In [Capes] Takes some getting used to, Ralph wrote:

Valamir wrote: Tony. What do you perceive the purpose of the narration to be?

On the surface, without playing, I have to concur with the notion that omnipotence renders even the most dramatic narrations trivial.

Yes, but he's not in a competitive state with the other players, or rather, if he is, it's considered a pathological state.

Well, obviously I am not Tony, but there is one thing, that strikes me about the narration rules in Capes: it is very comic-y!

Someone (was it James or Fred?) over in the other thread mentioned that the narration is inconsequential. That is true (in my eyes) from the rules part. It does not really influence the way the conflict will turn out (ecept see below). But this is so very much like comics are! The hero and the villain clobber it out over pages and pages. Lot of poundings, lots of collateral damage. But nothing of this usually matters very much in the end. So Spiderman might take some heavy beating from Doc Oc but still win in the end. And all the "Spiderman gets thrown through 10 Walls, hit in the face 15 times etc." is forgotten afterwards because he won (the conflict). So Capes brilliantly captures exactly this feature of comics: nothing is decided until it is. Until it is the combattants can basically do anything to each other and their surroundings. And then the other guy always comes back (which is even a rule in Capes).

So the narration is indeed inconsequential. It only (well, if I say only, I mean greatly) influences the way people feel about the conflict (as Tony has already pointed out). Spiderman could just punch Doc Oc in the face and win the conflict. Booooring! So they throw each other around and stuff. Tension rises, Color ensues, people get invested into the outcome. And I think that is the point of the narration rules. Well, it's my take, at least.

Fred: I don't see how competitive vs. not has any bearing on whether the narration is important vs. trivial. Can you explain what you think the impact is?

Narration suffers under incredibly constraining rules so as to directly appeal to the source that makes narrations the most concrete thing it can ever be.

Credibility.

Those incredibly constraining rules are the judgements of each participant. Harsh stuff. All judgements backed up by system (story points). Even harsher!

Or am I wrong and "A bunch of constricting rules back me up on this statement...there, you have to give me credibility!!!!111!!!" actually works now? And that's how you get cred?

Okay... the difference between a gamemaster's mostly unrestrained narration, and a Capes player's mostly unrestrained narration, is that the gamemaster is not (generally speaking) attempting to use his narration to gain an advantage over the players.

Indeed, a good gamemaster uses it to empower the players, to give structure to the game and present meaningful choices to the players.

A Capes player has no intrinsic responsibility to give structure to the game, and in the competitive environment, has a vested interest in limiting the number of people who are involved in a particular conflict.

Conflicts (generally) have two sides in Capes. (splitting off a third side is an option, but one that can only be done on my turn, and which has costs that being on the first or second side doesn't entail) It is to a player's advantage to keep conflicts that he is involved in, limited to just himself and one opponent, or even none at all. If someone else elbows into the conflict on the side I'm on, they'll either bleed off story tokens if I lose, or threaten to claim-jump if it looks like I'll win.

(Side tactics note: It has struck me that if a scene isn't interesting to me, I can create side conflicts that noone else is interested in, roll up one side, and generate inspirations in the 3-5 range for myself while everyone else has their conflicts)

For this reason, it is to my advantage to use my narration competitively, to elbow other characters away from conflicts that I have my eye on, whether to win or to lose. If I am going to win it, I want to be alone in that victory so that I can narrate the resolution and gain the inspirations. If I am going to lose it, I want to be alone in losing it so that I can get the story tokens.

TonyLB wrote: In [Capes] Takes some getting used to, Ralph wrote:

Valamir wrote: Tony. What do you perceive the purpose of the narration to be?

• To express your personal creative input (i.e. "because you want to"), and
• To attempt to sway the later choices of other players.

Why is it important to sway the choices of other players? Because, if you view the game purely as an attempt to win whatever conflicts other people toss at you then you are going to lose, and badly. Over and over again. Strange, but true.

The system rewards players who make other players care about Conflicts, win or lose. There are relatively few mechanical ways to do that. You mostly do it through narration, and through appreciating the narration of others, so as to understand what their creative priorities are and better target them.

If people are consistently addressing issues that they don't care about... then yeah, you've got a problem. But it's not a problem that the game system caused. It would have been with you in any game system. Capes just makes it screamingly obvious from the moment you start playing.

On the surface, without playing, I have to concur with the notion that omnipotence renders even the most dramatic narrations trivial.

Valamir wrote: Perhaps Capes would benefit from a positive reinforcing mechanism like Fan Mail from PTA or Gift Dice from TSOY.

Isn't omnipotent narration the default state for the GM in almost every other RPG ever created? Do you think GM narrations are all trivial, or is there a difference?

The difference I would see (and which others have already noted) is that ideally the GM is a "referee". His sole reward for play is to acknowledged as a "Great GM" by his players. The rules will often also provide guidelines and text that outline recommended limits to the GMs power which the GM will typically abide by. If the Fireball is said to have a 30 foot radius...most GMs won't arbitrarily announce that this one only has a 10 foot radius so the magic user missed half of the orcs.

Capes has no rules for anything other than the mechanism to win and claim conflicts. The rest is up to player imagination...but imagination without contraint.

TonyLB wrote:

Valamir wrote: Perhaps Capes would benefit from a positive reinforcing mechanism like Fan Mail from PTA or Gift Dice from TSOY.

In addition to Story Tokens, you mean?

If I read this correctly, this is all about motivation. Adherence to the recommended limits is just a tool to secure your goal ("Great GM" status).
Yes, you could make a Fireball distribute party favors instead of damage, but it would in no way benefit your goal in the game, so you don't. Problem solved. Is that what you're saying?

Capes has no rules for anything other than the mechanism to win and claim conflicts. The rest is up to player imagination...but imagination without contraint.

And now I'm confused again. Capes provides people motivation to tailor their narration in ways that are interesting and engaging to the other players.

Which I think is what you're describing as the only real formative influence on GM narration as well. So why is further constraint necessary in this case, but not in the case of the GM?

And what does any of this have to do with whether the narration is important or trivial? How does narration become more trivial based on the motivation of the person narrating it?

I'm personally a bit worried by the claim that free narration making other players care about conflicts is vital to the game. If that really is the case, isn't there the risk that the game will become solved, with whichever player is the best persuader winning all the conflicts every time?

The problem, I think, is that the conflicts in Capes aren't necessarily meant for resolving actual conflicts between players! This is because by even starting one you're actually doing the other players a favour - by giving them a chance to get involved and use the rule system - as opposed to just free-narrating whatever controversial thing you wanted to do, in which case nobody could have stopped you.

The exception is if you throw a Goal on another player as an attack, but that slows down both of you which might not be worth it. After all, if you create the Goal of "destroying the villains' underground base", then you will take several turns to play it out, in which time the other heroes have destroyed the villain's space station, moon base, oil rig and submarine because they - not using conflicts - only took one turn per destruction.

(And yes, the villains can rebuild those bases instantly but, as far as I can tell, they can do the same with the Goal-destroyed underground base. As soon as the Goal is resolved and the card is off the table they can free-narrate the base right back again.)

Looking at it from subtractive theory, Capes doesn't subtract anything from the game experience unless the players want it to, which means it's "DWYL-or-maybe-not". Since the objective is to cut the sucky bits out of DWYL, how it plays is going to depend on how well the players identify what needs to be subtracted..

Valamir wrote: ...if I understand the rules right, Story Tokens 1) aren't rewarded until after a goal resolves, 2) only if debt was staked by the winner, and 3) only to opposition. I don't know how frequently goals resolve without debt having been staked in practice, so I can't speak to #2. But for #1...generally rewards are most effective when they are granted in close proximity to the event that earned them and for #3 sometimes the person you want to reward would be on your own "side". Also, something I'm not clear on...if there is only 1 player who opposed you do they automatically get all of the story tokens...even if the awarding player thought the job they did opposing was poor?

hyphz wrote: ...the villains can rebuild those bases instantly but, as far as I can tell, they can do the same with the Goal-destroyed underground base. As soon as the Goal is resolved and the card is off the table they can free-narrate the base right back again.

Valamir wrote: All of which is to say that I'm a bit fuzzy on how effective a positive reinforcing tool Story Tokens are in practice.

Kid Virtue has introduced "Goal: Decide who is team leader."

Intergalactic is an all-powerful member of the team. His player wants to make Kid Virtue care more about the conflict he's introduced. So he throws the Hulk into the sun. This is (mechanically) on the "Goal: Hulk more powerful than Intergalactic" Conflict. But it also shows exactly the kind of leader that Intergalactic would be (i.e. a heartless, amoral, destructive one). So it's having indirect effects on the "Team Leader" conflict as well.

If Kid Virtue's player was considering making an argument along the lines of "Leadership shouldn't be about just power, but about how you use that power," he is now much more likely to go with that argument. The conflict is now more interesting, both to him and to Intergalactic's player.

The narration has helped to draw the battle-lines clearly and compellingly. That directly serves the goals of Intergalactic's player, and also makes for a good story.

TonyLB wrote:

Valamir wrote: All of which is to say that I'm a bit fuzzy on how effective a positive reinforcing tool Story Tokens are in practice.

Yeah, you are. But let's take this one item at a time, okay? Grant me, for the moment, that Story Tokens work exactly as I've said they do:

• You only get them by providing adversity to other players, expressed by contesting a Conflict
• You only get them when the other players care about that adversity, find it interesting and find it challenging
• You only get them when you let the other players get what they care about in-game (in short, when your character loses)
• You want them, always

If you grant all those things (which I'm prepared to explain, but later) I hope that you will see that, taken together, they address the issues you've been raising about constraint and freedom.

Intergalactic is an all-powerful member of the team. His player wants to make Kid Virtue care more about the conflict he's introduced. So he throws the Hulk into the sun. This is (mechanically) on the "Goal: Hulk more powerful than Intergalactic" Conflict. But it also shows exactly the kind of leader that Intergalactic would be (i.e. a heartless, amoral, destructive one). So it's having indirect effects on the "Team Leader" conflict as well.

If Kid Virtue's player was considering making an argument along the lines of "Leadership shouldn't be about just power, but about how you use that power," he is now much more likely to go with that argument. The conflict is now more interesting, both to him and to Intergalactic's player.

The narration has helped to draw the battle-lines clearly and compellingly. That directly serves the goals of Intergalactic's player, and also makes for a good story.

Set aside your speculation about how the system might work for a moment. This is how the system does work, in every single one of the dozens of sessions I've played. Do you see how the Story Token reward mechanic informs and shapes all of that, without need for additional constraints?

Let me see if I'm correctly interpreting your points:

• Story Tokens don't reinforce quality play, because there is nothing in the system that provides a meaningful landscape of subjective choices, and
• Narration doesn't provide a meaningful landscape of subjective choices, because there is nothing in the system that reinforces quality play

Is that about where you stand? Have I missed something?

Valamir wrote: I understand completely that this is how the system has worked for YOU. You know exactly how its supposed to work and are voluntarily keeping yourself within bounds. But I submitt that you may be experiencing a key reason why outside playtest is even more important than internal. Vax and James's experience (on the surface) seem far more likely to represent what actual play will look like much of the time for the average gamer than your play experience because you know the game far better than anyone, have a vested interest in displaying it in its best light, and may be too close to the project to see this as a problem.

I preface this with "I haven't played Capes." But my comments are NOT directly aimed at Capes but instead at the issue of unrestricted narration rights.

The question has been asked why unrestricted GM narration isn't trivial while unrestricted narration on the part of any player at any time is? The answer is simple, at least it seems to me. The GM's narration isn't trivial because it CAN'T be immediately un-narrated out of existence. If the GM narrates something or gives the nod to another player's narration, it becomes a fixture of SIS. Unrestricted narration rights by all players makes narration trivial because anything and everything can immediately be undone by anyone at their whim. Nothing is a true fixture of the SIS.

With the right group, unrestricted narration rights probably works great. But I can see problems arising if you are playing something like a Convention game where your ability to pick and choose the right players is hampered. Personally, I would be more comfortable with some sort of mechanic that gave some cement to narrated elements of the SIS in play. I don't think I'd like my SIS to be in that much of a state of flux that unrestricted narration could create.

TonyLB wrote: Let me see if I'm correctly interpreting your points:

• Story Tokens don't reinforce quality play, because there is nothing in the system that provides a meaningful landscape of subjective choices, and
• Narration doesn't provide a meaningful landscape of subjective choices, because there is nothing in the system that reinforces quality play

Is that about where you stand? Have I missed something?

My position is a) Capes is hard to learn, b) Capes is not broken. I have seen the mechanisms Tony descibes in action. Works like a charm.

I have noticed in a lot of the play examples where people are experiencing problems, there is no Comics Code in effect. As Doug pointed out, the Comics Code is effectively the only written social contract. I'd suggest that the Comics Code is not optional. Simple things like "You can't kill innocents," and "You can't destroy the world," remove a lot of the more offensive possibilities.

Ralph, the game pays you (in Story Tokens) for letting the other player win the conflict he cares about. How do you know he cares about it? Because he just risked taking double Debt to split the die. Does that explain the economy better?

The paper boy example would probably fail, because non-supers don't get Debt to stake. So any super could trounce his goals if he cared enough to do so.

It seems like a lot of these issues are coming down to "Well somebody could do such and such..." Sure, but they don't. Why would they do something goofy like that? Is that really the story they are interested in telling? (I suppose.) Are the other players also interested in telling that story? (Doubtful.)

(We are all clear here that the game is not about my guy clobberin' your guy, right? )

Winning in Capes means telling the story you want to tell. You can only tell the story you want if the other players do not strongly object. If you go burning your bridges with irritating narration, you're shooting yourself in the foot.

I wanna see how this game plays with non-gamers. I'm starting to suspect a lot of this is ingrained gamer think.

Gaerik wrote: The question has been asked why unrestricted GM narration isn't trivial while unrestricted narration on the part of any player at any time is? The answer is simple, at least it seems to me. The GM's narration isn't trivial because it CAN'T be immediately un-narrated out of existence. If the GM narrates something or gives the nod to another player's narration, it becomes a fixture of SIS.

Ralph: Cool. Pardon my human weakness, but I find that much easier to parse than the longer posts.

I agree in part with #1: The behavior being motivated is more complex than simply catering to the desires of the other players. You are being motivated to game the system, as you said.

But, as you've also noted, the decisions of other players are a part of that system. I'll add that there is mechanical feedback showing the state of each player's mind at most steps.

• What conflicts is Player A interested in? Look where his Debt is staked, and you know.
• How much does he want to win it? Well, is he spending Story Tokens on it? Inspirations?
• What manner of conflict, if created, would secure his interest? What Drives has he got Debt sitting on?

Given that these things are objectively on the table, I don't think it's possible to draw a sharp dichotomy between "strategic thinking" and "creative/interpersonal thinking." Do you disagree?


I think we're both in agreement that the Conflict system is an attempt to directly address #2, yes? The ability to define any Conflict, and then use it by way of the Not-Yet rule provides what I like to call "put up or shut up" authority. You can apply an absolute constraint, and it gives you opportunities, but it costs you something (i.e. your action). You do it only when (a) it's likely to earn more than it costs or (b) the narrative control is worth the resource-loss.

Before I start going on about the differences between our opinions of Conflicts as a constraint tool, can you tell me whether you also think we're both in agreement on the above point?

Miskatonic wrote: Simple things like "You can't kill innocents," and "You can't destroy the world," remove a lot of the more offensive possibilities.

Chrysalis Actual Play wrote: Me: So, killing innocents is against our Comics Code, right?
Eric: I don't think so. Should it be?
Me: Errr... okay, I guess not, if you'd rather not. I can adapt to that.
Sydney: But we can't destroy the entire time-space continuum.
Me: Well, why not? It's not that big a step beyond letting an innocent die.
Sydney: But... but where would we tell the story after that?
Eric: I'm sure we'd figure something out.
Me: But we can't kill spotlight characters, right?
Sydney: Oh no! Of course not!
Eric: That would just be wrong.
Me: Whereas destroying the universe is good clean fun, because we can always get it back. Got it!

TonyLB wrote: Given that these things are objectively on the table, I don't think it's possible to draw a sharp dichotomy between "strategic thinking" and "creative/interpersonal thinking." Do you disagree?

I think we're both in agreement that the Conflict system is an attempt to directly address #2, yes? The ability to define any Conflict, and then use it by way of the Not-Yet rule provides what I like to call "put up or shut up" authority. You can apply an absolute constraint, and it gives you opportunities, but it costs you something (i.e. your action). You do it only when (a) it's likely to earn more than it costs or (b) the narrative control is worth the resource-loss.

Valamir wrote: Now comes the more important question. I've started with the extreme case (absurd and ridiculous) because its easier to illustrate, but the real day to day practical application comes not when I'm being a dick with my narration, but when my image of what is going on is so different from yours that what appears reasonable and sensible to me (based on my honest image) appears absurd and ridiculous to you (based on your honest image). So here we have 2 fair minded, quality players, both committed to mutual enjoyment in the game who have a disagreement on that narration.

Currently what I've heard is that you're stuck with it...tough noogies.

Miskatonic wrote: I'd suggest that the Comics Code is not optional. Simple things like "You can't kill innocents," and "You can't destroy the world," remove a lot of the more offensive possibilities.

Yeah, I posted about it up here. It doesn't have very much in it, but we all know that there isn't very much in it, so that's cool.

Yeah, I loved that thread. I had it in mind when I wrote above that I could use a conflict for a preconceived defense the way you did to prevent human slaughter. BUT having that ability DIDN'T help with the initial slaughter of humans...because it wasn't in play yet. Instead of narrating just a few deaths the other player could have narrated that he killed every single human in a 20 mile radius. By the time it got back to your turn...it would have been too late for your defensive conflict to matter.

That's why I suggested earlier the possibility of reaction conflicts. The very first time he says "I'm killing a bunch of humans" you say "lets make that a Conflict". That way there is no occassion where he can narrate something you're completely against without recourse. If your completely against it you can always make it a Conflict (in reaction) and stake however much debt as you want to make it stick.

A rule change that simple would go miles towards addressing all of the concerns that have been raised about unlimited omnipotent narration...because it would no longer be unlimited. It would be limited by the degree of tolerance your fellow players have before turning it into a Conflict.

Boom...some weenie decides his 98 pound weakling is going to hurl the Hulk into the sun? Nope...that just became a conflict. Now there's a chance to prevent it from happening altogether. There's a recourse in the system beyond "suck it up and take it".

I think this is completely in line with the whole Put up or Shut up mentality. It provides an opportunity for a player to decide to Put Up where before his only option was to shut up.


As for your second point, about figuring out exactly what I'm worried about. In many cases what I'd be worried about is some narration being so horrendously stupid that it makes me grit my teeth and fail my Suspension of Disbelief check. Like any of a half a dozen scenes from the movie Starship Troopers that made me wonder if the writers had two brain cells to rub together. It only takes a couple of incidents of shear absurdity to ruin a movie. It only takes a couple of incidents of shear absurdity to ruin a game session.

When you say "if you have any other out, you'll use it" I'd love more examples of what those other outs are...because its those other outs that I'm suggesting Capes might be missing.

Do you feel that there are actually situations where players cannot agree on a contribution to the game, but where no specific personal agendas of any sort are at stake?

Valamir wrote: As for your second point, about figuring out exactly what I'm worried about. In many cases what I'd be worried about is some narration being so horrendously stupid that it makes me grit my teeth and fail my Suspension of Disbelief check.

When you say "if you have any other out, you'll use it" I'd love more examples of what those other outs are...because its those other outs that I'm suggesting Capes might be missing.

... players aren't allowed to work out their disagreements on a contribution. That a player doesn't have the right to say "hey that sucks, come up with something different" and even if they tried they've got nothing to pack it up with stronger than "pretty please".

People keep mentioning the Comic Code...does it have any teeth to it? If part of the code was "you must restrict all of your narration to activities that are actually within the realm of probability for the characters being narrated for"...is there any mechanics to enforce that on some one who chooses to ignore it?

The comics code is basically a codified, formalized (that is, structural) "pretty please" that the players agree to ahead of time.

TonyLB wrote: Interesting. Would that imply that in a game with a (potentially) all-powerful GM, the narration of a player is trivial, until ratified by the GM?

No, it's not a diversion, I think, that's very germaine.

Capes is far more GMless than even GMless games like Universalis.

Tony, -- or maybe Ralph, since he asked the question:

Is this thread concerned with all narration in Capes or just free narration outside the Conflict system?

TonyLB wrote: Out of interest: In this hypothetical, does the player narrating set out to do something horrendously stupid? Or are they trying to do their best?

Yes, Capes is missing those, by design.

"Do you feel that there is any situation where you, all on your own, cannot be comfortable with another player's contribution, and where you have no specific personal agenda involved?"

Holy crap, Mike. That reads like a very snide post. How's about I give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you're not being a jerk? Cuz I really don't think you mean to be.

But damn! "Rhetoric"? Tony disagrees with you and Ralph. That's not rhetoric. That's him stating his position.

And good lord, there's this:

Ralph, Fred, myself; we're bad people because we have standards? And would like merely to have some way to express them during the game?

Erm... the word "rhetoric" has some negative connotations sometimes, but it can also mean "using language persuasively" which is, I think, the sense Mike is using it here.

Mike Holmes wrote: Now, this is the point in your rhetoric where you say, "Well, if the person is doing their best, then you should just accept that, and move on." At least you've said this a couple of times before, or things to that effect. Well, that's akin to playing in a band, and not being allowed to tell another player when his playing stinks, or even give him suggestions on how to do better.

I'm glad you said that, Tony. It gets right to the heart of an aspect of Universalis that I have found hard to articulate. Several people have brought it up on the Forge before -- the idea of Uni having a kind of "alpha male" vibe going on. And I don't mean that in a derogatory way at all.

I played Universalis with a pool of regular players that was 75% female. And yet the game still had this kind of masculine vibe. I think I get it now.

In Uni, the core assumption is that everything can be challenged. Any idea might have to defend itself at any time, or be tossed aside. This is the Challenge mechanic. If I'm willing to throw in my coins, I am in a position to judge and police everything another player says during the game. My play experiences with this mechanic have been overwhelmingly positive and I think it's a fine piece of work.

But it's just... well, it's very yang. It's aggressive. Dominant. We all tell a story together, but we can fight each other tooth and nail to keep our own vision intact when we want to. It's the yang side of things.

Capes is the yin. It has a totally different core assumption. In Capes, every idea is accepted by default. It's open and receptive -- even passive in a strange way -- and asks players to shift their own perceptions rather than try to dominate.

And so we talk past each other in this discussion. "Capes is yin!" "Why can't it be yang?"

I think this is such a deep-down core feeling that it just seems "obvious" to do it one way or the other. And so we start making value judgements. Dominance is bad. Passivity is wrong. And so on.

What's obvious to me now is that these are two poles of the same issue. They each have their merits and they will not work for everyone. Maybe if we can at least stipulate that there is a yin side, and it's appealing to some players, AND that Tony is clearly going for this goal in Capes -- then maybe we can talk constructively about how it's achieving that goal and where/how to add in some yang elements for those that want them.

Couple of responses immediately come to mind with that John. There've been several threads about the Yanginess of Uni and can accept and even endorse that. But to suggest that Capes is Yin...that seems abit of a stretch to me. When every aspect of the game promotes pure unadulterated competition...when Tony agrees that you can't play Capes unless you're "out for blood"...that doesn't sound very Yin to me.

Tony's Actual Play posts are about as far from passive as one can conceive of. Its far more "fight each other tooth and nail" than Uni is.

So, to use the Yin and Yang idea you've brought up...my concern is (and its only a concern at this point, as I've tried to emphasize several times) that Capes is, in fact, a very Yang game using a very Yin rules set.


But even allowing that a Yin rules set can be made to work. Allowing that there are those for whom restraints aren't necessary because they're all about the Yin vibe as players anyway...a few posts up you criticised me for speculating that the market for Capes might be pretty narrow. But then you turn around and say that Capes is a Yin game and requires Yin sensibilities to play it. I'm reasonably certain that Yin gamers are in a distinct minority in this hobby...so that would seem to confirm the speculation that you earlier criticised.

TonyLB wrote: Sometimes a contribution is genuinely without merit. But most of the time it's really cool, but poorly understood. If your first instinct is to say "Oh, that's lame, therefore it's got to be stopped" then you'll never get to "That sounds lame... therefore I've probably misunderstood it, and need to think harder."

Ralph, not to go all Alex Trebek on you, but would any of that have been difficult to phrase as a question?

I believe that you're in this to try to understand the positions of others. I think that when you post things that (like the above post) look like "No, you're wrong! Here's why!", you are in fact hoping that somebody will come back and say "I recognize what you're saying, but I still think I'm right, for the following reasons..." and give you useful information that may even sway your opinion. Am I correct in that?

If I am correct then I'm a bit confused about your choice of tone. While I have no trouble translating this:

Valamir wrote: Tony's Actual Play posts are about as far from passive as one can conceive of. Its far more "fight each other tooth and nail" than Uni is.

Tony rewriting wrote: Tony's Actual Play posts seem very competitive. I'm sure you are taking that into account in your theory that the game is Yin, but can you please elaborate on the seeming contradiction?

Edit: Deleted.

I think I understand (and agree) where Tony is coming from, and I think I understand where the critics are coming from too.

Man, a session of gameplay would be enlightening. I don't know that IRC is the ideal way to do that, but it might get everyone on the same page.

Mike Holmes wrote: So, could you please just give us the benefit of a doubt here that we're not just being unreasonable? Try to understand the problem from our POV, perhaps?

Since Mike seems to be doing a much better job of handling these sorts of situations, I'm going to let him answer this.

Miskatonic wrote:
Man, a session of gameplay would be enlightening. I don't know that IRC is the ideal way to do that, but it might get everyone on the same page.

Hey Tony, I'm going to try and make this my last post for this latest series of threads because I think my repeated attempts to highlight the issue might be giving the impression that I'm dissing the game. I'm not (and niether is Mike). I think Capes is REALLY cool, and to whatever extent Uni may have influenced its design...thats super keen.

So I'll just try and illustrate why I perceive that there MAY be an issue here that you're not seeing.

I've played a TON of Universalis...much of that with new players. And I've read a lot of actual play posts for Uni...many by first time players giving it a shot (several of which are in the Actual Play forum here). If there's one trend that I've noticed is that many (very many) of those initial play posts describe very silly, very chaotic, very "all over the place" games -- often to the point of being nonsensical. The initial conclusion of many of those reports was that the game was "A hell of alot of fun but strangely unsatisfying".

In all of those fun-but-unsatisfying games the clearest trend that I've identified was a decided lack of using Uni's steering and breaking mechanisms. The first aspects of the game people latch on to is the ability to Create Components and then spend Coins to have them do anything they want. Often those concepts are enough to keep them busy for the first session and the players go a little crazy stretching the limits and taking those rules out for a test drive. But the steering mechanisms are much more subtle...more advanced techniques that are only figured out after a couple of sessions.

Interrupting and Taking Control of a Component is not often a part of the first game (or for some groups they are but for more belligerant "screw with your friends" kind of reasons). People hesitate to Challenge and Complications are almost always engineered by the person whose turn it is.

With experience comes advanced techniques like: using an Interrupt to just briefly insert a small item into another player's turn to help guide narration, Taking Control of a Component at the right time to force the other player to work with you on establishing events rather than narrating unilaterally, Initiating Complications on other players turns in reaction to what they are doing (done right this provides a pretty fine level of influence), and of course knowing when to Challenge and how to Negotiate for those things that are important to you. Further players learn to define Traits for Components that go beyond the obvious ones into the realm of using Traits to provide guidance for how a character behaves...things other players will then have to account for in their narration.

Now I'm not suggesting Capes needs anything near this degree of "interfere with someone elses turn" capability by any means. I offer this as background to make the following point.

New players to Uni don't know how to do any of those things. Because they are not doing those things the narrations of the players tend to be highly unrestrained. People say anything, narrate anything, create anything because no one is using the tools to suggest otherwise. The end result of just about every actual play post I've read or demo to new players I've done (that didn't emphasize those tools) is that play is chaotic, bizarre, silly, and inconsistant. Fun...but ultimately unsatisfying.

Once players start to use the Uni control techniques to subtly steer play and mechanically signal each other where they want play to go...the silliness and chaos go away and some really deep, cool, and interesting stories develop. Much of the time the tools don't even need to be used, because just knowing that they could be serves to guide players actions.


That's the trend I've noticed in Universalis. Play without constraints being imposed by the other players -- get nutty, wacky, silly games that are fun but not very fulfilling. Play with the other players providing some mechanically enforceable contraints...much higher ratio of producing equally fun but much less silly and much more fulfilling games. That doesn't mean you don't get the Really Unusual extremely creative stuff in play like you've indicated you want in Capes, however. I think the best examples of Uni actual play prove that pretty decidedly.


So when I see players like Fred and James and Brennan indicate that their games were a little too wacky; and while fun weren't very fulfilling...and I hear in the discussions that Capes has virtually no ability for other players to provide any mechanically enforceable constraints...I feel like I understand the issue pretty intimately. Because its the EXACT same thing that happens time and time again with Uni.

The difference is that Uni does provide those mechanically enforceable contraints and once players learn to use them they can keep their games from devolving into chaos (if they want to, sometimes chaos is fun). Since Capes DOESN'T provide any such tools, my worry is that for the majority of players out there (gamer or non gamer I don't think matters because it hasn't with Uni) they'll be stuck in wacky, silly, fun-but-unsatisfying mode with no tools to help them get out.


That's why I raise it as an issue and a concern. Maybe that problem won't materialize and I'm projecting issues that don't apply to Capes. Maybe you're perfectly happy with wacky silly fun games and feel no need to have more "serious" play. But that's where I'm coming from. That's why I felt like sharing some of the "wisdom" my experience with 3 years of Uni play has provided.

Ultimately, of course, its your game...I won't feel you "screwed it up" regardless. I just wanted to bring it to your attention. For what ever reason we seem to have difficulty in communicating with each other, so these threads wound up going around and around much more than they really needed to.

But that's what I wanted to convey...I think I've explained it as clearly as I'm able, and I think you've heard what I'm saying now, so my job here at this point is done unless you have some further points you want to discuss.

Thanks Ralph. I would add that in the games that I have played, the dynamic was a little different, in that I recognized that the chaos was a definite possibility, and held back from it rather than let the game devolve... and it was unsatisfying in a different way.

Wow, cool! I think I knew all of that stuff about your position, but I didn't have the emotional context that your history provides. It makes it much easier to read... I went back to a few old posts and I could easily (in hindsight) say "Ah, yes, so this paragraph is the meat of what he's saying, while this one is just an example to make things clear." Thanks!

I'm tempted to jump on the bandwagon, and explain my own emotional context on this. But that'll take some time to get clear in my own head.

Tony, your understanding of our position seems pretty clear from the post you gave summarizing it. But I was pretty sure you were smart enough to understand it, that you did understand it. But you still haven't addressed the position. Other than, previously, to be dismissive (or at least seem that way).

Also, note that if you think that Ralph is just projecting, consider that it's not Ralph's opinion, or mine for that matter, that matter here. It's Fred's. His play of the game is at least one independent verification of what we're talking about. Fred didn't know how Ralph or I "felt" about it. So this is not just a projection on our parts, but Ralph and I observing actual data of the problematic phenomenon in question.

Only one data point, yes. But worth considering.

Mike

Okay, Mike, can I ask you to summarize my position, as you see it? Because I suspect that we have a disconnect, but I can't see quite where it's happening.

Apollogies for the briefness, but I think we've been over this. It seems to me that your position is:

OK, I see what you guys are saying, but it's just not a problem in actual play if you are just try to accept the play of the other players.

Mike

Wow... that's... that's wearying, is what it is.

I don't see how a reasonable, intelligent person could support that position as stated. Do you?

You seem to be saying that either 1> Mike's description doesn't adequately describe your position or 2> You're not a reasonable, intelligent person.

I doubt 2 is accurate.

I don't see how a reasonable, intelligent person could support that position as stated. Do you?

Actually, you don't have to say either of those things. The question was "Do you see how a reasonable, intelligent person could support that position as stated?"

If you can answer "Yes," then you don't have to make the other choice. Your summary is your best understanding of my argument, an argument that you think a reasonable person could make. You respect my opinion, have tried to understand it within the bounds of that respect, and this is the result. That would be fine. I'd be thrilled and relieved. We could talk about how we've miscommunicated, and move forward.

But if you can't answer "Yes"... if you see on the face of it that the summary you gave was the argument of an idiot, then yeah you're in an untenable position. But I didn't put you there. I just pointed it out.

Mike might be trying to say this: "I must be misunderstanding your position, because you seem to feel that the position I stated is an irrational one."

Yes, Fred, that's the important part. I've very willing to forget the rest of the subtext of this discussion.

Mike

Mike, it's not subtext. It's text.

What I think about your summary is secondary. What do you think about your summary of my position? Is it a rational, reasonable position?

Currently, I think the position indicated by the summary is incorrect (FWIW), but I now think that it must not be your position because you seem to think that it's irrational. Since I think you are rational, and would only proffer a position that you feel is rational, it must not be your position.

So I'm waiting for your correction to my misunderstanding of your position.

What I think about your summary is secondary.

I think Mike is trying to be polite, and not say that he thinks it is an irrational position.

Tony, you seem to be trying to force him into admitting it, but that can't be right, because that would be rude, and I've never known you to act that way.

(edited for increased politeness)

Vaxalon wrote: I think Mike is trying to be polite, and not say that he thinks it is an irrational position.

So the answer to Tony's question upthread is "Yes"?

(I agree that it's something of a diversion)

Vaxalon wrote: So the answer to Tony's question upthread is "Yes"?

(I agree that it's something of a diversion)

Oh good! That's a relief.

Anyway, there are many particulars where my position is more elaborate than your summary, but I'll start small.

First, I do see the theoretical potential for people to do all of these crazy things. But I consider it very much like the theoretical possibility that a person could drive their car into Central Park and start mowing down joggers. Yes, it could happen: there are no physical barriers. But there is no recognizable reward for the crazy-driver, and many recognizable down-sides. As such, despite the thousands upon thousands of drivers who circle Central Park every day, such events are rare almost to vanishing.

In the same way, I think that a lot of the examples that have been put forth ignore the constant influence of the reward system in Capes. Theoretically, someone could violate it willfully, but why would they? It seems that all of the examples I've heard of heavily dysfunctional play assume a player who is wilfully working exactly counter to every reward mechanism in the game.

And that's without even getting into second-order effects of the reward mechanism (which is to say the ways in which your expectation that other players are working according to the reward system allows you to make decisions that play into their desire for reward).

Does that help to explain why I think my position is a little bit more nuanced than just "It doesn't cause problems if you figure out a way to make it not be a problem"?

I'm not convinced that the styles of play we don't like are discouraged by the reward system. I think the reason that you haven't seen them is that you've played with courteous players who aren't terribly interested in exploring that kind of play.

TonyLB wrote: In the same way, I think that a lot of the examples that have been put forth ignore the constant influence of the reward system in Capes. Theoretically, someone could violate it willfully, but why would they? It seems that all of the examples I've heard of heavily dysfunctional play assume a player who is wilfully working exactly counter to every reward mechanism in the game.

And that's without even getting into second-order effects of the reward mechanism (which is to say the ways in which your expectation that other players are working according to the reward system allows you to make decisions that play into their desire for reward).

Mike Holmes wrote: In RPGs where to drive is not always clearly marked.

For example, when making the comics code, the subject of blood and gore does not come up. Then in play, a player narrates a horrifically blood scene, reminiscent to him of some of the stuff from Spawn. The other player says, "Agh, these characters are heroes, they don't disembowel people!" The other player responds, "Well, sure they do in stuff like Spawn and Lobo!"

"Well, can we tone it down, please; I'm not enjoying this."

"Er, I don't want to have to stick to the darn four color conventions. I want some blood!"

Tony, maybe it would help to do an example of a scene from beginning to end with a "typical" number of conflicts in play, players staking debt, conflicts going unstaked, people rolling up and rolling down, the various narrations that happen, players earning inspiration, players spending inspiration previously earned. Pretty much a whole scene as it might happen with all of the mechanics detail and associated commentary to illustrate the first and second tier mechanics you've mentioned.

That way you could be sure everyone was on the same mechanical page and instead of talking ephemerals we can say "in X's conflict against Y, when B said "blah"...what if he'd have said "blah blah" instead" and there'd be a full context to refer to.

I think that would be a pretty good thread (when you have the time to write a big thorough example like that up), and likely more productive than this one has become.

TonyLB wrote:

Mike Holmes wrote: In RPGs where to drive is not always clearly marked.

Well, Mike, I think it's fairer to say "In some RPGs, where to drive is not always clearly marked." And I'll totally agree with that.

For example, when making the comics code, the subject of blood and gore does not come up. Then in play, a player narrates a horrifically blood scene, reminiscent to him of some of the stuff from Spawn. The other player says, "Agh, these characters are heroes, they don't disembowel people!" The other player responds, "Well, sure they do in stuff like Spawn and Lobo!"

"Well, can we tone it down, please; I'm not enjoying this."

"Er, I don't want to have to stick to the darn four color conventions. I want some blood!"

I think I had this actual play experience. The game did not shatter.

Now, on second- (and higher-) order responses... You're very close to what I'm saying. I think that many of the deeper responses in Capes provide mechanical structure to what is traditionally considered social play.

So it's not so much that the rules count on people to pursue the social level of play selflessly... they parallel the social level with game mechanics, so that pursuing it is a mechanically rewarded winning strategy. I'm not sure which of those two you were saying, and didn't want confusion.

Therefore, what people generally do is to find a Conflict that they as players, already really want to win, and to express their player interest through the morality of their characters.

Together, they say "Getting another player to Stake Debt, on absolutely any side of a Conflict you're heavily invested in is a good thing."

So, as a player, you are confronted with a problem: There is a scarce resource (other people's Debt) and you want to influence the spending of it as much as possible toward you. Other players want to do exactly the same thing. You are all competing for the same pool of scarce resources. You are, in a very formalized and literal sense, competing for their attention and interest, because you understand that attracting their interest has a direct correlation to attracting the resources you need.

So there's one of the second-order reward mechanisms that I think stop experienced players from narrating gobbledy-gook. Quite simply, you're a salesman. Salesmen who spout gibberish, or abuse their customers, quickly find that other, better salesmen take the customers away from them.

This thread is getting too convoluted for me (at least) to respond to more than a fraction of the open topics in a single post. It's time for it to spawn little thread-lets. I am closing it. Topics that people want to still discuss should be split out into separate threads, each of which includes one (1) clearly stated question.