At the new Capes Website, I've put up a lite version of the rules, along with an in-built story idea and the resources to run it. I could really use some objective (i.e. "not me") opinions on whether this achieves the purposes for which it was designed:

• Convey to prospects a sense of what it is like, on a practical, "rolling the dice and counting" level, to play Capes
• Entice prospects into actually playing the game, so as to...
• Show prospective buyers the patterns of behavior and reinforcement that make Capes special, hopefully...
• Attracting them to play the game more.

So what do people think? A hit or a miss? How can I do it better?

Looks cool. Capes is something I want to run as a one-shot in one of my meetup groups. (And Mountain Witch. And Scarlet Wake.) This month, we're doing Universalis, and I'm starting a BW campaign with my steady group.

Had the thought: if you could draw up a five question response sheet, I can have people fill it out, and I'll mail them to you .. Which, it occurs to me, you've already got four bullets. Should I hand those out?

That would be cool, if your group has a good temperament for questionnaires.

TonyLB,

I really like the click and lock system. It will allow very fast yet still versatile character creation, it makes character more then just a list of powers and it adds puzzle building fun.

I admit that, reading the rules, I was a bit confused about the way conflicts worked. You begin your conflicts section with "Conflicts start with a die for each side. These start at 1." This reads to me to mean "Conflicts each start with a dice. This dice is showing the number 1. It is this value that his dice will use." I believe you mean something like "You start by rolling a dice. This dice has a priority of 1." Then to roll against this dice, you have to must both choose a stat with a higher priority AND beat the number rolled on the dice. However, I'm not sure.

I would start by explaining how dice are rolled (both priority and value, assuming the above is right) then follow it up with rules on narration. I believe that will make your game much easier to read.

I found the samples of play awkward. I think that they would make more sense if they were located after the scene pages so the players would know all the relevant rules before they read them.

What happens if multiple heroes want to fight the villains together? From the rules this would seems impossible. I’m afraid that this might lead to players sitting around with nothing to do.

Finally, what happens if no player wants to play the villain? Will the conflicts will exclusively between the saviors? That doesn’t seem to fit the flavor of your game very well. I would recommend rules forcing someone to play the antagonist (otherwise its no fun).

I think that, with a little clarification, you'll have a great game.

Best,
Bill

Cool! Thank you, Bill, this is exactly the type of feedback I can most use.

Interestingly, the way you read my text is almost exactly how I meant it. The Conflicts start with two dice on them (of different colors), one for each side. Those dice start with a value of one. Which is almost exactly what you thought the text was conveying, even if you thought it was conveying it accidentally.

The thing you believed that I must be failing to communicate... that's what confuses me. Can you explain (perhaps with a short example) how you imagine Value and Priority would work? I'm trying to figure out what you think I'm trying to say so that I can rewrite the text to more forcefully convey what I'm actually trying to say.

Hi Tony, I read the PDF at work and was itching to reply.

To begin with: I'm not sure I'm your target audience. Not only am I a dumbass, I am brand-spanking new to the whole Forge scene. This whole GM-less narrativist stance-y malarkey goes right over my head, though I am certainly willing to learn (and unlearn some old habits). So, if the document was meant for the fairly brainy members of the Forge to look over, I'm not one of those guys. I'm an open-minded gamer whose background is entirely in "traditional" RPG's.

The click-and-lock components of character creation is very cleverly done, and I can see people really grooving on that.

But I find the rules on scenes extremely confusing. Same deal with the debts and story tokens and all of that. I think it would help enormously to have a chatty, friendly few pages of showing, in super-generalized please-don't-get-fussy-about-rules style, how things fit together. Because I can't quite see it.

Something like this:

Capes aims to mimic the genre conventions of superhero comic books, and as a result the rules may seem a little strange to newcomers. For example, when a policeman in a comic book says "Halt" and nobody halts, he doesn't issue a second warning: he goes for his gun. Capes mimics this by indicating that once you use a skill during a scene, it can't be reused: if you still want to solve the problem, you'll have to find a new approach. Is this realistic? Maybe not. But it does keep the characters moving, on their toes, trying new tactics--which is what happens in comics.

Superheroes in comics have a tough life. The more they use their powers, it seems like their personal lives get more complicated and messy! Capes handles this by saying that when you use your superpowers you accumulate a "story debt" that you'll have to pay off later: narratively, you've solved the immediate problem, but there's a bigger one on its way. This debt will probably increase for most of a story, but you can try to gamble it down by making the superhero emotionally invested in a scene: if she wins, it's a huge relief and some of the tension in the story abates; if she loses, well... it gets even more tense.

James: Thanks for the reply! Two questions.

First, is the text you're looking for (as exemplified in the two quotes) is some text to justify why the rules are as they are, rather than some other way? Or is the goal to connect it more clearly to the elements of the shared-imaginary-space, so that people can use more than one mode of thinking (both "about the rules" and "about the world") to address their next actions?

Second, where did you lose track of the rules explanation? Or is it a case that you can't even begin to create a coherent idea of what would be happening?

Hi Tony,

I think there are two things going on with Capes from an "outsider's" perspective. One is: I'm not entirely clear on what you, the author of the game, intend the key rules to do. In a more traditional game nobody would need to ask, but since you're doing a lot of funky conceptual things it could help new people get oriented faster.

The second is: once I understand the dramatic effect you intended to achieve, how do I actually use the rules? And I mean that literally. Like, it would be nice to have something like this:

Step 1. When something in the story opposes the character's will, a conflict takes place. Get an index card and record the name of the conflict, and what the participants want.

Example: Spider-Man spots the Rhino robbing a bank. The two old antagonists sublimate their homoerotic longings into violence. So the players write down, "Spider-Man vs. the Rhino" as the name of the conflict. Spider-Man's goal is, "Catch the Rhino." The Rhino's goal is, "Rob the bank."

Step 1A. Pour yourself a nice beverage. Even if you aren't thirsty, it's nice to have one on hand for later.

Step 2. Assign a threshold to each participant's goal. When a conflict begins, each participant's goal has a threshold of 1; jot that down in pencil on the index card.

(Designer's Note: This threshold measures how close you are to completing your goal, and how much effort your opponent will have to exert to stop you. If you end up so close to your goal that they can no longer meaningfully intervene, you've won the conflict.)

Step 3. Somebody [who?] may use an Ability to accomplish his or her character's goal. In order to use an Ability, it must meet or exceed the threshold on your side. Cross off that Ability, and roll a six-sided dice. This is the new threshold for your side; if you don't like it, you may keep the old value of the threshold but the Ability is still crossed off.

Example: Spider-Man's player wants to distract the Rhino, so he uses his spectacular spider-quip ability to make a wise-ass remark. The threshold for Spider-Man is 1, and the spider-quip is ranked at 2. Spidey's player rolls a dice and gets a value of 4. This is the new threshold; note that it means Spidey won't be able to use his rank 2 quip in the next round.

...and so on.

Thanks, James! That idea of the simplified run-through of "Do this, do that, do the other, lather, rinse, repeat" is perfect for this introduction. Will do.

As for availability, I am way out of playtesting phase. The printers called today to say the completed books are in the mail. I'll be selling as of the end of the month.

Now I just have the subsidiary task of figuring out what is essential enough to merit inclusion in a document small enough to distribute. If you read the 160 page version it takes the time to hammer home a lot of these issues more concretely. But I can't really expect people who just want a quick sense of the system to read a huge amount of text.

James_Nostack wrote: The two old antagonists sublimate their homoerotic longings into violence.

TonyLB wrote: As for availability, I am way out of playtesting phase. The printers called today to say the completed books are in the mail. I'll be selling as of the end of the month.

James_Nostack wrote: This whole GM-less narrativist stance-y malarkey goes right over my head, though I am certainly willing to learn (and unlearn some old habits).

Yep, I'm right there with the advice on this thread. I think what I need to do is to rework things so that there is less raw density of information, and more narrative of information ("This is you, reading the text, being led to what you need to learn about next").

It's not meant to be a reference work, it's meant to be a primer. Whole different mindset, which I am working on incorporating.

Bill, I love the idea of doing it in a comic book, and I fully intend to, but I couldn't get it done in time for release. It is, definitely, the ideal meeting of form and function for this game, but it's also a whole lot of art.

Okay, I have rewritten page 2, which was the first of the hyper-dense rules sections. Now it's much more of a walk-through.

Better? Worse?

Much better. :)

The new page explains the basic mechanics of this game much better than the original pdf. However, there are still some things I am confused by?

1) Splitting die- I understand how this is done, but am unaware why it is done.

2) When resolving conflicts, you mention every player has a reaction. Is this usable for teamwork, such as rerolling a failed attempt at clobbering a badguy?

3) When a player is playing more than on character(using story tokens) is the player still limited to one action?

4) How long is a scene for the purposes of refreshing attitudes?

5) When rolling for a conflict, is six the highest result possible, or does splitting die somehow allow success past this? Is a six 'invulnerable' to alterations, a critical success?

6) Is there an order to who goes first?

7) What values are the virtues supposed to have?

These are the questions that come to mind right now?

Well, now I've also got a revised page 6. I'd be interested to know if, absent the answers I'm about to give, this page does a better job of fielding such questions.

[ Edit: Whoops... I didn't realize this would be over a page-break in the discussion. For the benefit of those trying to correlate answers to questions, I have edited to make clear what I'm answering ]

(1) Players want to split dice because of the answer to #5
(2) Yes, Reaction can be used for teamwork, among many other things
(3) No. Each character gets an action.
(4) The scene is as long as players want to make it (as defined by how long they keep defining Conflicts when old ones get Resolved)
(5) Splitting dice does permit totals greater than 6. A six is invulnerable to direct alteration (but changeable by splitting, failed Claims and Overdraw) because Abilities only go up to 5.
(6) In Capes, there is a system for who goes first. In Capes Lite, no.
(7) By Virtues you mean Drives? They range between one and five. Mentioned on page 8, but you're right that it needed to be mentioned on page 6 as well.

I meant Drives, sorry. So is the setup for resolving conflicts:

1. Player Introduces conflict
2. Sides are claimed
3. Each character gets an action(though only two may be part of the conflict), with reactions for every player.

Actually I'm a little hazy past this point. I realize that the high die controls the conflict, and that the controlling side resolves the conflict at the end of the page. However, it seem as if conflicts can last more than one action for the two sides involved. Does this only occur in the case of a tie or is there another way that the conflict keeps from resolving?

Also, there is something about "otherwise you reduce your die by one" on page two. What is the significance of this?

Ahhhhhhh.... I get it. It's that pesky "Claimed" thing, tripping folks up. Great, that I can fix.

"Claiming" is not saying "This is my side". Claiming is saying "I'm going to try to resolve this Conflict at the end of the page".

Anyone can roll on a Conflict. If you have twelve characters in a scene (happened!) then all twelve of them can roll on the same Conflict, in the same Page.

If, and only if, someone claimed the Conflict, it may Resolve at the end of the Page. For the first Page (when it's introduced in Actions, after people have had their chances to Claim) that can't happen. So most Conflicts must go at least two pages (the one where they're introduced, plus the one in which they are Claimed). Many Conflicts go still further, because people choose not to Claim them, or only one side is Claimed and that side isn't in control at the end of the Page.

One of the reasons you wouldn't Claim is that you get penalized for Claiming and failing (the aforementioned "reduce your die by one"). So if you have 4, and your opponent has 5, and you Claimed then you turn your die from 4 down to 3, and now your opponent's lead is even wider. If they didn't Claim (and therefore don't Resolve this page) then it will be harder for you to close the gap. If they did claim then you just gave them a larger Inspiration due to your failure. Either way, bad for you.


If I could ask... did the revised Page 6 do a better job of getting across the concepts behind Staking and Splitting? It's not that I object to explaining the rules, but my goal here was to further refine the document so that it explains the rules without my help.

Page six clarified many things for me, though this document in general changed the game I saw months ago into something far more playable in my mind.

So, claiming is like a call to wrap things up with an event, demanded by either/both sides of the conflict? In other words, a conflict could potentially go on forever if neither side claimed it. Not saying it would, just want to know on a mechanical note.

Yes, that's Claiming exactly. I have yet another revised page 2, which hopefully explains both that and action-narration a little more clearly.

Wow, those new pages really help clarify the document. If there's room then a blow by blow acout with a 'conflict watch' showing the relative dice values would be helpful I think.

One area I'm confused by (although this might not be in the 'lite' version, what are the purposes of the values placed against powers, skills and styles? On page 4 the rules mention putting values in, and again on the section detailing the disaster character .. Also, what kinds of values should a starting hero have in thier drives? Maybe I missed the section?

Anyway, looks great and I'm tempted to give it a go at our next session!

Right... how to choose values. I'll explain that, but I'm also mulling where to put tighter explanation in the document.

It's not really about power levels, so starting heroes and veteran heroes could have the same values. It's about how the powers fit into the motif of the hero in question.

Basically, the higher the value, the further into any Conflict you'll be able to keep using that ability. An ability of 1 can only roll a die of 1, but an ability of 5 can roll anything that's not a six.

So low abilities tend to get used early, while higher ones tend to get used later. They all have the same potential to be powerful, since the player can narrate whatever they want when using them. So a character with Flight 1 can fly to the moon and back in an instant (unless "Race to the moon and back" is a Conflict, of course, in which case the "Not Yet" and "And Then" rules would come into play). Likewise, a character with Flight 5 can describe puttering along on a kerosene powered jetpack, if that's the way they envision the character.

edit - p.s. Please do give it a try! I'm currently thinking through what sort of free gift to give away to the first N people who post Actual Play logs here or elsewhere (I'd be thrilled to get any interest over at RPG.net, for instance). So you've caught me flat-footed on my gift offer, but I'll catch up quickly. Maybe cut-out, laminated copies of all of the click-and-lock modules in the main book, so that you can easily assemble characters and use china-pencils to customize them and Block abilities?

A lot of this stuff is little details, but someone has to catch 'em, right?

Page 1 - You might wanna specify d6 the first time you say dice. I mean, it becomes clear with context, but its a little Huh? moment, at least for me, until you read further.

Page 3 - There's a typo in Alex's second-to-last text block ("shoot it?t").

I'm unclear on the difference between white and black dice - it seems that they represent the different sides of the Conflict, but I'm not sure.
Also, did Alex decide not to keep the 5 because he didn't have any traits that high, or what?

Page 4 - Click n' Lock is awesome.

You might want to be a little clearer about the numbering from one up thing - it took me a little while, and looking at the example, to realize it meant "In each column, assign each trait a number, in ascendent order from 1 - 6, until all traits have numbers". Unless it doesn't mean that...

Is the left-hand column Skills, the center Attitudes and the right-most Styles? This is implied, but it should be clearer, IMO.

Also, by including the "Godling" and "Seducer" in the example, you make them available as choices for actual play. I dunno if this is intentional or not, or a problem or not, just wanted to point it out.

Page 6 - What do Inspirations do?

Page 7 - Ah, you can spend Inspiration to add the amount spent to a die. Is that right? You might want to mention it on page 6.

Page 9 - Ah, Godling is in here. Guess its not a problem.

I think a list, or at least a mention, of the things in the main version that you left out of this version would be fantastic. I.e, after playing this, what am I missing thats worth me paying for?

Looks like good times. I rarely grok a system just by reading it, so I'm not gonna make any comments about whether it makes sense and works or not until/unless I actually play. The current draft seems fairly straightforward, though. Well done.

A few comments on my read through.

- "You Claim a conflict." That big capital C on claim suggests there's some additional rules involved with this. Is this just a matter of saying "I want to Resolve that this Page?" Or is it an Action?

- How is contiguity of narration enforced, and to what degree? (Presumably I can't actually "narrate whatever I like", since if I did that i could ignore everything spoken before about the situation)

- What is the distinction between an Action and a Goal? For example, in the EoP, "alert the sentinels of liberty" is presented as a Goal. Could Alex have instead made the goal "intercept the alien spaceship" and then taken "alert the sentinels of liberty" as an Action?

- What happens if you wind up with "Goal: protect the president" and "Event: David kills the president"? By the rules it seems that in that case, the president cannot be protected, since that Event must resolve sooner or later and when it does David will definately kill the president (the conflict only determines whether doing so has good results or not)

- In the EoP, when Alex uses Science to react to Beth's roll, she says "That's no good.. I'll turn it back to a three." Presumably she is rolling Beth's dice rather than her own, which is why she wanted a low number - it'd be nice to clarify this.

- Beth gets an "And Then" response. This conflicts with the earlier description of the "And Then" rule since it is not apparant that Alex attempted to end the conflict.

- How is Action order decided?

- A shade pedantic I know, but on Page 5 it'd be nice to say that "each of these is a category of Ability" (capital A to show you mean Ability as in the rules, not just 'ability' the general concept)

- What happens if no player wants to initiate a Conflict in a Scene?

- How are conflicts with more than two sides dealt with?

- Page 6: top paragraph makes a forward reference to "Drives" ("takes a token and places it on a Drive (??)"). Maybe mention it before hand: "Superheroes have powers, power-based styles, and Drives."

- For overdrawn drives "each player rolls their side's highest die, accepting only lower rolls". What happens if a roll is "not accepted"? Do they roll again until they get a lower result or do they set it back to the original value?

- When can you stake debt on a conflict? Is it at ANY time during my action (ie, I can claim a conflict, take my action, roll the dice, wait for all reactions, and then Stake in the dying seconds of my turn?) Can debt only be staked when a conflict is claimed? I can only stake debt "up to my strength" - is that in one action, or in one conflict, or in one scene?

- Staking one Debt doesn't let you split the dice, right?

- What's so great about splitting? It just lets the other side reroll the dice with their lower-ranked abilities.

- How is "best opposition" determined?

- Page 7, it might be nice to clarify that Beth is reacting to herself.

- Page 7, after Alex reacts with Sizzling Energy she sets the dice back to a 4. Why does Beth then react again with Desperate Effort when she is already winning?

One quick suggestion: The very first line...

Capes is a superhero game with heart, designed to address the premise that "Power is fun, but do you deserve it?"

(emphasis added)

Tim, I think the average gamer could understand this in context. Still, your rephrasing is certainly less likely to be misconstrued, so I agree with your suggested change.

I'm actually at my desk now, working all of these really excellent suggestions into the next, presumably final, version of the document.

I think I'm going to go a step beyond "asks the question" and say "helps you to answer the question". It just strikes me as a bit more forceful.

But yeah... if even one person were confused by Premise, why not do the easy fix?

Andrew Morris wrote: Tim, I think the average gamer could understand this in context.

TonyLB wrote: I think I'm going to go a step beyond "asks the question" and say "helps you to answer the question". It just strikes me as a bit more forceful.