So, I had an increasinglg familiar experience in our first Capes session last night, and would like advice about how to make it more familiar still.

Everyone was agreed that Fistfire (player super-hero) and Doc. Kettridge (our super-medic) should develop a relationship of respect. My villainess, Vanessa Faust, introduced a conflict "Undermine burgeoning respect between Fistfire and Kettridge".

We spoke briefly and cogently about whether a villain victory would violate the relationship that has already been built into the rules, and decide that it would not (technically "Does that stop Kettridge from being Fistfire's Exemplar? No. They'll still have issues, just maybe different ones.") Then we set out to play the Conflict. And this is where it gets fun. I thought I would lose it, because Sydney (playing Kettridge) would go crazy to stop me. He doesn't, so I go crazy instead, and win the conflict by a massive margin. Partly because that gets me another sort of resource (Inspirations) which I am sorely lacking. But partly because I can, and it makes my character look really cool and evil, and I like that an awful lot.

In many game groups I have played in my life, my actions would have been disruptive behavior of the worst possible sort. Everyone was on the same page, creatively, and I stepped in and threw a monkey-wrench into the works out of capricious greed and spite. In this game group it felt like the notion was immediately integrated and appreciated. Like, "Yes, I see... it's just as good if Fistfire and Kettridge have a rocky start. Different, but just as valid. And we'll see where it goes from there."

Now what I find really interesting is that just three days earlier I had the same subjective experience running Dogs in the Vineyard. As recounted right here, the Dogs offered Stakes that I really wanted to prevent (Sybrina, spilling her guts too early), so I went ahead and stopped them, and it was accepted without a murmur.

So, I have some theories about what those things have in common, but I don't want to pattern the discussion, because I really easily could be wrong. But generally, if I can get this sort of assent in the future I want it. I got to forcefully advocate for a creative vision, without dominating the game. That's addictive.

Is this serendipity? A break-through in my personal GMing? Or a question of the systems I've started playing with? Or are those last two one and the same?

In my opinion, it's a matter of your own personal growth and learning.

This sounds like a byproduct of thegames. In my personal experience as a player, it isn't the fact that the GM wants to push something into the game that has ever been a source of contention, it's that I have no recourse as a player.

Let me give an example similar to your Capes experience to illustrate. I was playing in a Legend of the Five Rings game and my character formed a romantic attachment with (awkwardly) the woman who became head of his clan. There was tension there. It became clear that a goal for me was that the two eventually end up together, and the other players were on board. When the climax of the campaign came around, the GM did his own thing, stomping over my goal for the story. This pissed me off, along with another of the players who was hoping for the payof of the romance to happen during play.

The deal was, I had no recourse as a player to make my goal happen. I was at the mercy of the GM. He knew what I wanted to happen, and chose to thwart it.

Now the difference with Capes is that the players all had the means to fight for their own vision. They weren't being manipulated by arbitrary whim from a GM in the devine role of storyteller--they were being challenged by an equal, another player. That changes the whole dynamic. And along with that dynamic comes the knowledge that they, in their own time, can wield the same control for themselves.

At least that's the way I see it.

Small clarification, as it doesn't seem extra clear in rereading my post:

I think most folks have the desire to forcefully advocate for a creative vision in RPGs (some folks don't realize it, I think). The thing is that in the traditional "GM as god" RPG style, the only person with that power is the GM. That leads to resentment on the part of the players who can only hope that the GM listens to them and makes their visions come true in the SIS.

So I don't think your GM-ing has changed so much as the landscape around it.

But, Coxcomb, you DID have the opportunity to fight for your vision.

You could have said to the GM, "Wait, why did you do that? I'd really like for my character to be able to have a chance to fulfill this piece of drama."

The only difference is that you'd be modifying the social contract of your group to do so.

coxcomb wrote: I think most folks have the desire to forcefully advocate for a creative vision in RPGs (some folks don't realize it, I think).

Vaxalon: Fair to say, however, that coxcomb probably had limited (perhaps non-existent) opportunities to fight for that vision within the context of the rules?

That's fair to say, certainly.

I guess I've never felt that trying to steer the game from the player's chair was a problem.

With some GM's, I had to be a little sneaky... "Oh, man... don't tell me John is going to fall in love with Marsha... I mean, with the war on and all, you KNOW that the wedding would get attacked by ninjas." When this is said in front of some GM's, they get a twinkle in their eye. Some other player then says, "SHh! Dammit Fred, what do we keep telling you about saying that kind of stuff out loud!?!"

Vaxalon wrote: I guess I've never felt that trying to steer the game from the player's chair was a problem.

With some GM's, I had to be a little sneaky... "Oh, man... don't tell me John is going to fall in love with Marsha... I mean, with the war on and all, you KNOW that the wedding would get attacked by ninjas." When this is said in front of some GM's, they get a twinkle in their eye. Some other player then says, "SHh! Dammit Fred, what do we keep telling you about saying that kind of stuff out loud!?!"

For want of better words, what Vaxalon is describing is influence, rather than power.

Having only influence over things essential to your happiness can be poisonous to both the person without power and the person with it. It makes the empowered person (in this case the GM) responsible for the happiness or sadness of the disempowered (in this case the players).

Actually, Coxcomb didn't say that he had ever expressed a desire for that piece of drama to be used, aside from playing it.

Now for me, playing it SHOULD be enough, but not all GM's are so perspicacious.

Dr. Kettridge here...

"System does matter" -- here, in three ways.

Most obviously, Capes has no GM. But that's a bit of a red herring, because in the absence of other mechanics (system), there's nothing to stop one dominant personality, GM or not, from riding roughshod over other players' idea for the story.

Most importantly, traditional RPGs have lots of mechanics for Doing Stuff (especially combat & magic), but none for shaping the overall story; in Capes (and other games like Universalis and With Great Power... that I know less well) the mechanics are all about the shape of the story. Having rules and resources that you can use to make things you care about actually happen is a lot easier than "just roleplaying it" and hoping the GM takes the hint. (N.B. Anyone notice I'm not a fan of pure Drama resolution?)

Most innovatively, and most peculiar to Capes (although Trollbabe's "loser narrates outcome" rule does this in a looser way), in this game it pays to lose. If your opponent invests game resources (Debt) making something they care about happen, and you're willing to lose, then their investment is handed to you, the loser, as a resource (Story Tokens).

In this particular situation, by investing moderately in an earlier conflict, "Kettridge impresses Fistfire," I'd already established the two things I most cared about for my character, Dr. Kettridge: (1) He's damn cool (I explicitly said he's played in the movie version by Lawrence Fishburne); (2) Fistfire has an emotional connection to Kettridge.

So when Tony thought he was threatening me by attempting to "undermine trust," I was perfectly fine with it: Goal (1), "be cool," isn't affected at all; and Goal (2), form a connection, is enhanced, because now it's an ambivalent relationship: Not only is that more interesting dramatically (I'd already been coming up with my own ways to complicate the connection), it's a source of future conflicts in-game -- which means more opportunities to lose.

Bottom line:
Short term: Tony wins conflict "undermine trust." I get Story Tokens. It's a windfall!
Long term: Tony has sown seeds of future conflicts about trust. I can lose those conflicts and get more Story Tokens, again and again. It's an income stream!

(No, I'm not so clever as to have done this on purpose. I only figured out the long-term income stream aspect of this just now).

Conversely, I picked some Story Tokens up from Tony by setting up a conflict between Kettridge and his character, the sorceror-scientist supergenius Vanessa Faust, about "who's the better scientist?" And the most rewarding single moment of the game for me was the look on Tony's face when he saw that conflict come out: a mixture of surprise, delight, and greed. Because -- and I said this out loud at the table -- it's not essential to the character of Kettridge to be the best scientist, but it is essential to the character of Faust. So I gave Tony a golden opportunity to establish something about his character, namely her staggering genius; in return, he gave me Story Tokens.

Capitalism at its finest.

{EDIT: To revise an old cliche, in Capes, if you smack a man upside the head with a fish, you've fed him for a day; if you throw him into a pool full of sharks with lasers on their heads, you've fed him for a lifetime.}

Sydney Freedberg wrote: Capitalism at its finest.

Vaxalon wrote: Actually, Coxcomb didn't say that he had ever expressed a desire for that piece of drama to be used, aside from playing it.

Now for me, playing it SHOULD be enough, but not all GM's are so perspicacious.

Do you think that particular GM would ever participate in a game of Capes?

Vaxalon wrote: most RPGers have no problem with being led around by the nose.

I can't understand how someone can have a desire, but not realize it...

Vaxalon wrote: Do you think that particular GM would ever participate in a game of Capes?

coxcomb wrote: My feeling is that a system like Capes suddenly makes having an agenda not only OK, but essentially required. And I think that is the freedom that Tony is feeling and enjoying. If the players really don't like it, they won't sulk and get pissed--they have recourse in the confines of the system to try to stop it.

TheCzech wrote: Somehow this "capitalist" game creates a communal effort. It's the darndest thing.

Okay, praise for Capes aside (not that I don't appreciate it... I would revel openly, but it's unseemly) I don't know whether the capitalist thing, per se can be the cause of the experience I also had in Dogs. I mean, Dogs doesn't have the same "cooperate to be rewarded" mechanic in play.

It does, however, have substantial player control... greater than the GM in almost every instance, in my estimation. Is that the common element?

I have said on occasion that GMing can be the most humbling of experiences because when a game session goes wrong, it's obvious why it is your fault, but when it goes right, it doesn't seem like you did anything at all.

This system also eliminates that problem by eliminating the GM. You can have an off night and still have fun because you don't feel like you ruined everything. The weight of responsibility is lifted. Your will only becomes reality when you both care enough to enforce it and are on your game mechanics-wise. So your best ideas are far more likely to make it in than your less spectacular ones.

coxcomb wrote:

Vaxalon wrote: Do you think that particular GM would ever participate in a game of Capes?

Not in a million years!

He likes to be in control. I think he classifies "GM-less" play along with "diceless play" as not really being role-playing.

TonyLB wrote: Okay, praise for Capes aside (not that I don't appreciate it... I would revel openly, but it's unseemly) I don't know whether the capitalist thing, per se can be the cause of the experience I also had in Dogs. I mean, Dogs doesn't have the same "cooperate to be rewarded" mechanic in play.

It does, however, have substantial player control... greater than the GM in almost every instance, in my estimation. Is that the common element?

TonyLB wrote: I don't know whether the capitalist thing, per se can be the cause of the experience I also had in Dogs.

Sydney Freedberg wrote: Should we take this up in theory with a post on incentivization or something?)

Go for it. I've got a few things to ramble about on resource-incentives (Capes) vs. narratiion-rights-incentives (Dogs), and that's probably a better place to do it than here.

Hi there,

Fred, you might get some mileage out of considering that no one, especially me, has ever said "The Rules Matter."

The line is, System Does Matter. Huge difference. The glossary is quite clear on the difference between the two. Everything you just said about changing the rules supports the point being made about System, and is no challenge whatsoever to the outlook that most of us hold here.

Best,
Ron

Getting back to the topic that Tony kicked things off with: I think that Jay is on to something. Namely, some games have mechanics that provide overt support for negotiation of what happens. In other games this sort of negotiation still happens, but it is covert and/or tacit.

When all the negotiation is codified you don't have lingering worries about using social position to dominate play. You don't feel like you're trampling the other player's contributions. With a system that allows their contributions to have mechanical support you don't worry about them just not speaking up. I mean, the rules tell them to do so.

Vax is right though, in a group that doesn't worry about those concerns anyway, the rules won't contribute to that. It has been my experience that not many groups are at this point though, so the rules are a nice help.

Thomas

I think what I have been trying to say is that for people who have a creative vision (to continue using Tony's words for it) to promote, playing a game that lets everyone do that to one extent or another is refreshing.

In a traditional game filled with notions of the Impossible Thing Before Breakfast, you have one of two positions according to the system:

1.) You're the GM and what you say goes, because it's your story.

2.) You're a player and what you say goes if and only if the GM says it goes, because even though you are telling your character's story, you are telling it within the framework of the GM's story.

Here I am just talking about the rules as printed, not about the groups interpretations of those rules at the social contract level.

My assertion is that, because the rules as printed (which are often taken as gospel) set up this situation, a more collaborative minded GM can feel like pushing his own agenda without accouting for the desires of players is a Bad Thing. Maybe even railroading.

That same GM, when put into the context of a system (again, rules as written)that lets all players have input to push their own agendas can feel free to push his agenda, knowing that he is not forcing everyone else to do what he wants--they can push back in a meaningful way that is defined by the system.

I totally agree with Vaxalon that players and GMs using any system can work this out at the raw social contract level. But having it in the system as written is a huge help.

By the way, I just posted on Incentive Systems and Wanting to Lose in RPG theory, to give that discussion a Home of Its Own.

Jay: Yeah... YEAH! With one caveat, that sounds very much like what I'm feeling.

The caveat is this: Players, particularly smart, devious, dominant players who know how to become "the player who makes things happen" can just as easily end up in the position where their actions run the risk of ruining the fun of other players. It's primarily a GM thing, but not exclusively.

And while I agree in theory with Vaxalon that you can work these things out at the level of social contract, you can't do it by just saying "Let's work this out". Words, and particularly the words of just one person, don't really make a lot of impact on social contract, in my experience. People will say "Yeah, of course, we're the players and we're driving the story... so, what story do you want us to drive?" (actual quote, may God have mercy on us all)

Hrm... I'll have to consult my search-fu, but that might be a question for RPG Theory as well: "What are the tensions and impacts of Stated Social Contract versus Actual Social Contract"?

TonyLB wrote: And while I agree in theory with Vaxalon that you can work these things out at the level of social contract, you can't do it by just saying "Let's work this out". Words, and particularly the words of just one person, don't really make a lot of impact on social contract, in my experience. People will say "Yeah, of course, we're the players and we're driving the story... so, what story do you want us to drive?" (actual quote, may God have mercy on us all)

coxcomb wrote:
I totally agree with Vaxalon that players and GMs using any system can work this out at the raw social contract level. But having it in the system as written is a huge help.

LordSmerf wrote:
...some games have mechanics that provide overt support for negotiation of what happens. In other games this sort of negotiation still happens, but it is covert and/or tacit.

When all the negotiation is codified you don't have lingering worries about using social position to dominate play. You don't feel like you're trampling the other player's contributions. With a system that allows their contributions to have mechanical support you don't worry about them just not speaking up. I mean, the rules tell them to do so.

Vaxalon wrote: A game group that values player contributions will value them whether the ruleset supports negotiation or not. I don't see a big difference between making a contribution, and expressing dissatisfaction if one's contribution is being "trampled".

Vaxalon wrote:
You don't seem to be getting my point... the only reason that the players FOLLOW the rules as written, is that the social contract demands it! The rules as written have NO intrinsic power in the game group, NONE, they only have the power ascribed to them by the participants!

Game groups produce game systems (in the Forge sense of the word) that conform to the way they want to run their games both by selecting rulesets that facilitate their style of play, and by drifting those rulesets to further conform to their style of play. People are INCREDIBLY stubborn.

At this point I think my original question may have been given an answer that (if not necessarily true) is supported by most of the posters. To wit:

• My recent good experiences are due to a feeling of being one among equals, and therefore not required to "hold back" lest my mighty thews of GM-authority should overwhelm some poor player's fun.
• That feeling of equality and non-responsibility comes from being on an equal power footing with other players.
• That feeling of equality and non-responsibility cannot come from accepting and approving their requests, no matter how scrupulous I am about doing so.
• Rules systems may (or may not) have something to do with that, which is a whole different discussion.
• The feeling should be reproducible under the same conditions. Yay!

If people have something genuinely new to contribute (either as an alternate explanation of my experience, or to elaborate or contradict one of these points) then the thread should stay open. Otherwise, yeah, I think we could spawn off a "Rules Credibility" thread in Theory and close this one.

My search-Fu has failed me on Rules Credibility. "Social Contract" doesn't really narrow it down here, y'know? If anyone with more experience knows of a previous discussion that covers much of this ground then we won't have to reinvent the wheel.

TonyLB wrote: At this point I think my original question may have been given an answer that (if not necessarily true) is supported by most of the posters. To wit:

• My recent good experiences are due to a feeling of being one among equals, and therefore not required to "hold back" lest my mighty thews of GM-authority should overwhelm some poor player's fun.
• That feeling of equality and non-responsibility comes from being on an equal power footing with other players.


<snip>