I've been thinking about all the arguing about whether or not there's any causal substance in the SIS in Capes. I've seen the arguments on both sides. Here's a concrete example that I think illustrates the problem.

Let's say that there are three characters in the scene: Dr. Otto, Starflare and Valence.

Dr. Otto has Goal: Steal the Ray Gun From Starflare. And Valence has the Goal: Impress Starflare.

So the game is being played and people are staking debt and what not. At the end of the page the "Steal the Ray Gun" Goal resolves first in Dr. Otto's favor. Dr. Otto's player narrates clutching the ray gun and laughing in victory.

So Valence's Goal: Impress Starflare is still on the table in some state. Now, come's Valence's turn so he rolls up his side of the conflict using the ability: Bold or Cocky something like that. He gets a five and let's say that makes it 5 on 3 so the conflict is going his way.

He then narrates: "Valence strides up to Dr. Otto, plucks the ray gun from his hands and presents it Starflare with a bow and a smile."

Do you see what happened? Valence's player just totally underminded Dr. Otto's achievement. Worse, it was done as narrative color on a die roll. It wasn't even the result of a conflict being resolved. It could have been even worse if it was done during the free narration period at the top of the page. This doesn't violate the, "Not Yet" rule because the Steal the Ray Gun conflict is already resolved and off the table.

I CAN see why this would be frustrating as all hell. Now I have a proposed solution that I believe is already supported by the rules but I'd like to see if everyone is on the same page and agrees that this situation is exactly what the arguing has been about.

I agree that this looks like what people have been arguing about. But I don't see the same thing you see (though I think I see why you see it, if that makes sense).

Taking the ray gun back from Dr. Otto does not undermine the achievement he listed in the Goal. He still stole it from Starflare. That happened. Nobody has made it unhappen. If this is an ego-contest between the two of them (for example) then that might be all that matters, and the eventual disposition of the Ray-gun is wholly irrelevant.

Now, to show (hopefully) that I understand what is being argued here (and that I'm not just saying "Nah, nah, nah, not listening to you, it doesn't undermine anything, nah, nah, nah!") let me offer that a person could quite reasonably feel that the meaning of Dr. Otto's achievement has been undermined. But I have to point out that you can only say that in one particular mode of creating meaning: Meaning at the Beginning.

Suppose you feel that, as soon as Dr. Otto's achievement occurred, there was group judgment on the ways that it could effect the authority of later actions. It would be reasonable to judge that this achievement lends its authority to the notion that Dr. Otto has the ray gun. The player may even go so far as to declare (before anything else happens) that he won the goal in order to possess the ray-gun.

If that's what it's meaning (the judgment of players about how they should attribute authority to each other because of this element of SIS) is then yeah, Valence is playing silly buggers with that. He is cavalierly ignoring the authority that he agreed (perhaps tacitly) to offer Otto's player over the disposition of the ray gun. He's not even offering any countering authority (like "Yeah, but I'm so much stronger than Otto that I can take it right back", to bring Superstrength in as a source of authority). He's just denying that any authority over the disposition of the ray-gun exists. The fact that Otto stole it means nothing in reference to the question of whether he can hold onto it.

Is that the reasoning? I think I've understood why people twitch on this particular issue, but I could always stand to be corrected again.

Pretty much. And it can get much worse even without getting extreme.

If Dr Otto's goal was "Lock Starfire's ray gun deep in the vault of my impenetrable fortress" and then Valance just narrates going in and taking it that would be pretty hard to explain even by resorting to Meaning at the Beginning.

I mean one would think that creating a Conflict where the goal is "Penetrate Dr. Otto's Fortress and retreive the ray gun" would be a great Conflict to play out. But why bother when Valence's player can simply narrate taking it.

It seems fairly unreasonable to me that after winning a conflict and locking the ray gun in my vault that the only way I have a chance to keep it at all is to continually waste an action to introduce the "steal the ray gun goal" on myself...and then waste more actions to ensure the opposition (me) keeps winning it.

That was the root reason behind my starting a Conflict as a Reaction to someone else's narration suggestion, so that at least you have a defense against this sort of thing.

Valamir wrote: I mean one would think that creating a Conflict where the goal is "Penetrate Dr. Otto's Fortress and retreive the ray gun" would be a great Conflict to play out. But why bother when Valence's player can simply narrate taking it.

Hey Tony,

My first instinct is to wonder why I would be particularly concerned about the reward currencies when I can achieve my goals through free narration.

-Chris

Well, what are those goals? Specifically, what are the goals of you, the player. The character's goals are just your tools, of course, for pursuing your player goals.

What player goals does Capes support?

No, seriously, I'm not saying it doesn't, I'm saying it's not obvious to me and I'd like to know. I'm confused along with these other people, but some of these Actual Play threads have made me drool, so I'd like to know how I should be approaching a Capes game to enjoy the system.

That's a cool question, Jinx. Thanks!


What you can do

Okay, you know the stuff we get excited about in the thread GM-Task: Test to Extremity? That can be a goal as well as a technique. Providing better adversity will push you to understand your friends better. Having other people provide better adversity will push you to understand yourself better. Plus it's fun, on an aesthetic level. So there's that.

And then there's the goal of being part of something beautiful and dramatic (though I hesitate to use the word "story," because RPGs are something other than literature). Virtually every cool thing you ever see happen in Capes will be partly your creation. You will have laid the ground-work, or made a critical observation, or figured out the perfect adversity to make a character shine. But, despite the fact that you helped make it, it will be something that you, alone, would never have thought of... because of the constant, aggressive, productive interference of other players. Even people who push for an option and lose are informing the game, because they have forced folks to admit and carefully consider the other option, and why they want it in the face of opposition.

Finally there's raw ego-gratification, which I consider one of the most worthy goals when handled properly. The very nature of the Capes system implies that you cannot play the game without explicitly praising the efforts of others. You've got this Debt and you have to spend it, and in spending it you basically say "Wow, this thing you've done here is cool, I'm going to run with this!" There is no way to force people to like something they don't, but the system gives you a huge boxful of tools to figure out how to create something that another player will get really excited about, and when they get excited about it you know. And man, that's a kick.

What you can't do

If your player goal is to single-handedly create something beautiful to show to the other players, but never to let them touch it or interfere with your artistic vision (the Jimi Hendrix Guitar) then this game is not for you. Go be a GM in any of a number of other systems. It will suit you better.

If your player goal is to establish yourself as a gatekeeper for the SIS, so that you have the power to reject inputs that surprise you, make you uncomfortable, or promote a creative vision other than your own, then this game is not for you. Again, go be a GM.

If your player goal is to always be in agreement with the other players, so that the only things that happen are the things that are agreed upon by full group consensus then this game is not for you. Go play freeform.

If your player goal is to have your artistic contributions to the game treated with exactly the same level of interest and praise as everyone elses, even if you stink and other people rock (or vice versa) then this game is not for you.


I hope this helps!

TonyLB wrote:

Valamir wrote: I mean one would think that creating a Conflict where the goal is "Penetrate Dr. Otto's Fortress and retreive the ray gun" would be a great Conflict to play out. But why bother when Valence's player can simply narrate taking it.

Is this a trick question?

... because the only way that free narration can have even an indirect effect on you getting the rewards of the game system is by establishing great conflicts to play out. Narrating something which neutralizes or bypasses an interesting conflict is counter to every reward mechanism in the game.

The game is not about "How can I get what I want without getting into a Conflict?" It is about "How can I get into a Conflict about what different players want?"

Valamir wrote: I'm a big believer in game mechanical rewards, but much of the time simply having the ability to alter the SIS with my own narrative is reward enough.

Valamir wrote: Is this wrong? Am I missing a step? Is there more to it? Is there something I don't know? Because this is what we've been talking about for about 100 posts now and to date you haven't demonstrated any mechanics where by I can't do what I just described.

Valamir wrote: I'm having trouble envisioning how having everybody able to run roughshod over every body else would be the least bit fun. So far the only thing I've seen in examples where this doesn't happen is that it doesn't happen because everybody coincidentally happened to like the ultimate output and thus didn't mind being run roughshod over. But certainly that's not always going to be the case.

TonyLB wrote:

Valamir wrote: I'm a big believer in game mechanical rewards, but much of the time simply having the ability to alter the SIS with my own narrative is reward enough.

And you think Capes doesn't offer enough of this? Good lord. We really are on different planets here.

If all it takes to make Doc Otto happy is that he steals the ray-gun then he's really easy to please. He doesn't need a conflict or anything. He just narrates "I steal the ray gun!" Then he can sit there the rest of the session saying "Heehee! I stole the ray-gun! Yay!"

Now... wait... why is Doc Otto frowning? I thought he was going to be happy, because all he wanted was to steal the ray-gun (which he did). Oh, wait, he wanted more than that? He wanted the theft of the ray-gun to have meaning, eh? Well now that's a more complicated proposition, isn't it?

Ah, this is my cue to get a sly look and ask very slowly... "Are you sure? Or are you just assuming that it can't always be the case?"

Ralph, let me give you a hypothetical: Imagine that you were pitching Universalis to somebody. "You can create terrific stories without a GM!", or whatever your pitch is.

They respond "Well, I've played with friends in D&D when the DM didn't show up, and it always ended up with us just sitting around, maybe fighting with each other, but that's it. So I've experienced play like that in D&D, and don't enjoy it in the least. But maybe you could make a house rule in Universalis to add a GM! Then maybe it would be cool."


Do you know some really clever thing that you can say that disabuses this person of the lunatic notion that D&D without a DM provides the same GM-less experience as Universalis? Because if you've got some cunning way to phrase that, I'd really like to know what it is, so I can repeat it back to you.

Let me see if I understand the point here, sometimes formulating it in a different way makes it clearer.

Capes has a currency system. It's cyclical, like D&D's experience system, in that getting more currency makes you more efficient at getting even more currency. In D&D, this means that killing and looting enables you to kill and loot better (kill bigger monsters, gain larger treasures).

Now, Capes also has narration powers that are separate from that system. One can simply change events in the SIS by stating that they are so, instead of using the conflict system. That way, you bypass the currency--and you don't need any more currency, because narration is already all powerful.

So the analogy would be a rule in D&D that says, "Instead of using the combat system, you can just declare that your character kills any creature she encounters. However, there won't be any XP or loot."

Now the D&D player can go wild and use that rule, shaping the SIS as she sees fit. But there's something wildly unsatisfactory about that; you're not overcoming the challenges. You're not Stepping On Up. You're missing out on the fun of the game.

I am not going to guess at what Tony's trying to say, I know that's a bad idea :) But in my own perception, narrated facts in Capes have little value: you changed the SIS, but you didn't Step On Up to do it. You wimped out.

My impression, therefore, is that Capes seems to work wonderfully for Gamist-oriented players. They pick their battles, make conflicts that other people care about and join in, and then beat them (or not). Why would a Gamist-oriented player care if someone narrates the humiliation of Dr. Otto? It's not been fought over. It's not someone's victory. There are no bragging rights associated with it.

Now, if you just care about the SIS events no matter how they were created, you might have an issue with that. Your idea of what would make a good story might get violated. But then, we all know that a game does not support all CAs equally well, and I'd suggest that Capes is just not made to accomodate that. It does what it does with a specific player attitude in mind, and it seems to do it very well.

Maybe that's where different planets come in? :)

TonyLB wrote: Ralph, let me give you a hypothetical: Imagine that you were pitching Universalis to somebody. "You can create terrific stories without a GM!", or whatever your pitch is.

They respond "Well, I've played with friends in D&D when the DM didn't show up, and it always ended up with us just sitting around, maybe fighting with each other, but that's it. So I've experienced play like that in D&D, and don't enjoy it in the least. But maybe you could make a house rule in Universalis to add a GM! Then maybe it would be cool."


Do you know some really clever thing that you can say that disabuses this person of the lunatic notion that D&D without a DM provides the same GM-less experience as Universalis? Because if you've got some cunning way to phrase that, I'd really like to know what it is, so I can repeat it back to you.

I'm not suggesting it. I'm saying it flat out.

Capes evokes different patterns of play than Universalis. We just got done getting onto the same page about that, didn't we? So how could you extrapolate from one to the other? Of course there are things that will work in Capes that won't work in Universalis, just as there are things that will work in Universalis that won't work in Capes. They're different tools for different tasks.

Okay, after reading this thread I think my suspicion has been confirmed. My proposal is that the example that I've provided and Ralph extended is actually against the rules as they are already written. The problem here, is that Tony and those he plays with have so internalized the rule that he doesn't realize it's a rule. And the "being on different planets" feeling is coming from the fact that he keeps shifting the example from the one Ralph and I are talking about to a sub-example where the rule ISN'T being broken which is coming off as trivializing.

Here's the rule, which is written ALL over the Capes text: "You can DO anything you can not ACHIEVE anything."

This rule is the EXACT SAME rule as Sorcerer's rule: All conflicts are resolved by the system and all conflicts, once decided, are over.

The problem inherent in all conflict resolution systems is that the exact same narrative description can be either the conflict istelf OR color while addressing another conflict. So when "Valence takes the ray gun from Dr. Otto and gives it to Starflare", that COULD be a conflict between Valence and Dr. Otto and thus REQUIRE the system to be used OR it could just be comic color on top of the conflict between Valence and Starflare and thus not require the system to be used.

What I'm proposing is that Dr. Otto's player has established that having the Ray Gun is infact an actual Conflict and that Valence's player CAN"T just take it during a narration because that would violate the "you can't ACHIEVE anything" clause in the rules. I'm also proposing that if you have internalized this rule as I suspect that Tony and his group has that a) it will never be an issue and thus never be discussed as a point of the rules and b) anytime this rule IS broken it will appear to be a malicious violation of the social contract and thus the player is just trying to be a dick and not really engaged in the game at all.

So the disconnect I'm seeing is that we propose a situation where a player by passes a genuine conflict using narration and ask why is this legal? And Tony looks at the example with his deeply internalized rule and can't fathom why anyone would by pass the system if it is a genuine conflict without being a total dickweed and since we're insisting that the palyer isn't being a dickweed then we MUST be talking about color on something else that IS a genuine conflict and yeah, sure that's legal.

Sorry for crawling around so much in every one elses head but I think that's what's going on here.

Jesse

Sorry Tony, I don't buy that for one split mili-second. Human nature doesn't change simply because you're playing Capes. The pertinant points are a) no GM to smooth things over by fiat, b) players have the ability to narrate stuff, c) somebody may at some point narrate something someone else really doesn't like at all. In those aspects Capes and Uni are identical. So no...there is no deeply different pattern of play going on that's going to change that. Players are not suddenly going to magically realize that all of the stuff they thought they didn't like about someone elses narration they're really in love with after all and its all good.

You seem to be suggesting that if only we get over our fear of someone elses narration we'll some how realize that what we initially thought was garbage has miraculously turned into gold. Ok...sometimes that can happen, yup. And sometimes, at the end of the day, its still garbage. When I play, I want the ability to decide for myself what I think has the potential to be gold and what I think is a waste of my time.


Jesse...I think you very well may be on to something there. At least your reasoning seems eminently in line with everything.

If accurate that does raise the question of who gets to judge what's just color and what's achievement. In Sorcerer it works because there's a GM to say "hey that's a conflict...roll the dice". In Capes, my suggestion of a reaction conflict seems to play that roll, allowing the players to pass that judgement case by case as they see fit.

Valamir wrote: If accurate that does raise the question of who gets to judge what's just color and what's achievement.

Here's the rule, which is written ALL over the Capes text: "You can DO anything you can not ACHIEVE anything."

This is my first post here at the Forge, so if I commit any social blunders, feel free to smack me. But gently.

I've read through Capes but have no Actual Play experience yet. Hopefully, I'll be correcting that soon.

With that out of the way:

xenopulse wrote: Now, Capes also has narration powers that are separate from that system. One can simply change events in the SIS by stating that they are so, instead of using the conflict system. That way, you bypass the currency--and you don't need any more currency, because narration is already all powerful.

So the analogy would be a rule in D&D that says, "Instead of using the combat system, you can just declare that your character kills any creature she encounters. However, there won't be any XP or loot."

Now the D&D player can go wild and use that rule, shaping the SIS as she sees fit. But there's something wildly unsatisfactory about that; you're not overcoming the challenges. You're not Stepping On Up. You're missing out on the fun of the game.

I should clarify that a bit.

Of course you compete for control of the SIS in Capes - that's what the Conflicts are for (in some sense). However, any victories there are fleeting, and can be invalidated by any other player at any time.

I think this makes some players feel that "You can DO anything but you can't ACHIEVE anything" would more correctly be formulated as "You can DO anything but you can't achieve ANYTHING".

I've heard this argument a couple times. Putting the power of free narration in someones hands will make them into a raging dick.

The "problem" is that capes sort of has two modes running simultaneously(I am sure people will disagree with this, but I don't really care): Gamemaster stance and Character stance.

Your spotlight character will likely be played as you would normally play a character in an RPG, trying to achieve certain goals, explore certain issues, and generally create cool happenings about him.

In Gamemaster mode, you try to find ways to make the goals worth pursuing, support issue exploration, and create cool happenings about them.

In any normal RPG, I am given the power of GM fiat. If I want the villain to take the Ray Gun, he gets it. The player can roll, whine, wheedle, whatever, he has no true say. I can then declare he is struck by lightning and dies. Usually, I don't do any of these things because it doesn't support any of the above goals. Nothing in the rules prevents me.

So, when we hand this power over to those with a Character stance, the assumption is suddenly they will become a power mad tyrant, crushing everybody's hopes and dreams. Maybe, for people who play every game with all cheat codes on, this is fun, but for the rest of us, it feels fairly pointless after a while. Why, when I have absolute control and no character mean I'm fine, while having a character suddenly makes me disrespect everyone around me? If player B swipes the gun and doesn't know he is being a dick, he probably isn't very aware of what an ass he is being. If he is, he suffers the fate of most asshat GMs: a sudden lack of people willing to play with him.

It's much like a game where a GM has a 'pet' character, that seems more powerful, capable, and cooler than the players characters. It's simply not fun when your contributions are constantly trivialized by the GMs character. Thus, like any RPG, you need to be a good player, especially as GM.

Another bit of BS on my part. Capes to me seems more as if you are playing the part of several comic book writers who have been told by the Editor in Chief that their characters are now in a monthly team title and that they have to write together and keep continuity. Semi-obviously, they are often rooting for their own characters and trying to make arguments on how things should proceed. Story tokens represent owed favors for allowing their character to shine. Just like in the real comics, horrid writing can lead to things like auto-Raygun theft, without a hint of coolness.

I'm going to necromance this thread rather than creating a new one (I hope that's OK) because I've just gotten ahold of the full version of Capes, I've been reading all the backlog in the forums, and this seems to be the clearest example of what's been worrying a lot of people.  It worried me too, at first, until something clicked in my head, and I want to toss this out here and see if I'm "getting it".

So we've got Dr. Otto, Valence, and Starflare.

Dr. Otto has just won the conflict to "Steal the Ray Gun".

Valence narrates taking it back to win "Impress Starflare".  The argument is that he can do that in free narration, and it totally undermines the conflict that Dr. Otto won.

But that's where everyone always stops the example, even though play wouldn't stop there (unless it were the end of the scene).  There's this unspoken assumption that Otto just says "curses, foiled again" and vanishes.  But he's got the same power that Valence does with regards to the narration.  When his turn comes around:

"Hey!" protests Dr. Otto. "I stole that fair and square!"  He snatches the ray gun back from Starflare.  (Player: I introduce the conflict: "Goal: Get Starflare's gun from Dr. Otto"  Or maybe "Goal: Dr. Otto escapes with Starflare's Gun").

Now Otto's got it on the table (and he'll get Story Tokens if they manage to wrest it away fom him).  Of course, if Otto were really devious, he'd just smirk as Valence takes away the gun, and then on his turn:

"Event: Starflare uses the booby-trapped ray gun." 

Or maybe he spends a story token and introduces "Booby-trapped Ray Gun" as a character.  Or he works it into the narration of one of his later conflicts.  "I'm rolling 'Always has a backup plan'...a 5!  the boobytrap Otto planted on Starflare's gun goes off, distracting the heroes..."

So...getting it?  Or am I missing something still?

J

After reading the fullness of the thread, I really think the underlying problem is orthogonal to the way its proposed.

Basically, I think this is such a thing that the first time it comes up in context and a group has to deal with it, it'll get written into the Comics Code by means of solution.

For Tony's group, this may never happen. They clearly have an internalized model of play that implicitly side-steps that kind of play.

For others (mine, for example), I think the best solution would be adding "A resolved Conflict cannot have elements invalidated through simple narration in the same Scene as its resolved in by another player without the first's agreement."

Some of you might find that a bit of a cop-out in terms of playstyle, but the beauty of putting it in the group's Comics Code is that it can come off later if it stops being an issue, and then you get the other interesting, but more complicated, play-elements like Otto's player introducing the booby-trapped gun and the like. Its also worth noting that I deliberately phrased it such that its only the same scene. Next scene, Otto's current player can be playing Starfire and simply hand it over to whoever she likes, without repercussion, or Valence might show up with the gun in his hands and a complicated off-screen explanation. That's good play, and we don't want to gank that too much.

Ultimately, this is something too group-specific to be read from the mechanics like Biblical dicat; its a dynamic specific to a certain style of play, like the idea of individual privileged Characters, and as such likely belongs in the Comics Code.

Certainly, this can be handled in many ways.  Zamiel, the thing I find interesting about Comics Code solutions is how you can Gloat them.  Now that I think about it, having a Code with your provision in it is almost like having a way to set up an improvised Code based on what's "set" for the scene.  You could have a Goal or Event just to set up a Gloat later on.

Anyway, Capes has always had the feature of being extremely open with what someone could do through narration.  I think that players end up coming up with a narrative style that everyone finds the most productive in play because everyone at the table is attempting to do the same thing, which is interest the other players so that they can get resources.  That means that if taking the ray gun away again is a conflict that would pique interest at the table, then it makes more sense to make it a conflict where resources can be won.  Narration has a certain ephemeral story power, but it doesn't give you resources in itself, so you don't have much motivation to press buttons with it.

Kintara wrote:
Certainly, this can be handled in many ways.  Zamiel, the thing I find interesting about Comics Code solutions is how you can Gloat them.  Now that I think about it, having a Code with your provision in it is almost like having a way to set up an improvised Code based on what's "set" for the scene.  You could have a Goal or Event just to set up a Gloat later on.

Kintara wrote:
Anyway, Capes has always had the feature of being extremely open with what someone could do through narration.  I think that players end up coming up with a narrative style that everyone finds the most productive in play because everyone at the table is attempting to do the same thing, which is interest the other players so that they can get resources.  That means that if taking the ray gun away again is a conflict that would pique interest at the table, then it makes more sense to make it a conflict where resources can be won.  Narration has a certain ephemeral story power, but it doesn't give you resources in itself, so you don't have much motivation to press buttons with it.

Zamiel, I'm not saying your solution isn't useful for some groups.  But I also think that it might not come up as a problem as often as might be assumed.  I mean the idea is that you don't want people stepping on eachother's toes, but Capes gives you such a huge field that I don't think it's going to come up much.  You can narrate lots of stuff with very little limits, so if people are stepping on toes, I can't help but think that it's more likely to be intentional.  And if it is, then I think it makes more sense to move that intentional toe stomping into an area closer to the resources.

Gamskee wrote:
Another bit of BS on my part. Capes to me seems more as if you are playing the part of several comic book writers who have been told by the Editor in Chief that their characters are now in a monthly team title and that they have to write together and keep continuity. Semi-obviously, they are often rooting for their own characters and trying to make arguments on how things should proceed. Story tokens represent owed favors for allowing their character to shine. Just like in the real comics, horrid writing can lead to things like auto-Raygun theft, without a hint of coolness.

I wish you could edit, because I just realized drmuncheon said the same thing I did.  DOH!  Read the entire thread, Hans....

Zamiel wrote:

Kintara wrote:
Certainly, this can be handled in many ways.  Zamiel, the thing I find interesting about Comics Code solutions is how you can Gloat them.  Now that I think about it, having a Code with your provision in it is almost like having a way to set up an improvised Code based on what's "set" for the scene.  You could have a Goal or Event just to set up a Gloat later on.

In this case, I think this would be more the "social contract" portion of the Comics Code, much like the issue of what kind of genre that folks should narrate to. I think of that as part of the Comics Code as well, but I suppose more rightfully it should be thought of as separate from the CC itself.

Mind you, making it explicitly Gloatable could be intriguing, but it requires introducing a Conflict, and we're explicitly speaking about things which aren't Conflict-driven. That's a different, orthogonal issue, entirely.

drnuncheon wrote:
I'm going to necromance this thread rather than creating a new one (I hope that's OK) because I've just gotten ahold of the full version of Capes, I've been reading all the backlog in the forums, and this seems to be the clearest example of what's been worrying a lot of people.  It worried me too, at first, until something clicked in my head, and I want to toss this out here and see if I'm "getting it".

So we've got Dr. Otto, Valence, and Starflare.

Dr. Otto has just won the conflict to "Steal the Ray Gun".

Valence narrates taking it back to win "Impress Starflare".  The argument is that he can do that in free narration, and it totally undermines the conflict that Dr. Otto won.

But that's where everyone always stops the example, even though play wouldn't stop there (unless it were the end of the scene).  There's this unspoken assumption that Otto just says "curses, foiled again" and vanishes.  But he's got the same power that Valence does with regards to the narration.  When his turn comes around:

"Hey!" protests Dr. Otto. "I stole that fair and square!"  He snatches the ray gun back from Starflare.  (Player: I introduce the conflict: "Goal: Get Starflare's gun from Dr. Otto"  Or maybe "Goal: Dr. Otto escapes with Starflare's Gun").

Now Otto's got it on the table (and he'll get Story Tokens if they manage to wrest it away fom him).  Of course, if Otto were really devious, he'd just smirk as Valence takes away the gun, and then on his turn:

"Event: Starflare uses the booby-trapped ray gun." 

Or maybe he spends a story token and introduces "Booby-trapped Ray Gun" as a character.  Or he works it into the narration of one of his later conflicts.  "I'm rolling 'Always has a backup plan'...a 5!  the boobytrap Otto planted on Starflare's gun goes off, distracting the heroes..."

So...getting it?  Or am I missing something still?

J

I wouldn't call it Calvin Ball.  The rules exist in Capes and in fact they are even more immutable than in games like D&D.  There is no Rule Zero in Capes.  The rules always get enforced by everyone playing equally.  There is no GM who can say, "I don't like that rule here.  I'm ignoring it."  The rules in Capes really are the arbitrator of disagreements (in a certain sense).

You are correct though in stating that the rules don't force anyone to narrate what the group considers appropriate.  Anyone can narrate whatever they want as long as it doesn't violate the Comics Code or the rules concerning narrating the result of a Conflict.  Now the rules do provide methods of exerting pressure on other players to stay within the spirit of a particular game but there is nothing that comes out and says, "You can't narrate that!"

I actually have what I think is a solution to this, but the thread is kinda old so I figure I'll start a new one.