If this post should go in another forum, please, move it.

In this thread...

Tony's Standard Rant

Tony stated that Capes was a heavily Narrativist system. While I have not actually played Capes yet, I have read the rules and I've followed the postings in Actual Play and other forums very closely. I found Tony's statement a little surprising. Capes seems to me to be a Hybrid System to me with Gamism and Narrativism almost equally supported and maybe even leaning a bit to the Gamist side of things.

At least from reading Tony's play posts, I have assumed that he's approached the game with Gamist intentions. Sure, the Goals allow the players to really define what they want to address in terms Premise. However, it looks like to me that these Goals are really just arenas for impressing everyone with clever and gutsy play in terms of resource management.... ie, Step On Up at a really basic level.

Don't get me wrong. I definately see Narrativist stuff going on. Much Premise being addressed. But I see lots of strategy, tactics, and gambles going on too with lots of in-game goals and out-of-game social standing being staked. That last part seems to me to be totally Gamist... and from reading Tony's posts it seems that way by design.

Is it possible for a game to support Gamism and Narrativism equally well with little to no rules drift?

Quick quibble: I meant to convey that my Capes game, which I actually play, at set times, with real people, was heavily Narrativist. Step On Up is, absolutely, part and parcel of the system and of our particular game. But the why of it, the reason we do it all, is to address Premise. Maybe other people will use the same system for different reasons. I can't speak to that.

Hello Andrew,

You might be interested in my full Capes analysis located here:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=15262

My analysis (informed by reading only, no actual play yet) boils down to this: strategy and tactics in Capes plays the same role as realism in The Riddle of Steel. It provides the "pressure" for the REAL priority, addressing the conflicts in Capes, and addressing the Spiritual Attributes in The Riddle of Steel. (The source of Premise in each game, respectively).

In The Riddle of Steel, if reveling in the realism becomes the point of play then you're going to go through characters like water as they get shreaded limb from limb. Similarly, it is my belief, that if beating the other players for story control becomes the point, things are going to get hostal very very fast and the game will disintigrate at the social level. My full reasons are give in the link provided.

Jesse

Thanks Jesse and Tony,

That clears it up for me quite a bit. Capes has been a really hard game for me to come to grips with. Actual Play reports kept hopping back and forth between looking Narrative and looking Gamist. I was smacking myself in the head going, "What the hell is this thing?" I think I have a better grasp of it now.

For the love of God, please play the game! The game text is not the game. Capes demands you participate and not just observe. Something magic happens during play that secondhand experience doesn't do justice to.

In short, stop splitting hairs over theory and play. :-) Do theory for postmortem.

Miskatonic,

You're about a month late on this one but the point is taken. I intend to play this game at GenCon if anyone will run a session. I am without players willing to jump into this type of game here at home.