Sydney Freedberg wrote: ... suggest that someone can kick another character off their "side" if either party thinks their goals are incongruent -- which implies a goal-setting phase -- which implies something like Trollbabe's "fear and clear" discussion where each side figures out what would happen if the current Complication resolves their way -- which helps deal with the current amorphousness of what winning a Complication means in story terms

Example #1 wrote: Captain Liberty has side leadership for Clobbering against a massive army of mind-controlled civilians.

Capt.: Remember! Be gentle! We don't want these poor innocents waking up with bruises!
Night Maiden: Gentle my fanny! So we break a few arms and legs... they'll get over it! We're the only ones who can stop the Persuader before he hooks his Hypnotron into the radio tower! Staking Duty and splitting my dice. And on that die, I'm using "Spinning Kicks of Doom" to start clearing a path to WXRC Tower.

I would do my little "we are the champions" dance again, but I refrain because it would probably have helped if I hadn't made a significant typo in my original post: The phrase is "FAIR and clear."

(Cue everyone hitting Sydney with a giant mallet).

I'll try to summarize the Trollbabe rules, which I've read but not played, so my understanding is imperfect -- and for crap's sake people, just buy the game, it's only ten bucks and Ron deserves it. (And Ron, any time you want to cut in and correct me is fine. Also, sorry I whined about the lack of setting information in Sorcerer over in the GroupDesign thread).

Anyway:

1) The player states her Goal -- the thing she wants her character to accomplish. A given statistic, e.g. Fighting, can be used for multiple goals, e.g. kill the bastard, capture him, drive him off, hold him off so I can run, etc.. (This is the most directly relevant bit to Capes, as you can use a given Power/Attitude/Trope to accomplish any number of effects in the game-world, and as winning or losing a Complication can have any number of meanings, varying from one Complication of a given type to the next, e.g. Clobbering can result in death, unconsciousness, or a bloody nose).

2) The player chooses whether to resolve the whole scene on one roll, or to break it down into several smaller parts (yes, "action by action resolution" is an option in Trollbabe).

3) The "fair and clear" phase proper: The GM and the player discuss what everyone's doing, going back and forth until (a) the player is clear on what the NPCs are up to and (b) the player has had ample opportunity to revise her initial statements of intention and descriptions of actions to match the NPCs' actions.

4) The player rolls and results are narrated -- player success by the GM, player failure by the player with the option to "push it" by expending a resource and/or taking injury to try again.

Just a quick thought,

is there any way of integrating Sydney's excellent suggestions with what I have just posted to this thread?

Specifically that there should be a single Goal for each scene, and that any other Complications are a means of 'delaying' one side or another?

For example, the choice on whether to resolve the Goal at once, or whether to 'break it up' could be dependent on whether either side decides to add a Complication to the Goal.

I'm Staking a pont of Hope on this...

Regards,

Doug

I haven't been keeping up on all the nuances of the Capes rules lately, so forgive me if this isn't relevant.

I think the concept of a well-defined Goal is critical to any conflict-resolution system. In conflict-resolution (plus fortune-in-the-middle) it's the narration that establishes all of the little tasks that are done (or not done) and how they relate to the success (or failure) of the goal at hand.

For example, in Trollbabe, you might call for a Fighting conflict with the goal of "Get on board the pirate ship." A success means you get on the ship. The GM might narrate how you kill the guards and rush up the gangplank, or how you do a flip high over their heads onto the deck, or even how you lose the fight and are tackled and dragged aboard kicking and screaming.

Those details of who does what in the narration are established (for the most part) during the "fair and clear" phase. Since the GM will narrate your success, you need to give him some ideas about *how* your Trollbabe is going about the business of the conflict. And the GM can establish the parameters of how much goodness you can expect with a success. The same goes for the player and narration of failure.

Does any of this apply to Capes? I like the sound of Doug's "scene goals."

Also, Sydney is right. You must buy Trollbabe. It is the single best RPG purchase I have ever made. I can't recommend it highly enough.

It sounds to me like Trollbabe (I'll buy it! Okay! sheesh...) actions are atomic (which is to say nothing happens between the beginning of them and the end). Whether you describe the scene at once or the individual actions, there isn't any period where you've tried but it's not yet clear whether you've succeeded.

Capes, by comparison, does almost all of its work between trying and succeeding. And because there's so much going on in that period of time, what is "fair and clear" at the first try may have changed significantly by the second.

Is this going to interfere with applying the same concepts here? My intuition is that it will, and that people are assuming that I'll give up "flexible" in exchange for "clear". But the mutability of Complications during play is, actually, one of the best things about Capes. It's what generates all of those fun stories I tell from playtests. I may well value it more than I've yet made clear.

I'm afraid much more clarification about Trollbabe will totally hijack this thread. Trollbabe conflicts aren't as atomic as our summaries make them seem. But you're gonna buy it, so a good read will make everything clear. :)

Yes, setting Trollbabe aside for a moment. I still think having a player be able to decide what their desired outcome is on a Complication, and to change that if necessary as play evolves may be a workable alternative here.

Remember that even if the player says "My outcome if I save this kitten from the tree is that a grateful populace of the world will name me Universal Emperor", they'll probably only get a bonus of... what... two or three on the Inspiration from the kitten tree-saving. So evidently being Universal Emperor doesn't actually make their lives all that much easier.