Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.

Main Menu

[Capes] New (needed) rules

Started by Nocker, December 15, 2009, 04:25:09 PM

Previous topic - Next topic


Hello there,
Here is two house rules I submit to your appraisal.

1) During our last Capes game, we have discovered a possible lack in the rules. We faced a situation which resolution by the rules didn't satisfy us. We then created a house rule to fix it and it so easily matched that I can't resist to discuss it here.

Here is the scene.
One of us was playing the king of the molemen, some under-ground people digging and lurking who were trying to make retaliations on the Justice Brigade for their previous defeat, and in the mean time recover their digging machine. Another one was playing the molemen as a whole. I was playing XP-Z6 a robot member of the Justice Brigade and the last one was playing The Wizard, another member of the JB. One of his Exemplar was Alexandra, his pretty-but-dumb assistant.

In the end of the scene, the last Conflict in place, which everybody pretty much ignored all along the scene was "Event : Alexandra is at the mercy of the molemen king". During the scene, the molemen became the servant of the Justice Brigade, after a big temptation sequence, triggering the wrath of the king upon his traitorious and coward subejcts. In the beginning of what turned out to be the last Page, the molemen player Claims one side of the previously blank (1 - 1) Conflict, and the king player Claims the other. The molemen player narrates something about killing the assistant, in order to remain the only servants of the JB (they are not shareful), while the king declares wanting to kidnapp Alexandra to breed with her a new generation of molemen, in his underground castle. Nothing left to Claim for the two of us, saviors of the poor girl.

Then we play out the thing. Molemen player uses an ability on his side, then king uses an ability on his own. And then this is the turn of The Wizard. His player complained that he doesn't want to ally one or the other of the current sides, and yet he was forced to by the rules, if he ever wanted to act on Alexandra's safety. Strictly by the rules, the only solution for him is to act on one of the two sides, and then Stake one Debt to Schism from this side with a portion of one of its die. But what if the story doesn't allow such a temporary alliance ? The Wizard player thinks his character wouldn't make the tiniest move that could help either existing side. So he needed a third side, that could only appear with an alliance, by the rules. Endless debate, and then The Wizard player proposed a house rule : a character could Stake one Debt as his action to create a side on an Event Conflict. It's consistent with the necessity to Stake to be able to create a new side by Schisming (Super-heroes have what it takes to take a new way, impose their vision, not being simple followers, contrary to mundane people. A cop in this situation could have only join the king or the molemen, or create another Conflict, unable to make his choice between these two evils. But a super-hero can say "I have my own idea about this, and I'll fight to make it stand").

But when we think about later, it turned out to be very good and we couldn't find a flaw in it, in regard to the system. So we decided to keep it, and I'm here to propose it to you.
Here it is again : "A character can spend his action in Staking one Debt in a new side of an Event, created by placing a new die on it with the 1 on the top". What do you think of this rule ? Will there be problems, by using it ?

2) The strict impossibility to kill bothered us in the Comics Code. We made our own derived Comics Code about the death of the characters :
A "protagonist" token can be placed by any player on any character at the beggining of a scene, and it will stay until this very player decides to remove it. In the Comics Code, there is the rule "No Protagonist will die". So it has the same effect as the "No Exemplar will die", "No super-vilain will die" and "No Super-hero will die" but with much more flexibility. It allows players to say "I don't want this character to die", for any reason (he likes it, he has plan for it...). So as long as somebody wants a character to stay alive, the Comics Code forbid to kill him, with all the rules that come with it : Gloating, etc. What do you think of this rule ? Can you see any problem arising by using it ?


I think you are messing with the rules in ways that are not really necessary.
Let's look at the problems:

1) The conflict on the table is "Event: Alexandra is at the mercy of the mole-king.". Since it is an event this is going to happen, no matter which side wins.
So if you don't want her to die or get hurt (which is not part of the existing conflict) you can open a conflict: "Goal: Alexandra is hurt". Now, however the first conflict is resolved she will not be hurt until the second conflict is resolved.
On the mechanical part you are making one point out of nothing. That's not good! I don't think it breaks the system, but it would change the spirit of it. E.g. do I want to hurt somebody by schisming or do I want another side without further pain.

2) Look at what the Comic Code does: It sets a goal for the villians to strife for. The players going for it may try so with as much eagerness they can establish without hurting the other players. If you change this rule you win the choice after which characters the villians may go for safely. But you win this at the expense of time that is needed to do the choosing of the characters. Beside if this is done at the beginning of a scene, then there are only the characters that the players chose to begin the scene.
I think you will have less stress if you choose the binary process of putting "No one/exemplar/superperson/whatever may die" in the CC or not.

Besides: There is nothing in the rules against bringing a character that died in one scene back in a later scene.
So I'd not use these rules, but I don't think you'll ruin something by using them.