I’m new to the Forge and its ideas.  Capes is the first game I’m trying that puts the theories discussed here into practice.  As such, I think I was more prone to some misinterpretations about the rules.  Although Capes is well written, with my more traditional RPG background, some points were vague.  I am offering suggestions to particular areas that would have helped me understand more.  Most of these are trivial and can probably be made clearer by just adding a few words.  However, even the slightest doubt can change the interpretation of an otherwise clear rule.  I’ll try not to include anything that has been mentioned before.  This is a long list.  I am just trying to be thorough and I don’t mean anything by it.  Capes is an amazing game.

p. 21:  The second example has Alex declare first who he will play.  This is not consistent with neither the first example on the same page nor the diagram.  Either begin with Beth or mention that it is four scenes later.

p. 22:  Paragraph four mentions the use of markers to claim a side.  This is the only time that markers are mentioned in the rules, including page 15 under materials.  Either include markers as a material needed with the examples showing clear use of them or get rid of the markers entirely.  You can also opt to mention that players might prefer the use of markers, but be clear to differentiate between the markers for claiming a side and the poker chips.

p. 22:  I had particular confusion with the Free Conflict.  When I first read it, I thought everyone began the page with a free Conflict – a conflict they did not have to pay for but everyone had.  You can see the trouble a different case ‘f’ can cause.  Perhaps a line, explicitly stating that a Free Conflict is a type of conflict and not a free Conflict, at the top of the page would avoid confusion.  I realize that it is mentioned in the fifth paragraph, but by that point, the reader may already have internalized the wrong interpretation. 

p. 22:  Reinforce that a Story Token may be spent to add an Event Conflict or a Goal Conflict.  Although the rules are clear on this, the example depicts only an Event Conflict.  It can’t hurt.

p. 22 (Yeah, I had a hell of a time on an otherwise simple stage of the game.):  It might be a good idea to begin paragraph four with why they should Claim a side.  The single sentence, “At the end of the Page players may resolve Conflicts they have claimed,” is too important to be buried in the middle.  Also, get rid of “may” in the sentence.  As I understand, conflicts resolve whether players want them to or not; it’s too late by that time for the player to change his mind.

p. 25: The grayed box explicitly states that players Stake Debt and Split Dice before an ability.  It makes no mention of doing so at any other time.  Further down the page, it says a player may do so at any time.  I suggest not being so explicit in the box about “before an ability”.  Instead be clear that it can happen at any time. 

p.25: I suggest reinforcing again that a player may create either an Event Conflict or Goal Conflict as an action.  Here is a prime example of how traditional RPG style of play can cause confusion.  In Capes a player gets an action for every character he has as opposed to each character getting an action.  Conflicts – particularly Events – are not necessarily tied to a particular character or his ability.  So, to the traditional player, creating an Event not tied to his character’s ability during what he would normally view as the character’s turn to act can be confusing. 

Writing this down is helping me order the rules in my head, but it’s longer than I anticipated.  I’ll pick up from where I left off at a later time if you like.

That's good stuff, Joel!  Thanks.  I can always use more Errata, especially doing small print runs... gives me a chance to feel like I'm actually improving, in little ways, as time goes on.