions and usually not with the whole group and, unusually, I've only seen Chris once outside of those.  So not much change on that front yet.  I really only include the link because I talk a bit more about the three of us who were in the Capes game there.

Thanks for reading,
Jason

[Bret Gillan]

That's really cool, Jason. Did you get a chance to talk to Irina and Glen about what engaged them about Capes as opposed to other games?

And I encounter misgivings like Chris's a lot amongst friends that I pitch Capes to. Most veteran gamers I know feel really adrift without a character that belongs to them that nobody can touch. Spotlight Characters almost seems like a security blanket to throw their way to address these concerns.

[R. Jason Boss]

I spoke with them more about the game over lunch yesterday.

Irina said the game being so low-prep helped quite a bit.  Character creation happens to be something she's enjoyed since she started role-playing with us (though I haven't weighed in at all in the thread about new players and chargen yet) but it has tended to create a long lead-time before actually starting play.  She felt that starting play while everyone was still fresh and enthusiastic rather than after a lengthy chargen process kept her energy up.

Both agreed that, well, system does matter.  They said they felt so engaged because of the pace and structure of play.  Things moved fairly quickly despite our unfamiliarity with the game.  They both independently told me that knowing that their input was always either immediately or imminently required kept them focused on play.  This was seen as wholly positive.

Irina also enjoyed that the characters weren't subject to arbitrary starting limitations.  Being able to "do anything" but not necessarily "achieve anything" was fun and let her imagination run free.  Glen also voiced appreciation for the number of options available though more from a gaming the system POV.  He said he'd want to play when he was pretty lucid as opposed to say, right after work, so he could see more of the ways to manipulate the currency of the game.  He pretty clearly implied also that he was so used to being disengaged much of the time while gaming that he was concerned about having a clear and rested mind to play Capes.

We're planning to play some more Capes Lite to get the turn sequence down 100% and to introduce one or more of our other friends to the basic rules.  I'm liking the highly-structured and quickly playable nature of Capes especially as our group often has trouble getting a block of time for gaming nowadays.

I agree with you about Spotlight Characters.  Irina and Glen definitely were curious about the multiple character/no character side of the game but weren't especially worried about it at the time.  Chris is used to a very high level of GM power though and going from that to the nebulous power an individual in Capes could be seen to have might be shocking.  I suspect he'll have fun though if he decides to join us.

Oh, and we are all friends and/or relatives regardless of gaming and do other things together (including playing games with various subsets of our extended gaming group depending on schedule and interest).

Jason

[Callan S.]

I have to say that as my groups first Forge AP this was a very positive experience.  Both of the other players were excited and talkative about it afterwards, together and privately, and the feel while playing was as if weight had been lifted from the gaming experience.  I don't mean to be superlative here.  Glen, usually rather dour, was smiling and listening the whole time.  Irina, who can be tentative and hesitant about contributing or alternatively somewhat antagonistic during group RP, was readily narrating her actions.  I'd say she's normally one of the quietest at the table and the opposite was true here.

I really like how you can see they were all aligning to one, fun activity.

However: Goal "Robot decides to spare a defenceless child". I'm a bastard that way and if I'd been playing, I'd add that. Hypothetically, what do you think that'd do the dynamic of play? Further, if I started pursuing Irina's concept of "Prove unreliability of technology" with a string of goals along the line of "Unreliable...erring like a human". If they killed the bot, goal "Robot gets to say dying wish, roses sent to it's (female) creator". See how I'm a bastard and I'd like to really examine Irina's philosophy - and how capes gives various means and rewards for that.

[peccable]

If it's alright, I'd also like to chime in with a first-time "Capes Light" AP:

A friend of mine was running a board-game day and I had tossed in a couple of indie RPGs in my bag, as I've noticed that some of the more board-game-like (I include Capes in this catagory, along with the Shab-Al-Hiri Roach (which also got played later in the day) and InSpectres) RPGs tend to go over well with board game players.  It turned out that I showed up a good hour earlier than everyone else and suggested a little one-on-one Capes scenario, as I really wanted to see some of the mechanics in action.

We put together two quick characters: Cornelius Q. Einstein (Gadgeteer + Puppet Master): Mad scientist with an small army of robots and Kid Thunderbolt (Master of Natural Force (Electricity) + Curmudgeon).  My friend envisioned him as a kid hero from the 20s who hadn't aged particularly well.

I started out with the suggested "Kill Hostages:" Einstein shows up at his old alma mater ("They laughed at me!  They called me mad!") intending to show off his newly created teleportation device.  He takes the entire teaching staff hostage with his army of robots and prepares to teleport them at gunpoint.  Little does he know that while the machine does, in fact, teleport living things, there's a slight bug: they end up dead on the other side.

A rather annoyed Kid Thunderbolt shows up (still in pajamas and slippers after being rudely awakened by the Powers that Be, if I remember correctly) as a bolt of lightning and immediately attempts to shut down the machine by entering it and trying to overload it.

Second page: Einstein puts down a new conflict "Goal: Trap Kid Thunderbolt in my machine".  Thunderbolt puts down "Goal: Take over Einstein's robots."

Much rolling and responding ensues over the next couple of pages, with neither of us claiming "Kill Hostages," but dealing with the new goals.  Kid Thunderbolt is trapped in a makeshift capacitor Einstein cobbles together, but he manages to lash out with an electric lasso that short-circuits the robots and has them all shooting each other due to their friend-or-foe radar being short-circuited.

At this point the other gamers started showing up and we finished off the last goal: Einstein succeeds in teleporting the school's staff and laughs triumphantly...until the smoke clears and he sees what he has wrought.

All in all, it was fun and definitely something I'd like to try again.  We did play it rather silly, but I can see how even the little bit we played could open up into something deeper (How does Einstein deal with this "success"?  How does Thunderbolt deal with his failure?).

I'm glad we stuck with the Light version, as the full rules are still a little overwhelming to me.  Even then, there was some confusion over Inspirations.  On one goal we ended up with two 1s on his side and a six on my side when it resolved.  Does that mean I get a 5-point inspiration AND a 1-point inspiration?  Or do I get a 5-point and he gets a 1-point?  (I think we played it as the later).

Also -- can inspirations be used to lower as well as raise dice?  Otherwise, what is the point of a 1-point inspiration (if there *is* such a thing?)?  Can a 1-pointer be used to lower a 6 to a 1?  Is that too powerful?  (This particular scenario ended up happening in our game.)

In any case, I really enjoyed it and am curious how the system would hold up over multiple sessions.

-- d

[Hans]

I'm glad we stuck with the Light version, as the full rules are still a little overwhelming to me.  Even then, there was some confusion over Inspirations.  On one goal we ended up with two 1s on his side and a six on my side when it resolved.  Does that mean I get a 5-point inspiration AND a 1-point inspiration?  Or do I get a 5-point and he gets a 1-point?  (I think we played it as the later).
Also -- can inspirations be used to lower as well as raise dice?  Otherwise, what is the point of a 1-point inspiration (if there *is* such a thing?)?  Can a 1-pointer be used to lower a 6 to a 1?  Is that too powerful?  (This particular scenario ended up happening in our game.)

These I can help with:

* The dice get matched any way you want between sides of the conflict, with the difference going to either the resolver or a player on the losing side.  You cannot match dice from the same side against each other, but you can leave a die unmatched.  I'm going to use a slightly more complex example than your own, which will allow me to show all the possibilities:

Winning side dice (marked with a W): W6, W2
Losing side dice (marked with an L): L4, L1

Possible matches:
W6/-, W2/-, -/L4, -/L1 = Resolver gets a 6 pt and a 2pt inspiration, losing side gets a 4 pt and 1 pt.
W6/L4, W2/L1 = Resolver gets a 2pt and a 1 pt inspiration, losing side gets nothing.
W6/L1, W2/L4 = Resolver gets a 5 pt inspiration, losing side gets a 2 pt inspiration.
W6/-, W2/L4, -/L1 = Resolver gets a 6 pt inspiration, losing side gets a 2 pt and 1pt inspiration.

There are a couple of other options, but you get the idea.  The resolver decides who the inpirations go to on the losing side, if there is more than one loser.

* Inspirations can only raise, not lower dice.  A 1 pt inspiration is pretty useless as is, but can be improved over time using abilities (I don't think that is in the Lite rules, but is in the full rules).  On your action, you can use an ability to increase an inspiration by one point as your action (instead of playing a conflict or rolling a die).  The ability has to be at least the value of the inspiration you are increasing.  Also remember that inspirations are tied back to the conflicts that created them, and can only be used if you can someone narrate the relationship between the old conflict and the new.  That means that a 1 pt inspiration from a conflict like "Goal; Save the world" might be well worth building up to larger values over time, while a 5 pt inspiration from "Goal: Make tasty cookies" might, in the long run, not be that useful.

Hope that helps.

[drnuncheon]

* The dice get matched any way you want between sides of the conflict, with the difference going to either the resolver or a player on the losing side.  You cannot match dice from the same side against each other, but you can leave a die unmatched.  I'm going to use a slightly more complex example than your own, which will allow me to show all the possibilities:

Possible matches:
W6/-, W2/-, -/L4, -/L1 = Resolver gets a 6 pt and a 2pt inspiration, losing side gets a 4 pt and 1 pt.

WhatwhatWHAT?!

I thought you could only leave a die unmatched if there were more dice on one side than the other.

J

[Hans]

Possible matches:
W6/-, W2/-, -/L4, -/L1 = Resolver gets a 6 pt and a 2pt inspiration, losing side gets a 4 pt and 1 pt.

WhatwhatWHAT?!
I thought you could only leave a die unmatched if there were more dice on one side than the other.

Jeff, you make me doubt myself...so I went and checked, and cannot find any examples, rules text, etc. that supports the above, even though I feel like I read it just yesterday.  All the examples in the rule book and the forum always show matches made when they are possible.  Therefore, I must assume I am incorrect on this, and retract the above.  I think perhaps I have been sidetracked/misled by some discussions about conflicts with more than two sides, where the threads in the FAQ clearly say you can match the LOSING sides dice against each other.