Our first session is written up here.

This time, Lyle was out sick.

Mike started off the session with a scene in the offices of Archer Robotics (the creators of his spotlight hero, RX117 [I forgot the 'R' in last week's post]). Razorback, having stolen the myusterious artifact last scene, wanted to give it to his client and get his pay. Mike chose to play Razorback again.

I decided to play a non-person character, namely the Mystery of what the artifact is all about. Henry chose to create a nosy janitor named Phil McKracken (you'll notice a trend with Henry's names).

The following initial conflicts were created on the first page:
(Mike) Sell the artifact for $$$
(Me) [free] Secrets are revealed
(Henry) Intercept the artifact

We were unsure about having two conflicts that regarded the disposition of the artifact. The selling conflict resolved against razorback first, then the intercept conflict resolved in Razorback's favor. All oif this made sense in the story--Archer decided not to pay RB for the thing and threatened to have him killed if he didn't just hand it over, RB leapt back into the ventilation shaft with the artifact to escape.

During this we ran into confusion. After the sale conflict fell through, but before the intercept the artifact resolved we weren't sure about what we could say about the artifact. It seemed to us that someone could freely narrate that Archer got the artifact, because Phil could just as easily intercept it from him as from Razorback.

Anyway, RB decided that he would not be double-crossed by Archer and added the conflict "Kill Archer". Meanwhile, Phil the janitor started the "Cut of Razorback's escape ruote" goal.

I brought my spotlight hero, Professor Culiar into play with a story token. His first action was to introduce the event, "The Artifact is about to unleash its power".

The rest of the scene played out smoothly. Prof. Culiar stopped Razorback, revealed the secret of the artifact (it's a stone embued with the power of the gods), and off we went.

I got to start the next scene which was a quicky. A mystical rift opened up in thebig park downtown and Professor Culiar was on the scene to check it out. I had intended this to be a scene to bring some of our heroes together, so Mike chose to play RX117. Henry provided the opposition by creating the Godling/Inhuman evil demigod Baal-Saque (he originally had it Bal-Saque, but I convinced him to add the second 'a').
I started with the goal, "Send B-S back where he came from". Henry countered with "Crush Prof. Culiar". Mike started "Protect innocent bystanders".

We only went for a couple of pages. Professor Culiar quickly dispatched Baal-Saque. But we had another hitch. Mike didn't have any opposition for his conflict, and nobody had done anything that threatened the citizenry. I told him that the idea was to narrate some danger for it himself and then protect away. This didn't really flow well in the game.

Conclusions:

We knew the rules a bit better this go round, but something still didn't click. We all had fun, but there was a lot of people pausing, not knowing what to do next. Then there was chaos at the same time.

It seemed hard for everyone to come up with conflicts that were meaningful in the context of the scene and interesting and of the proper scope.

There is lots of stuff I like about Capes!, but I think that there is one thing that is missing for me. The nature of the game means that it is very hard for me to focus on my spotlight character. After a couple of scenes, Professor Culiar still seems like a characature to me--I don't have a feel for him. I think that my personal tastes require a more structured game.

We're going to keep playing, and I'm learning a lot to bring in to my own non-centralized GM game.

[/code]

Hm... I'm surprised to hear the thing about feeling that the character is still a caricature. It runs a little counter to my experience... which obviously doesn't mean that you're wrong to feel it, because I'm sure it's a real phenomenon. I'm just wondering whether there's a difference in our styles of play that's making it happen.

So, in that mode of non=judgmental exploration, I have some questions:

• Do you mostly create conflicts you intend to win, conflicts you intend to lose, or conflicts that could go either way?• Do you mostly create external conflicts (e.g. "Defeat the demonic horde") or internal conflicts (e.g. "Goal: Muster the courage to face the demonic horde")?• Where and why do you invest your Debt Tokens?

I think part of the problem is that the game as a whole is very foreign to me.

The group in general has difficulty finding the right conflicts to play, coupled with fact that we are unsure about what things we should be describing and when. Particularly difficult is the fact that a given action in the SIS can be described outside of a conflict or as part of a conflict depending on the whim of the players involved. We don't yet have a feeling for which things make good conflicts and which are weak.

Another problem for me is that I have taken a reactive stance in play. Somebody creates a scene and I think about how to help by fleshing it out along the lines described, rather than trying to assert my own vision on the scene. This is totally a personal play-style issue, that I may yet overcome. The biggest lack is in the "what are we trying to do with this scene" thread. Everyone in the group is used to the GM defining this parameter, and we flounder without it.

Anyway, to answer you questions:

* So far I have exclusively started conflicts that could go either way.
* All external conflicts so far.
* The only thing I have staked on so far is for not being crushed by Baal-Saque.

Really, I need to play more to get into my character. And we all agreed that we were having enough fun to play again next week. I think I just need to come up with more ideas for bringing my character into play.

Something that I think would be very useful as a Web resource or appendix is a set of situations and example conflicts. So it'd be like, for a bank robbery, here are some potentially strong and some potentially weak conflicts and here's why.

Anyway, this post is a bit rambly, but I hope I'm articulating my frustration a little. I'm not bashing the game at all, mind you. I'm just trying to figure out if it is compatible with me.

BTW, Tony, I'm re-reading the strategy and tactics chapter now. I think you cover some of my problems in there and I just forgot your advice since I read it the first time.

Your post isn't rambly. I think I'm really getting your frustration now, and I think you're right that the system is partly to blame for it.

You apportion certain duties (about which more later) in one way, based on your past gaming experience.

The Capes system deliberately pushes players toward apportioning those same duties in a different way.

You're finding that your past experience is not serving you in ways that mesh well with the system. So the system is not supporting you in doing what you want to do. Which is very frustrating, I know.

Now, about those duties. I found this line particularly interesting:

coxcomb wrote: I think I just need to come up with more ideas for bringing my character into play.

What I mean is that I need to insert my character more rather than trying to go with the flow and facilitate the scene as it was introduced.

There are more "game" elements to Capes than I am used to. The player interactions seem to take place outside of the SIS on some levels. I think part of the problem is that there are fiddly mechanics to distract me from my character. Instead of thinking about what story I want for my character, I spend too much time worrying about how to get resources. And I don't know all the tricks yet, so it takes concentration.

I'm going to make an effort to plan a story thread to introduce next time. I think that will help me focus on where I want my character's story to go.

I think I get what you're aiming for. And Capes will not support you.

You are trying to create challenges and stories about your character. You will, naturally, also be resolving the challenges and stories about your character.

That is the assignment of duties (Coaching Duties) that I was talking about. Coaching is the act of creating situations, challenges and, for want of a better word, stories about a character. Or at least open questions that, when answered through play, will become stories.

In GM-ful games this is a task that often (but not always, or consistently) devolves upon the GM. Once you've removed the GM you need to assign that duty to one or more of the players (and/or the ruleset itself).

You and the game are at odds about how those duties should be assigned. You feel that the player should be generating stories for their own characters. Capes mechanics support a pattern where you generate stories for everybody elses characters, and trust in turn that other players will be creating stories for yours.

Does that make sense as a distinction?

TonyLB wrote:
You and the game are at odds about how those duties should be assigned. You feel that the player should be generating stories for their own characters. Capes mechanics support a pattern where you generate stories for everybody elses characters, and trust in turn that other players will be creating stories for yours.

Does that make sense as a distinction?

I think you've pretty much got it. You're just approaching it from the goal of "Tell the story of Professor Culiar"... and what I'm saying is that the game system will not support you directly pushing the story of your own character. You can do it, but it's like slogging through mud. By design.

So let's talk, in direct this-game terms, about what it will support you doing.

RX-117 has Archer as a Justice Exemplar. The robot's got nice, obvious, issues. You can play Archer in a scene, and have him introduce "Goal: Have Culiar arrested for breaking into ArcherCorp". Which, after all, is a fair charge in the strict, literal interpretation of the law.

Mind you, you're not rolling for Culiar. Nobody's rolling for Culiar. Culiar is just part of the scenery. This is not his story at the moment. Your target is Mark, playing RX-117. Will he let Archer turn the rule of law on its head, and drag his friend off to prison? How far will he go to stop it? Will he break the law himself? By forcefully presenting those questions (and being a strong enough adversary that Mike can't wriggle out with an easy, unrevealing, answer) you both help push RX-117s story forward and gain game-mechanic resources.


So maybe you don't want to go that far. You'd rather play your own character. That's fine. But you benefit whenever you are providing adversity for someone else. So pick some way that Culiar is in conflict with his team-mates. "Goal: Assert authority over the group" is a classic, particularly if you back it up with an annoying manner that will assure that people don't want to just let you win it. But there are as many ways to foster in-party conflict as there are parties. More.