The Silly Limit: unique to Capes, unique to me?

[TonyLB]

Oh ... okay.  I think you guys are saying less than I originally thought.

You're not saying "Once the ground is broken, people are compelled or otherwise pushed to go there."  You're saying "Once something has been said, it's been said, and everything proceeds from that point forward ... the tenor of the game evolves based on what people do and say, and how people react to it, and things that are (at the time) extreme are often the sign-posts of the direction the game is evolving in."

Yes?

Because a lot of your phraseology struck me as saying that one player could unilaterally drag a whole bunch of other players into a new tenor, and there's nothing that the other players can do about it ... and that's just not so.  There is really nothing, nothing at all, that you can narrate that I cannot narrate away quickly and convincingly.  Comic book authors have given us decades worth of different ways to say "All your favorite characters just got dismembered and eaten" at the ending of issue #59 and then undo it at the beginning of issue #60.

But if you're not saying that one player can unilaterally drag things in a certain direction then I'm arguing against something you're not saying.

[TonyLB]

The 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.

The notion that "action must be taken" doesn't explain enough for me to understand where you're coming from.  Continuing to play the game at all, in any way shape or form, is going to consist of taking actions.  You seem (to me) to be implying a particular type of action ... that there must be some sort of application of will, or maybe a deliberate communication, or ... I don't know what you're implying.  Can you expand on that?

I 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?

"Goal:  Demonstrate anything even the least bit silly, amusing or comforting about the dark, devouring demon-God B'rnyeh."

Seriously ... just don't think too hard.  You don't want Barney to be funny?  Make a conflict that somebody has to win in order for Barney to be funny.  Then, during the time that the conflict is outstanding, everybody has to apply themselves to really thinking about how to portray Barney in a way that isn't silly, amusing or comforting in the least.  You don't have to figure out how to narrate that ... you task everybody at the table with figuring it out.

A purple lizard of clearly alien origin that wails unearthly siren songs calling warm, young morsels mindlessly toward him?  You think that's funny?  >Shudder<

[Hans]

I'm saying less than you thought before, but more than you think now, I think.    

You're not saying "Once the ground is broken, people are compelled or otherwise pushed to go there."  

I am saying that players are pushed, but I wouldn't go so far as to say compelled.  There is a push generated by the extreme narration, regardless of whether the player making the narration was intentional about that push or it was just an off the cuff thing.  In the absence of effort on the part of the players, that narration will move the game in that direction.  In your case, simply putting down the conflict you put down was sufficient action.  The strength of the push and the strength of the current "game state" both go into how much action is necessary.  If I push my friend off a dock unawares, it will take a monumental dexterity or strength on his part, and maybe a change in the laws of physics, for him to avoid getting drenched.  If I push an oil tanker away from the dock, my push is so trivial as to make no difference compared to the other forces acting on the tanker and its own mass.

"Goal:  Demonstrate anything even the least bit silly, amusing or comforting about the dark, devouring demon-God B'rnyeh."

That is brilliant.  It really is the rules-encoded equivalent of saying "C'mon, BARNEY?!  Really, Barney?!  You must be joking...Barney?!"  It also demonstrates something that I think is not completely clear from the rules and that I personally have a hard time with, but you have consistently demonstrated through your examples; Goals can be universal and impersonal.  It is not "Goal: Lizard people demonstrate something silly..." or "Goal: heroes demonstrate something silly..." or even "Goal: Anyone demonstrates something silly..."  It is "Goal: Anything, including the universe itself, demonstrates something silly..."

I can honestly say that this would have never occurred to me in the context of an actual game.  It is almost a "meta-conflict", in that it is so universal and impresonal as to be directed at the players themselves, as opposed to any one component of the story. 

Of course, at least some Barney-related narration has already occurred by the time this goal hits the table, and that narration must either be ignored or incorporated in future narrations about the demon-God B'rnyeh.  So while your goal prevents future silly stuff, it doesn not help you in dealing with the silly stuff that has already been narrated.  Which brings me to...

There is really nothing, nothing at all, that you can narrate that I cannot narrate away quickly and convincingly. 

You may be able to do this quicky and convincingly, Tony, in the face of all narrations you have or will ever face.  But personally, I have had narrations occur that I could not narrate away quickly and convincingly.  I could not see a way to maintain both the coherence of the narrative, and at the same time remove the effect of that extreme narration such that it did not affect the future tenor of the game in ways I would find unpleasant.  In this respect, at least for me, a player did "unilaterally drag things in a certain direction".  I felt powerless in the face of this shift.  After the fact, maybe minutes or maybe days later, I might think of something I could have done.  But by that point the shift has already occurred.

An 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.

[TonyLB]

An 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.

I read this situation in exactly the opposite way that you are reading it.  How strange ....

It is, by the rules, impossible for Hero X to be sexually humiliated while this goal is on the table.  Right?  He is, indeed, infinitely better protected against sexual humiliation than he is without that goal on the table.

If you (playing for Hero X) win this conflict then you never enter sexual humiliation territory.  Yes?

It seems, to me, that someone putting that goal on the table is doing the very opposite of unilaterally narrating a shift in tenor.  He's threatening such a shift, and then putting it up for conflict resolution, to determine (with the chance for anyone in the group to contribute to the 'discussion') what's going to happen.

Is the concern here that you're being called upon to act in defense of something that you think should be yours by right?  That, for instance, you think that it's not fair for someone to force you to act in order to keep a game in the "Cartoon Network" headspace rather than "HBO"?

[Hans]

Sorry, took me a while to respond to this...

Tony, I simply can't agree with your interpretation here, at least the broader implications of your interpretation.

Lets take sex out of it.  I'm playing in Daredevil in a Capes game based on the Marvel Universe.  Up until this point in the game, things have stayed in a low-powered, street crime type place. 

A 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.  But that misses the larger point, which is suddenly this player has unlaterally introduced a whole new dynamic into the story.  Sure, Galactus can't destroy the Earth while the goal is on the table, but who cares.  Freaking Galactus is standing in Central Park building a massive world destruction machine and the Silver Surfer is busy trashing out Thor and the Fantastic Four over the Baxter Building.  This is not just "threatening" a shift...it IS a shift. 

Now, assuming I don't like the idea of Galactus in my previous low power level street crime game, I can probably think of ways to react to this:

"Goal: Display any superhuman power"
"Goal: Be bigger than 7 feet tall"
"Goal: Ignore the plight of the common man"
etc.

And they may even work (I especially like the last one), to keep the low level focus.  But all of these things are not me maintaining things where they were.  That train has left the station.  All of these things are attempts for me to GET BACK to where we were, and channel the other players along with me.  A single narration or conflict can make a shift that it takes a lot of game effort to come back from, assuming that one or more players want to get back from it.

Now, back to the sexual humiliation goal.  Sure, your right, the actual sexual humilation part can't happen while the goal is on the table.  But while its on the table, there is likely to be a lot of narration SETTING UP the humilation (which is, in fact, what happened in the game).  Newspaper reporters talking about rumours of indiscretions or impotence, maneuvering to position to pull pants down, etc.  This is not "threatening" a shift, it IS a shift.  A previously untouched area of subject matter (sexuallity) has been thrust center stage; you can either fight it or run with it, but you can't ignore it.

It has nothing to do whether I thought I had a "right" to Cartoon Network.  I know very well I DON'T have the right to Cartoon Network.  The Extremes Conjecture pretty much tells me that.  It also has nothing to do with "fairness".  It is neither fair nor unfair that this is something that can happen.  Saying it is unfair is like saying it is unfair that a DM in D&D can choose to throw Ogres instead of Trolls at you. 

Just to clear up any idea that this is just sour grapes on my part, I can think of circumstances where the same unilateral pulling happened and it was fantastic thing to have happen for my enjoyment.  The time my friend Piers suddenly turned a story into a Zombie story from left field, or another friend pulled a Matrix-like shift to a higher plane of reality, as examples.  But make no mistake, those shifts were no less unilateral shifts just because I found them enjoyable.  The Extremes Conjecture, I am arguing, simply describes the way Capes works, independent of whether particular instances are viewed as enjoyable or unenjoyable.

The reason I think this discussion is important is that Capes is so very different from other games that it consistently throws people off, and I think Extremes Conjecture is explanatory regarding this effect.  The actual play examples in my own experience and those that have been described on this forum that generated my initial "silly limit" comments, all typify the Extremes Conjecture in action.  By understanding this effect and recognizing it when it is in operation, one can prepare oneself and others to more fully to enjoy the game AS IS, rather than worry over its perceived limitations.  It helps outline the kinds of enjoyment that are possible in Capes, including types of enjoyment that are ONLY possible in Capes.  Capes is pretty much the only game that allows this kind of incredible unilateral power on the part of every player, and should be embraced for this feature because of all the fun it can bring with it. 

Now, could it be that you and I are having essentially this Pythonesque conversation?

Hans: "Tony, look right there, that is a shift in tone."

Tony: "No it isn't.  The shift in tone hasn't happened yet."

Hans: "Yes it has. I can't see how you can possibly say the tone hasn't shifted."

Tony: "And I can't see how an otherwise reasonable person such as yourself could say it HAS shifted."

Hans: "C'mon, it's shifted!"

Tony: "No, it hasn't."

Hans: "Yes it has."

etc., etc., until I ask you if our time is up and was this five pound argument or three?

If so, hey, I'm fine with that.  If we can't agree on an example of where the tone has shifted, then we certainly can't agree on an idea based on the idea that tones can be shifted.

[TonyLB]

I actually don't think that we're in all that much disagreement.

It 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.

Whereas, I was originally reading you as saying that the game shifts when the actual story development enters play.

So I think it's not so much that I was arguing to argue (at least I hope not) but rather that I was arguing against something I thought you were saying, rather than what you were actually saying.  Which is still mea culpa, but hopefully more understandable.

[epweissengruber]

A 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. 

- 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

- Why don't players simply become more open about what they think of each other's suggestions.
>> Hans: "New Goal: Flaming Ice Cream Snot Man begins kissing Commissioner Gordon."
>> Erik: "Ah geez, Hans, you promised you wouldn't have another kisser start to make out with the Commissioner.  Can't you keep with the atmosphere we outlined at the start?"
>> Hans: "You're right, sorry guys."

- I know that mechanics exist so that our games don't become dominated by the player who speaks the loudest or the fastest.  But this kind of social communication keeps GM-less games running smoothly.  Someone tried to introduce pokemon creatures into a Universalis game I played in.  Everyone around the table howled but the player was really into it.  Informal negotiation didn't work.  The group used the game mechanic to veto the contribution, so -- after social discussion and resolution mechanics had been applied -- the player rethought the proposal and brought out something that passed muster.

- Yes, results of actions and changes of tone are decided by game mechanics.  But why couldn't you put some aspects of Color or Content Authority through simple discussion before submitting things to the resolution mechanics.

- GM-less doesn't mean giving up on using ordinary language and hoping that a set of mechanics will be able to co-ordinate all aspects of play.  This isn't chess we are talking about here, a game where centuries of custom and codified rules remove any need for players to chat about what could or should happen next.

[Hans]

It 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.

I didn't mean to suggest you were arguing for arguing's sake, Tony, sorry if it came across that way.  I know you are trying to achieve some common understanding.  My worry was that you and I were talking about two different things and didn't realize it.  Now I am pretty sure of it. 

I 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.  Ditto for sexual humilation, or any other topic.  That is because no narration in Capes is ever simply a proposal that requires anyone's approval (with the exception of "Not Yet" based on the Comics Code or existing conflicts).  All narrations are simply statements of facts in the shared imagination of the players. 

Now, if your immediate response to the above is, "No, it isn't Galactus-related, it is only POTENTIALLY Galactus-related", then I don't know where to go.  We are seeing the same thing, but viewing it in very different ways.

[- 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

Hi Erik!  I still haven't mailed your dratted Spirt of the Century book to you.  I am a cad.

I personally think I would like to see universal Goals (i.e. Goal: Do something, instead of Goal: Character X does something) as generally vetoable.  Actually, based on the rules, I think they might be vetoable, since the player of the character who is having the Goal set for them can veto, and in this case I think ALL characters are having the goal set, so all players could veto.  I'll boost that up to Tony, and see what he thinks.

I'm not trying to get away from interpersonal player level communication.  The kinds of conversations you describe are very important.  I'm mostly just trying to understand a phenomenon I have seen in Capes games, especially short ones, and get a handle on why it happens. 

I also think your bringing up Universalis is very important.  In Universalis, every thing you say is a proposal, that there is a mechanic available to counteract.  Capes is the opposite of Universalis for this reason.  They are aimed at the same target but shooting from completely different directions.  Universalis starts with the premise "anything I say must be approved by the other players to become real" while Capes starts with the premise "anything I say is a fact, bub, and you'll have to fight me to make it otherwise".

[epweissengruber]

Thanks for the clarification

Universalis begins with a proposal to be approved
Capes with a reality about which people contend

[TonyLB]

I 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.

Y'know, this is going to sound all contrary ... but, honestly, when you said "Daredevil story, then Galactus lands in Central Park" my very first thought was "Well damn ... with Galactus in Central Park the cops are all going to be concentrating there, and people are going to be panicking elsewhere, which means that you've got looting, you've got criminals trying to settle scores of all sorts ... you've got a world of problems that suddenly open up in Hells Kitchen, and Daredevil's going to be the only one with the focus to deal with them, rather than get distracted by the guy in the big purple booties."

So, like, I can easily imagine a gritty Daredevil story that emerges from Galactus landing in Central Park.  And it's not (particularly) a story about Galactus.  Why should the big G automatically get more story weight just because he's taller (or omnipotent, or any other piece of narrative color)?

[BlackSheep]

Like the Zeppo episode in Buffy, where the whole demons-breaking-through-into-reality-argh-apocalypse thing is just backdrop for Xander going up against the zombies who just want to blow up the school.

[Andrew Cooper]

I think I'm with Hans on this one.  Even if you pull it back down to the "gritty" level, Galactus is still there.  The fact that he's in the story now (if only as background) influences the tone.  Sure, you can mitigate it a great deal but the influence is still there.  Also, I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing.  It's just a thing.

[Hans]

What Andrew said. 

You are allowed to sound contrary, Tony, and I understand your point of view.  You are right that people can keep things all about Hell's Kitchen and low level crime.  In fact, I think what you are describing would be awesome and would be exactly where I would try to keep things given my example. 

But the Extremes Conjecture is all about Galactus (and other extreme things) "automatically getting more story weight" because he is extreme, and pulling things towards "lets make this about Galactus".  The players can get what you are talking about in response to Galactus, but they will be working against, not with, the pull.  My own experience tells me that it is far easier for the players to go to the extreme, instead of fight against it. 

[TonyLB]

Oh!  Galactus automatically gets more story-weight because he's tall and omnipotent!  GOTCHA!

Yes, I do see that in action.

I will say that I see it in action less the longer a person has played Capes.  Which is not to say that it's not a very real thing for 99% of the people playing the system.  It's just by way of explaining why I have a hard time intuitively grasping this bit.  "Galactus destroys earth" no longer strikes me as inherently more important than "Turk mugs an old lady."  In fact, given the long history of Daredevil and Turk, I'd have to go with the latter conflict as the one I'd personally give more weight to.  I'm screwed up that way.

But yes, absolutely, the vast majority of other roleplaying works (and works well) by assuming that people come to an unspoken consensus on the importance of something, based on its importance in the fictional world of the story.  That measure is still going to be active in Capes (because people do not change quickly) and there is no corresponding damper to make it harder for people to create these fraught events than it is for them to make "smaller" ones.

It sounds to me like that imbalance is driving the Extremes Conjecture behavior.  Does that sound right to you?

[Hans]

Boom baby!  It feels like Reykyavik in 1986.  Do you want to be Gorbachev or Reagan?  I'm easy either way.    I think we are grokking each other.

I love the terms imbalance and damper in what you said.  They are perfect in describing what I was getting at. 

The only quibble I would make with your last statement it is not just the fictional importance of the narration that creates the imbalance, per se, but the extremity of the narration compared to the sum of previous narrations.  Narrating Galactus in a game that has already seen trips to the Negative Zone, the Sub Mariner attacking New York City with Atlantean armies, etc. doesn't really cause any imbalance; it is not extreme.  An extreme narration in that sort of game might be something like Sue Richards declaring she wants a divorce from Reed, or Alicia getting beaten up by street thugs, or Johnny trying heroin for the first time, or similar.  Extremity is always in relation to what has come before. 

In other words, extremity does not equal importance.  Turk mugging an old lady may be important in a Daredevil story, but it is not extreme.  Turk becoming the new Sorcerer Supreme would be both important AND extreme, same for Turk being revealed as a horrific serial killer or Turk being revealed as gay and asking Foggy out on a date.

So I guess it is not quite the unspoken consensus of what is important that the Extremes Conjecture addresses, so much as the unspoken consensus of what is customary, expected, or typical. 

That being said, I can see how the more important the extreme narration is, the more it will imbalance things.  Take the exact same street level supers game, but in one case it is set in Hong Kong, and in the other in Manhattan.  In the game set in Hong Kong, narrating that Galactus has landed in Central Park NYC is extreme, assuming nothing world shattering has ever happened in the game before, but is probably not that imbalancing...it is likely to become color in the background of whatever is happening, as TV's or radios play in the background.  Narrating Galactus into Central Park in the Manhattan story is a different thing; he's standing right there, all 100's of feet of him, with tanks driving on the streets and Thor zipping overhead and helicopters flying overhead telling everyone to remain calm.  That has more weight, and hence more imbalance.  I would argue that Galactus is equally extreme in both cases, though, compared to what has gone before.