Okay, so as promised on my DexCon 8 Actual Play thread, I'm going to try to tackle each of the games I played at DexCon more in depth.  I had a lot of fun in most of these games, and it was some of the best gaming of my RPG career.  So, take as read that I enjoyed each of the games other than In Nomine (and there I could even notice some potential for the game, if not for most of the people I was playing with).  I expect, therefore, that most of what I write will be criticisms and/or concerns.  So, if I'm digging into your game, please do not assume I hated my time with it.  Another disclaimer: I am very nervous that tone might be misinterpreted over the intraweb, which is why I have been hesitant up to this point to get really specific.  I am also worried about my coherency in making these points.  Anyway, this is all a longwinded way of saying that I intend the following to be gently received, and hope you treat me gently in kind.

Finally, while I might start off talking about one game, I might fall into a rabbit hole of related discussion and theory.  Forgive me if this is irksome.

Capes

I love the simplicity of character generation in this, and how much fun you can have with the thousands of possible splat combinations.  I love making characters and it's so easy in this game.

So concerns.  It was probably just because it was a demo, but I didn't feel like I had the opportunity to express/develop/explore my character's personality in any way.  That may be my fault, too.  But it was all, "Bam, here's the action! Bam, do something about this! Bam, now this happens!"  I need to play a scenario rather than a demo and see how it goes.

Capes is one of those heavily turn-focused games that makes me nervous.  I'm not sure why this turn-based issue does make me nervous.  I'm going to ramble and see if I can get to something pointed and coherent.  I really enjoy being able to meander and explore my character, and others' characters, and the setting.  I like to have some in-character byplay that is entertaining (a la Clerks' many "off-topic, in game" conversations).  I guess I feel like when it's someone else's turn, I really shouldn't interpose myself too much.  I don't really like this because it gets in the way of that loose "let's explore each others' personalities" thing.  I worry that the entire game will all become contest and action and I won't have the chance to do the role-playing-game equivalent of pick daisies and look at butterflies or something.

This reminds me of another thing.  It seems like many of the Forge games really really feel like GAMES.  There are often win conditions, turns, rules to cover most in-game happenings.  With some of them it can feel like the pretending to be another guy is in danger of being overshadowed by the mechanics, task resolution, etc.  I wonder whether, in concentrating so much on what role playing games are, what they can do, etc., the fact that they are games has been underlined.  I'm not sure that the out-front-gaminess of them is a problem for me, but I do know that it makes me nervous.  And when I first played My Life With Master I went, "Wow, someone wins this game."  I was bemused.  I still am.

--

But, back to Capes.  In the Capes demo, I didn't feel like I ought to horn in too much on the other player's scenes, and I felt when my turn came, I basically could only do action-stuff.  Again, I think that I am unfit to judge that this is an issue with the game in general, as it was a demo, and the intent may have just been to show you what your character could do.

Rob,

Please describe some daisy-picking from another game so I can be perfectly clear what you are talking about along with any details on what it adds tot he game and your enjoyment of it.

What is making you nervous is the lack of this, so I'd like to know [glow=red,2,300]exactly[/glow] what it is.

As an example, from my nWoD paranormal-journalists game, one character was a kelptomaniac, and they spent a fun and diverting scene trying to explain to him why it might be problematic for them if he kept stealing.  There was another very fun scene where they had seen several extremely paranormal things, but one guy kept insisting on being a skeptic.  They saw a corpse burst into flames when the sun hit it, and this guy began to theorize on how maybe his body had been chemically treated to react to the sun that way.  He also suggested that the guy had demonstrated an unsual amount of strength which no doubt came from PCP, so maybe it was a strange mix of the drugs he'd taken reacting violently with the sun.  And the other two characters react with apoplexia.

Basically time to sit and chat and be your character when there isn't plot or mechanics or action driving you forward.  Riffing on a theme.  Talking about Big Macs in Amsterdam on your way to the hit.  This was particularly lacking in the Capes demo, though once again that may be a function of the fact that it was a demo designed to show how you play the action parts of the game.

That's funny... because both of your examples ("Goal:  Convince Adam to just not steal for ten FREAKIN' minutes" and "Goal:  Bob continues to deny the existence of the supernatural") look like conflicts between players (and, incidentally, between characters), to me.  Whereas the whole thing about quarter-pounders in europe is a classic conflict-less scene of a type that I have very rarely (myself) enjoyed in roleplaying.

Is this distinction just a coincidence of your particular choices, or are the daisy-picking things subtly different in RPG play than they are in movies and other fiction?

I suppose you're right that they are conflicts, but they were conflicts that didn't have (or in my opinion need) a rule to resolve them.  They argued for a bit, the players had fun with it, and then they moved on.

I value social-resolution mechanics, and I think they are especially good to break a logjam when the game has ground to a halt because of an argument between PCs, but sometimes having some "pointless" character elaboration can be a lot of fun.

With the recent profusion of social resolution mechanics I've seen in a lot of indie games, I've been worried that they might wind up getting overused.  There have been times where I felt I wanted to free-form roleplay something out a little, only to be told, "Okay, that's a conflict, let's resolve it."

TonyLB wrote:
Is this distinction just a coincidence of your particular choices, or are the daisy-picking things subtly different in RPG play than they are in movies and other fiction?

Rob,

There are specific times I can think of in your games in Jersey when a social conflict resolution would have saved you a huge headache.

There were games that were effectively arguments and a quick Duel of Wits or resolution mechanic of some kind with the players stating their intent and going to the dice so the game could move on would help.

In a con scenario and particularly in a demo, it ain't about what they call a Whopper in France or Le Big Mac.  It is about the rules.  In a four hour scenario, when there's a conflict, I tend to pounce on it and go.  The Dogs game had players driving much, if not all of the conflicts.

You like the daisy picking but which games do you have more fun playing?  The games where conflict is accepted, intent's stated and a good system to resolve 'em or the old way, with hours of mind-numbing conflict without anything really being resolved.

I will freely admit, there's a middle ground but if a game has rules to resolve the conflict, let 'em do it to it and get it on.

RobNJ wrote:
I suppose you're right that they are conflicts, but they were conflicts that didn't have (or in my opinion need) a rule to resolve them.

There are definitely many times when having a Duel of Wits would've been very welcome in some of my local games, and I'm very happy to see--in Burning Wheel and a few other games--social-resolution mechanics that work well for me.  My issue isn't with the existence of such mechanics, but rather that they not wind up swallowing free-form role playing so much that I don't enjoy the game as much as I could.

I'm willing to admit that my experience and discomfort may have to do with the constraints of a con game.  I don't know for sure if that's so, but it may be.

Paka wrote: You like the daisy picking but which games do you have more fun playing?  The games where conflict is accepted, intent's stated and a good system to resolve 'em or the old way, with hours of mind-numbing conflict without anything really being resolved.

dyjoots wrote:

RobNJ wrote:
I suppose you're right that they are conflicts, but they were conflicts that didn't have (or in my opinion need) a rule to resolve them.

One of the things that I notice about Capes is, if you can get another player invested in a conflict, even if the conflict isn't important or scene-making, then there is an opportunity to get some story tokens or Inspirations out of it. Sure, you don't need to use a rule to resolve the conflict, and in many cases the conflict won't be introduced at all, due to other resource restraints. The fact that it can be introduced, and that there is a strong reason to introduce it, in terms of the game's currencies, means that there is no reason not to introduce it if you feel the game needs some of those conflicts.

I propose that you don't have to choose between solid conflict resolution systems that get right to the conflict and 'daisy picking'.  I think that it's not about having a scene with no conflict, it's about having a scene with a low-key conflict.

Stakes:  Do I impress my friend with my new found trivia knowlege of overseas hamburger labeling? 

With the right system (I'm thinking one that wouldn't draw such a thing out further than you wanted to go with it) then those stakes could be terribly entertaining.  And give the entertainment value of 'daisy picking' without dropping the entertainment of a structured and finite scene.

-Eric

Rob,

The way these conflicts come up is like so:

Player A:  Onions are good.

Player B:  No, radishes are better.

GM: Do we have a conflict here?

Player A: Can we let this develop for a little while, just see how it plays out before going to the conflict?

GM: Player B, you cool with that?

Player B:  Sure...

The two games you are talking about, Dogs in the Vineyard and Capes are about taking those little moments: a Dog deciding to render judgement on the very Dog who brought him into the fold or in Capes, a steampunk robot trying to get a woman to notice her.

I think the GM should let it go for a while in a weekly game with more time and players who know one another well enough to know when they are pissing each other off.  If it begins to eat into time then its time to say, "Roll the dice are shut up about this already."

Judd,

I'd like very much to see how some of these run in a weekly context.  And each table/group is probably very different.  Like I said, these are concerns, not outrages :).  I am perfectly willing to be convinced that in a more "real" setting, these aren't issues to be concerned about.

For what it's worth, my experience in Capes is that the system encourages you to do the "daisy-chaining" stuff as much as, or more than, the Big Adventure stuff, because you can get as much game-mechanical leverage (working off/up Debt, Story Tokens, Inspirations) off a little interpersonal interaction as off a giant epochal conflict -- "Goal: Tell Bob something he doesn't already know" and "Goal: Conquer the Universe" are mechanically identical -- and it's easier, in narration, to justify working the little stuff into the story. Now sometimes this does drag out tiny interactions, because they go from incidental chatter to something you can win and get resources off of.

Also remember that you can use little interpersonal nudges as individual actions in all sorts of conflicts. You can roll up your side of "Goal: Defeat Villain" with "I shoot laser beams from my fingers" or with  "'Onions? Better than radishes? Are you nuts?' I say to my sidekick as, distractedly, I zap the villain with laser beams from my fingers."

BTW, Hi, I'm Doug.  Kind of fun to recognize some more names on here.

Re: Capes.  I didn't play beyond a 10 minute quicky demo, but it sure looked and sounded like people were having fun.  It seemed almost too "pure roleplaying" to me though.  All characters appeared to be mechanically equivalent.  Not just balanced, or even starting from the same place and evolving in play.  It seemed almost like the whole game was a social resolution mechanic which ran based on implicit understanding from everyone at the table about what was reasonable.  Of course, as I said, everyone playing seemed to be having fun so a little bit of genre can structure a lot of wild ideas.

Re: With Great Powers.  Because it has obvious similarities with Capes.  Down to the fact that characters are mechanically identical.  I think the story structure made that one work for me though.  it still basically came down to some fun riffing on the genre, but we could all get our teeth into the story and use that to keep some focus.  The mechanics seemed to have a bit more tactics to them too.

Re: Social conflict mechanics.  Rob, it sounds to me like the flower picking your describing often isn't really conflict, so why bring out the mechanics.  In BW certainly, and I would guess in DitV outside of a con, you could have the little in character byplay arguments.  But you have a mechanic to fall back on when no player wants their character to cave even though they all know in their minds that the "discussion" is just going in circles.  Which, I guess, is just saying that the dice should hit the table just before people start to repeat themselves.  Which is probably a hard line to judge. 

Re: DitV.  No analysis, pure boosterism.  Thanks for a fun game guys.  I keep thinking of things I wish I had done a bit differently, but that's a good feeling. 

RobNJ wrote:

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.  I think you're saying that the imposition of a rule over a conflict doesn't have to be a bad thing.  I suppose that's true, but if you just wanted to spend five minutes having an in-character conversation that is pure flavor and fun, it can interrupt the flow and the fun of it to have to stop talking, write some stuff down, show it to the other guy, throw some dice, decide what happens, then go forward.  It's not always a negative, and sometimes you get some serious fun and later-useful chedder out of doing that kind of thing, but it can also feel like an imposition if it's overused.

From my own play experieces with Capes, 'daisy picking' seems a little tougher to get into the flow of the game, but I'm sure a lot of that is a lack of experience amongst my group as players.

We were handling the classic 'power struggle' within the team for leadership, and two characters were pretty much just having a heated argument about it. Somehow, I think we got suckered into an extremely gamist mindset, becuase we ended up with almost every line of dialogue being a roll up.

Torch: "I have years of experience, I should lead the team" - Experienced 3, roll
Mesmero: "I however have the cunning and wit to pull the job off with style" - Cunning 4, roll
Torch: "Damn you Mesmero, you're pushing my buttons!" - Close to Breaking 5, roll

And while I do like the fact that the system can support this, it felt rushed compared to how we'd play this out in another system (ie most likely one with no social mechanic). Again, I'm not pegging this as a fault of Capes, but rather a pattern of play we found ourselves in. I think the problem was recognising when enough dialogue had been spoken to 'justify' a roll on the conflict. A line from a player? A brief exchange? 10 minutes rambling diatribe from the burned out ex-super on why he was the best? The other players were happy to sit and listen, interjecting comments as and when, but again with people rolling up conflicts, we sort of slipped back into a turn structure, which *then* lead to players not in the discussion feeling they had to make a conflict they were interested in.

dyjoots wrote:

RobNJ wrote:

...  it can also feel like an imposition if it's overused.

...  specifically speaking about Capes, ANY conflict, no matter how large or how small, can be made into a Conflict, and have a significant impact on the currencies floating around the table.  To me, that's really cool, and I think it is a keen way of dealing with the daisy-picking you are talking about.

elgorade, that's certainly a worst-case-scenario concern for both Capes and some of the other indie games.

elgorade wrote: It isn't that any conflict _can_ be made into a Conflict, but that any actions at the table _have_ to be part of a Conflict. 

That's actually why I asked for some examples from RPG play of the non-conflict sub-scene.  Because Capes really doesn't support them, by design.

Part of why it doesn't support them is that I think interesting conflict-free sub-scenes are a lot rarer than people think, whereas potentially interesting scenes that get ruined because people can't get on the same page about what the conflict is are very common.  So I like to force people to dig a little bit into their brains, try to figure out what they're really after, and make that explicit.

If that's not for you, no hard feelings.  You were certainly very receptive at the demo, and who can ask more than that?

I often wonder when I hear comments about preferences like this whether its really an honest to god preference that one is enjoying.  Or whether its the comfort of being in familiar territory that one is enjoying.

Is it actually the act of "picking daisys" that you find to be really really fun in and of themselves because you really just enjoy that stuff?  Or is it that you have a history of play that involves a lot of daisy picking and so its an activity you're good at, you know how to do, and you're comfortable with.

Might the real issue not be that Capes doesn't encourage the sort of daisy picking you enjoy...but rather that what Capes does encourage is enough outside of your normal experience that the unfamiliarity of it (the "fish out of water" effect, if you will) is the true source of your nervousness.  Perhaps its not the daisy picking you're missing but the "security blanket" (if you'll forgive the term) that the daisy picking represents that you're missing.

Just speculating here to gather some data points because this is an angle of evaluating player preferences that I'm particularly interested in.

Well, Ralph, it's an interesting question but since my perspective is so core to it, I don't know how I'm to answer it.  I believe that it is a genuinely fun activity that I'm missing.  I know for example that in the Capes demo, I missed the opportunity to have framing scenes and character moments that underlined what my character was like, rather than what he could do.

But the way you structured the question, it could just be me misperceiving what about an experience is fun for me.

I dunno, Ralph. I think Rob is raising some very good points about game design and roleplay. We've focused so much on Player to Player conflict resolution, we've side-stepped IC color-based RP. What function does color roleplay serve in a game? Is it necessary? Is it wanted? How can it be integrated into conflict resolution?

This is what I'm reading from Rob's posts, and I think they are good issues to raise. (Rob, shoot me down if I'm off-base.)

Personally, I'm more on his side of the fence, than not. The comfort issue that you raise is definitely a part of it. But as a roleplayer, I need some leader in order to be able to find my feet in a scene and to find out what my character is about. I'm just not that keen of a player to able to jump into a character and go go go.

For me, those color scenes help me build a perspective. They prepare me to navigate future conflicts, even when nothing is immediately at stake.

two whole cents,
-Luke

TonyLB wrote:
That's actually why I asked for some examples from RPG play of the non-conflict sub-scene.  Because Capes really doesn't support them, by design.

There's no doubt that people enjoy non-conflict scenes (IC color RP is a good term) a lot, and use them extensively. I know I do, and from hearing others talk about their games, I know I'm not the only one. And we've been doing it for years, in a variety of games. So I don't think there's any point in saying it's a marginal way of playing, or ignoring it as a mode.

Often, at the start of such a scene, nobody knows whether it's headed for a conflict or not. That's where a system with a strong focus on establishing stakes early on can hurt the game; first of all, by establishing a conflict that doesn't have to occur, and secondly, by forcing players to define stakes when they're not ready to do so.

It's very much a matter of timing - of knowing when and if to switch to conflict mode. If scenes are defined as something ending in conflict resolution, you're pushing some players into something they don't need. If your system makes it possible to go with the flow, and allow for entire scenes consisting of color/character building/whatever you want to call it, it'll take the pressure off and allow for more relaxed and intuitive play.

Luke, you are correct in restating my feelings, so there's nothing to shoot down.  And Matt, your final paragraph was one of those "aha!" moments for me; you put it exactly as I would've liked to.  I do not reject the utility of, "Okay, this is a conflict, what are the stakes? Now let's resolve it!"  It's invaluable, but it's an ingredient of a game, and shouldn't necessarily overwhelm the "dish".

PS: This week I'll try and get to the other games I played at DexCon.