Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Hans, March 08, 2007, 10:14:06 AM
Quote from: Hans on May 30, 2007, 09:43:41 AMThe Extremes Conjecture: Extreme narrations in any particular thematic direction in a Capes games will shift all future narration in that same thematic direction unless action is taken to counter the shift.
Quote from: Hans on May 30, 2007, 09:43:41 AMI think this is also where we come back to sillyness. Lets say the extreme narration was, instead of a graphic evisceration, narration that all the Lizard People are purple and pray to their great god Barney for success. Where do you take this, if you feel this takes the story in a direction you don't like? What kind of conflict do you play that prevents future Barney references with regards to Lizard People? How do you incorporate this new Barney as Lizard People god fact into your future narrations in such a way that maintains the previous tenor of the story you were hoping for?
Quote from: TonyLB on May 30, 2007, 10:16:43 AMYou're not saying "Once the ground is broken, people are compelled or otherwise pushed to go there."
Quote from: TonyLB on May 30, 2007, 10:27:20 AM"Goal: Demonstrate anything even the least bit silly, amusing or comforting about the dark, devouring demon-God B'rnyeh."
Quote from: TonyLB on May 30, 2007, 10:16:43 AMThere is really nothing, nothing at all, that you can narrate that I cannot narrate away quickly and convincingly.
Quote from: Hans on May 30, 2007, 12:51:18 PMAn interesting example: Player plays a conflict on the table "Goal: Sexually humilate Hero X". Note that this extreme narration is actually rules-encoded, in the same way your prohibition of Barney sillyness was rules-encoded. Until it goes away, this whole idea of sexual humiliation is going to be hanging around the table. Nothing up to this point in the game was even remotely sexually charged. I must conclude that this character has unilaterally dragged the story into sexual humiliation territory, whether I like it or not, at least for the duration of this conflict. We can't just ignore it; to finish the page we have to address it.
Quote from: Hans on June 08, 2007, 05:26:41 PMA player plays "Goal: Galactus destroys the Earth!", spends a story token, and drops Galactus as a character on the table, and narrates "Galactus suddenly appears in Central Park, his massive feet pressing craters into the soil".It is absolutely correct to say that, it is, by the rules, impossible for Galactus to destroy the world while this goal is on the table.
Quote from: TonyLB on June 09, 2007, 07:14:10 PMIt seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that you think that the tone of a game shifts when the potential for a certain kind of story development enters play. And your Extremes Conjecture (written that way) would say that once a new potential is offered/threatened, everybody recognizes that it's the kind of potential that they can offer/threaten in the future.
Quote from: epweissengruber on June 10, 2007, 07:06:35 AM[- Events can be vetoed- Could you introduce a house rule to the effect that Goals can be vetoed?>> A player might say "sorry, Hans, but a guy who shoots flaming vanilla ice cream out of his nose has no place in our 'film-noir meets The Watchmen' game -- I Veto.">> Players have to use the Capes mechanics to resolve goals but perhaps it might be worthwhile for players to have tighter control about what gets subject to mechanical resolution
Quote from: Hans on June 11, 2007, 03:27:48 PMI think where you and I are disagreeing is exactly in the word "potential". I am saying that when "Goal: Galactus destroys the Earth" hits that the story has just become a Galactus related story, not that it is potentially a Galactus related story.