Goal-In, Goal-Out house rule

[Vaxalon]

Waitwaitwait... What makes Intergalactic "all powerful"?  In fact, what makes him powerful?

There are only two possible things that can give Intergalactic power compared to Kid Virtue.  The first is, that his player has a bunch of story tokens.  The second is that Intergalactic has a bunch of inspirations.

It doesn't matter WHAT arguments Kid Virtue brings to bear, it doesn't matter what tactics he uses, if Intergalactic is, indeed, powerful, compared to Kid Virtue, Intergalactic is more likely to win any conflicts in which they both contend.

Not only that (in the absence of a "goal in, goal out" house rule*) as soon as "Goal: Decide who is team leader" is off the table, Kid Virtue's player can narrate himself right into the leadership of the team, at no cost.  So ultimately, the power that Intergalactic's player expends in order to WIN that goal is wasted.  In point of fact, there is no way for Intergalactic's player to spend those resources in such a way that the end result of the goal is protected from being instantly invalidated.  This makes them worthless.

If the story tokens and inspirations that are held by Intergalactic's player are worthless, then there is no difference in power between Intergalactic and Kid Virtue.

* "Goal in, goal out" : "Whatever is accomplished by means of winning a goal can only be undone by means of another goal."  "Doctor Trinity escapes to fight another day" can only be invalidated by two events; Doctor Trinity fights another day, or someone wins a conflict that reads something like "Catch Doctor Trinity".

[TonyLB]

This had no bearing on the discussion in Why narrate at all?, so I split it.  I hope it leads to much fruitful discussion here, where it is (by definition) on-topic for the thread.

[Vaxalon]

In order to make this into its own thread, let me restate a discussion topic more succinctly:

"Does the "goal in, goal out" house rule make the game better, by giving lasting* value to achieved goals, and thereby give value to the resources (inspirations, story tokens) used to achieve them?"

*not necessarily permanent

[Vaxalon]

I just realized something about this house rule...

What I'm attempting to create, by means of a library of achieved goals, is an authority to which players can appeal, that they can use to pre-empt narration that they believe contravenes that authority.

I'm not sure yet, whether that by itself is enough; you might end up with arguments whether a particular achieved goal was applicable in a subsequent play situation.  This may require additional work, to make into a house rule that can actually survive use.

[TonyLB]

As it is, I think you've got some slight paradox problems.  The reductio ad absurdum version is if Captain Amazing wins "Goal:  Prove that I am an unstoppable force" and the Dark Destroyer wins "Goal:  Prove that I am an immovable object," and then they clash.

Now I don't think that issue is ever going to come up.  But my initial intuition is that similar, less clear, clashes might happen.  It's hard to say though, before seeing what it does to people's patterns in actual play.

[Vaxalon]

For those sorts of situations, the more recent goal wins.  To some extent, Dark Destroyer's goal has been the "goal out" for Captain Amazing's "goal in".  Captain Amazing is no longer an unstoppable force, because Dark Destroyer can stop him.

[TonyLB]

Does DD have to declare that he intends to override Cap's "unstoppable force" when he makes his Goal?

Like, for instance, if I have won "Best in the team at crime-fighting", and somebody aims for "Best Scientist in the world," would they have to declare whether or not that will cover science done as part of crime-fighting?

[Vaxalon]

I suppose a goal could be explicitly declared as intending to completely invalidate an existing goal, or it could exist in its own right, and the hierarchy of which came last would only come into play when the two goals come into conflict.

::sigh:: This is becoming a bit more complicated than I had envisioned...

[Larry L.]

Hmm. The way we've been playing, won goals are "stuck" for the rest of the scene. This has at least once required some creativity to narrate the outcome of seemingly contradictory goals.

[TonyLB]

I've seen it played that way.  Personally, I just assume that if someone creates a contadictory goal, folks will roll over their Inspirations from the previous goal, and it'll all work out.

Example:  Jenny Swift is escaping.  Doc Vicious wants to capture her.  But she's got 5-1 on his "Capture" goal.  So he lets it go.  He doesn't capture her.  She doesn't narrate zipping off into the distance (as would totally be within her rights).  She gets a 4 Inspiration.

Next turn Doc Vicious creates "Capture Jenny Swift" again as a Goal.  Jenny's player rolls his eyes and plunks down his 4 Inspiration immediately.  Doc's spent an action, and Jenny has a 4-1 advantage before even doing anything else.  If he wants to, Doc can keep up this cycle of getting beaten down all day.

[Vaxalon]

Basically, I'm talking about extending that concept beyond just the one scene.

For example:

"Goal: Prove that Doctor Trinity is an alien simulacrum" gets played and won.

Until someone plays and wins "Goal: The real Doctor Trinity escapes from alien captivity" then any time Doctor Trinity shows up, scene after scene, he's an alien simulacrum.

[Larry L.]

As I understand it, effectively you're implementing States. A goal sets a State, and it's permanant until modified by another Conflict.

Wouldn't this rule add a fair amount of bookkeeping over time?

Also, can't somebody argue that, having won "Goal: Defeat Doctor Chaos," that Doctor Chaos can never again be victorious in anything without winning a conflict, since Doctor Chaos is now set to "defeated."

[Vaxalon]

Not all goals are permanent, only those that state something about the universe, or an element of it.

"Prove that I am superior to Doctor Chaos" would mean that whoever defeated him would have that advantage until removed.  "Defeat Doctor Chaos" doesn't state anything about Doctor Chaos.

I can't say without trying it out, but I think that there would be a fair amount of back-and-forth, as players work to remove onerous goals as well as give themselves new ones.

[TonyLB]

Oh yes, I'm sure there would.  I could see it becoming a game of trnch warfare (though hopefully with much more back and forth), with the SiS restricted to the space between people's defensive walls ("no man's land").

Given that, I think you need to consider very seriously that establishing Facts and removing other Facts will be a strategic concern that people are going to max out.  Which raises more questions:

[*]Can a Goal undo more than one Fact?
[*]Can a Goal establish a Fact and simultaneously undo another?
[*]Are broad Facts eliminated when another Fact establishes a small exception?  (i.e. "I am the most popular hero ever," coming up against "my cousin lucy isn't a fan")[/list:u]Fascinating stuff.  We experimented with a Facts system in early Capes development, but it never did work out.  You seem to have a whole different take on it, though, which is quite intriguing.

[Vaxalon]

I think that the ultimate answers to those questions will require some playtesting to answer, but as tentative possibilities, I will offer:

1> A goal that is targeted on completely undoing a goal can only undo that goal, and no others.
2> A goal that is targeted on completely undoing a goal can do no more than undo that goal.
3> A goal that is contradicted by one small exception remains in force for any situations not covered by the exception.

In addition, there may also be a limit to how many of these goals there can be about any one character.  Perhaps, one per character, plus one per drive (if the character has them).  Otherwise, they might get out of hand... but maybe not.  Only playtesting will tell...

I like the term "fact" for accomplished goals.

What I'm shooting for is a situation like in Star Wars.  (I'm using this string of events because people will be familiar with them, not because they're particularly good comic book fodder)

Darth Vader confronts Obi-Wan.  "You defeated me before, but now I am the master."  Obi-wan has the fact, "I can easily defeat Darth Vader."  Darth Vader's player plays a new goal, "Obi-Wan can no longer easily defeat Darth Vader."  They play through... Darth Vader wins.  Obi-wan loses his fact.  Darth then plays "Goal: Kill Obi-Wan."  He's not going for a fact, he's just trying to remove Obi-Wan from the playing field.  Obi-Wan wins... but he narrates that Darth Vader wins the swordfight, but is unable to kill Obi-Wan because Obi-wan becomes a force ghost.

Later, Obi-wan's player introduces Obi-Wan during Luke's encounter with the ice monster in the second movie.  "Goal: Obi-wan reveals himself as a force ghost" comes into play.  Since everyone around the table likes the idea, there's little opposition, and Obi-Wan gets his fact plus a small inspiration to go with it.  He uses that inspiration on a die on "Goal: Luke survives the night on Hoth" to help Luke win the conflict.  

The "luke survives the night on Hoth" doesn't become a fact, because it only talks about one past event, it doesn't actually say anything about Luke or Hoth.

Now to switch movies to find another example:

Wesley and Buttercup are stuck in the Fire Swamp.  "Goal: Wesley and Buttercup learn how to survive in the Fire Swamp." gets played and becomes a Fact.  Until that goal is undone, anyone playing the non-person character of the Fireswamp can't narrate anything about Wesley or Buttercup that implies that there's something they don't know about surviving in the fire swamp.