We've had lots of furballing discussions over the way Capes allows any player to create enormous changes in the shared imagined space at will -- e.g. "I roll up 'Goal: Impress My Date' using 'Laser-Beam Eyes' to, uh, destroy the world. Ooh, I got a five!" -- and how this strikes some people as a gaping weakness and others as an essential freedom of the game, with the authors and fans of Universalis tending to fall on the "that can't work!" side. And today, in this thread about an entirely different game, without ever actually mentioning Capes, Ron Edwards finally made me understand why this Great Wall of Incomprehension exists:

Ron wrote:
I will offer an interesting difference between two "superfamilies" of highly Narrativist-focused game design. [snippage] On the left-hand side, one superfamily is rooted in stuff like Over the Edge and Cyberpunk and goes on through the "door" of Sorcerer, branching apart from there. It includes Dogs in the Vineyard.

On the right-hand side, the other superfamily is rooted in stuff like Story Engine and Soap, and it goes on through the "door" of Universalis, branching apart rather drastically from there. It includes (via MLWM) Polaris.

All you people who are crazed with anticipation, just settle down. All that matters now is one single point, and you don't really need the diagram for it. Except to see Dogs 'way over on one side and Polaris 'way over on another, like critters in vastly different sectors of a phylogeny.

On the side which includes Dogs, single participants have overriding, brutal, arbitrary authority over the "II" of IIEE. In other words, what their characters want to do and start to do cannot be overriden or even mechanically modified by anyone else at the table. If you state, "He kisses her," and the group goes into the Conflict Resolution system, it's established, the kiss is both intended and initiated.

On the side which includes Polaris, the entire IIEE of any character's actions/etc is subject to vetting of some kind, whether it's negation, modification, or letting it lie, and whether it's full-group or by a designated person. All actions are subject to drastic reinterpretations of the outcomes of Conflict Resolution. Including the first "I," intent, of IIEE. If you state, "He kisses her," then eventually, the way the scene works out, it's at least possible that he never even thought about or tried to kiss her.

Bald, painful fact: the left-hand side is socially more dangerous, and the right-hand side is socially safer. And it strikes me very firmly, after discussing this game with a number of people who were involved, that at least a couple people were approaching playing Dogs as if it were in the other "superfamily." They assumed that if they were uncomfortable with what a given PC was about to be doing, that they had a say in vetting that stated action. Whereas, bluntly, the game is set up for exactly the opposite.

I read that post by Ron and imediately thought of Capes as well.  But I think capes takes it even further.  Ron talk's about the left-hand group having the two Is linked.  I think Capes takes it one step further.  It links II and the first E.

When I say, "I pick him up and throw him across the room..." not only do I Intend it and Initiate it but I've also already Executed it and there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it.  Oddly enough the last E, Effect, is WAY delayed in Capes.    That last E isn't determined until the whole Conflit resolves (and arguably maybe not even until someone spends the Inspiration earned from it).

So yeah, it's freaky. Freaky but highly functional.

Jesse

Hmm....interesting. I've often thought of Capes as "Universalis with a skeleton," but  this seems to be a more accurate way of stating it.

Sydney wrote:
And now I really want to play some Universalis, darn it.

Sydney wrote:
We've had lots of furballing discussions over the way Capes allows any player to create enormous changes in the shared imagined space at will -- e.g. "I roll up 'Goal: Impress My Date' using 'Laser-Beam Eyes' to, uh, destroy the world. Ooh, I got a five!" -- and how this strikes some people as a gaping weakness and others as an essential freedom of the game, with the authors and fans of Universalis tending to fall on the "that can't work!" side.

Sorry Sydney, that turned into a stupid "Me too!" post. What I meant to add is that as well as being an interesting way of looking at the two games it also gives me a bit of insight into my own preferences and relationships. Like if I'm thinking things like "I would play Universalis with that guy, but I would never play Capes with that guy". That kind of stuff.

Tony:  Crying?  There's no crying in baseball!

Seriously, though, I hope that you understand that Sydney is referring to a huge cluster of threads (notably Why have conflicts at all? and Why narrate at all?) that utterly dominated this board back in April.  Several heavy fans of Universalis, and Ralph and Mike very specifically, said that while Capes was a good game, the lack of player ability to veto between I-I and E-E was a weakness that would undermine the ability to form a functional game.

So Sydney's not offering supposition about what Ralph and Mike (and at least some of their fans) might think.  He's not drawing lines in the sand in order to be combative.  He's referring to their statements on the record.  And I, for one, agree that those statements look really fascinating (less mind-boggling and more understandable) under the light of Ron's insightful comment.

I'm a fan of Universalis and Capes. Is there room for me anywhere in this world?

Seriously, though, I hope that you understand that Sydney is referring to a huge cluster of threads (notably Why have conflicts at all? and Why narrate at all?) that utterly dominated this board back in April.  Several heavy fans of Universalis, and Ralph and Mike very specifically, said that while Capes was a good game, the lack of player ability to veto between I-I and E-E was a weakness that would undermine the ability to form a functional game.

Tony wrote:
....I think what they missed is that the ability to veto at any time is implicit to any enjoyable social activity ....It only needs to be incorporated into the ruleset as protection against people you ultimately don't enjoy being with ....

Syndey,

I agree with your inital post 100%. Brilliant.* Right on the money. Worth elaborating to anyone who doesn't follow.

But

Sydney wrote:
Imagine you're hosting a dinner party. On the one level, If I begin groping your spouse/pet or throwing dishes, yeah, everyone can veto my actions, because I'm a jerk, and no one has to spell that rule out. On the other level, what if I don't bring anything (an appetizer, some beer, a dessert)? That makes me a jerk if you, as host, said, "hey, I'll make the main course, could each of you bring something?"; but if you said, "you don't need to bring anything, I have this whole French gourmet meal planned out, it'll be great," I'd be a jerk if I brought my five-bean salad and 6-pack of Corona anyway. So in this case, you absolutely need to specify the rule.

This is all really interesting.

Doubly so since I saw Ron's chart at GenCon.  Now, he's said he made some changes, but as of last week Capes was quite firmly set as a direct descendent of Universalis which puts it on the opposite side of the gap from Dogs in the Vineyard.

Now, when Ron discussed it at GenCon he brought up Capes in the context of currency distribution and economy.  Specifically, Capes was getting its own sub-branch of the tree (split from the Universalis side) because it avoids the common currency problem of inflation (which was an incrdibly cool line of inquiry all on its own).

Again, Ron mentioned some changes to the chart and it's quite possibly that he's shifted things around, but it's interesting to see this discussion anyway because I think there may be something to it.  Capes is so radical precisely because you simultaneously have near-complete and near-zero control of the SIS...

Thomas

Hello,

Capes is on the Universalis side. However, many of the insights I get out of the diagram are tendencies, rather than definitional. Furthermore, Capes is its own rather unique little twig, separated from all the others, and represents quite a few different "apomorphies" (if you can stand it).

And it also strikes me that IIEE in Capes becomes very different when everyone is skilled at the game, and when everyone is working from lots of Tokens and lots of Debt. Frankly, most discussions about playing Capes - and most especially the ones referred to earlier - are kindergarten stuff, all about the very first move in the very first scene when no one has either Tokens or Debt. That's like having some kind of issue about how to play Monopoly based on someone saying, upon rolling the dice for the very first time, "Why can't we go in either direction, why do we have to keep going just the one way?"

Anyway, so I'm not buying some of what I'm reading here about announcements and actions. I'm inclined to extend Jesse's point rather drastically - that most announcement and narration in Capes is pure Color regardless of how drastic it would be in many RPGs, and that the real action is best understood only as the final E, quite a while after it was first announced. From that perspective, and considering how much negotiation and Currency can be utilized to modify it, Capes sits very squarely in the Universalis side of things.

Best,
Ron

You seem to be saying that the important IIEE in Capes is:

Intent:  Propose a Goal or Event.
Initiation:  That conflict is not vetoed, and enters play.
Execution:  People contest that conflict, using the dice, sometimes for a long, long time.
Effect:  The conflict is resolved.

Have I got that about right?

Hi Tony,

A lot of people get confused about IIEE. It refers only to characters' fictional, in-game actions. It has nothing to do with when the real people say or propose things. Or more accurately, the principle that IIEE illustrates is that the rules and procedures of play need to be explicit about the IIEE of the fictional actions.

As I understand it, if a group of people is playing Capes and they're all good at it, and they all have a bunch of Debt and Tokens flowin' around fairly actively, then Execution by the characters is going to get heavily negotiated, and Effect will only shake out over the course of a good number of interactions. The two "I's" are never actually played - they are retroactively established, or constructed out of a series of suggestions, after the "E's" are shaken out through a veritable flurry of tokens and point-spending.

Best,
Ron

Ron,

I'm not getting the point you're driving at.  Let me season this with an Actual Play snippet, so that we have a real-world foundation to (hopefully) give us common terms:

The popular goal "Humiliate Major Victory" was on the table.  We had news crews broadcasting live.  As part of an action (not part of resolving the goal) a player stated that their character was pulling down Major Victory's pants and exposing him on live television.  That simply happened.  There isn't any seam in the rules for anyone to stick in a wedge and object to any part of that.  It was completely at the discretion of the narrating player.

But Major Victory was not humiliated, could not be humiliated, while the Goal was unresolved.  So there he is, in the altogether, but he still has his dignity.  That's just how cool he is.

So, is it possible to apply IIEE to analyze these character actions?  Or... if they're just Color does that mean that IIEE doesn't apply?  And if so, what does it apply to?

Interesting discussion. (I'm travelling, and have rather limited web access, but couldn't help chiming back in). I certainly see that Universalis and Capes have a fundamental similarity using a currency of resources to establish every mechanically significant element of the SIS (something Dogs, for example, doesn't have at all), yet at the same time they have a fundamental difference in that in Universalis, any narration can potentially be challenged, and in Capes, large categories of narration cannot be challenged (as in Tony's example), although of course players can and do negotiate about them if they wish.

It's probably an act of madness to try to categorize games (or any other cultural product) in absolutely clear lineages of descent, anyway: that works for genetic evolution, but not for memes, which keep on cross-pollinating.

P.S.: Larry, you're absolutely right that the whole "who's being a jerk?" issue is a red herring.

(And now I'll sit back and let Ron answer Tony's question).

Hello,

Sydney, when you see the diagram, you'll see that your comment does not apply to it in any imaginable way. It is not a lineage of influence and descent.

Tony, your conundrum is based on confusing Resolution with any/all in-game events. In most role-playing, the two are blended into one thing, but in Capes and several others, they aren't. In Capes, what's resolved is specifically what happens to the Goal.

Major Victory's dignity was not at stake in this conflict. Hence, resolution does not apply to it. What was at stake? You're not telling me. So I can't tell you how IIEE applies to it, because IIEE concerns resolutions.

Best,
Ron

Let me see if I'm parsing this correctly, Ron.

In Tony's example, the player's narration of MV having his pants pulled down in public doesn't involve IIEE at all because for that narration MV's dignity was not at Stake.  There was no resolution because nothing was at Stake.  No Resolution = No IIEE.

When the Goal is plopped down and actually resolved via the system is when IIEE is brought into the equation, right?

Hello,

That's correct.

Your last statement puzzles me a little, though. In the times I've tried Capes (I won't consider myself to have played it until I have Debt/Tokens all humming 'round us at the table), the activity and interactions between putting down the Goal and resolving it are pretty extensive. What I'd look at, for IIEE purposes, goes as follows:

1. How characters' positions are established toward that Goal, which in Capes is when you take sides. This is the first "I," for Intent. Note that Intent only exists, in game terms, relative to that Goal, not relative to other characters involved but who are not in/of the Goal itself.

2. How the Goal turns out, and what sort of fallout/details have been established along the way which matter to us. This is the last "E," for Effect.

As far as I can tell, the middles (Initiation, Execution) are handled essentially as prequels and minor blips of the final E, with little or no actual causal systemic roles. Their in-game causal roles are merely taken for granted.

Overall, we should remember that Capes is very oriented toward scene-level, many-actions resolution. It's way too easy to get blinded by things like "Hulk throws Bug-Man into building!!" and call them actions or events, when in Capes, they are absolutely not anything like a systemic action (how the Goal turns out).

Best,
Ron

Okay, I'm going to move to set aside the term "IIEE" in this discussion.  I've split off a thread where I, at least, hope to thrash through some of my confusion about where and when the term applies.

Do we agree that Capes gives players the ability to narrate something and simply have it inserted, without question or negotiation, into the SIS?

Hi Tony,

Yup. But those "somethings" by definition have no effect on the options of the other players. Very much unlike the somethings which can get established in Sorcerer or Dogs in the Vineyard.

Best,
Ron

How so?

Tony, this isn't working, and the medium is disastrous for the level of analysis you want to get to. I would prefer to take it to voice discussion. Get in touch by PM with phone info, if you'd like.

Best,
Ron

IIEE in Capes, as I understand the two, happens both inside and outside of the conflict mechanic.

If, when it's my turn to narrate at any point in the Capes flow of play, I say, "Jonas kicks in the door."  Intent, intiation, execution and effect all happen right there without any further engagement with any rules or other players.  Boom.  The door has been kicked in.

If I want to make it part of the game, then I can declare a goal, but the game never forces me to do that to put something into the SIS.

This may sound defensive, but I think that Ralph and I have been mischaracterized. We've never said that Capes doesn't work as written (well, not being sure of everything that Ralph has written, I can only absolutely speak for myself, but of what I've seen it's true). In all cases we were suggesting that the introduction of a challenge mechanism or something of the sort would improve play. Furthermore several straw men about our argument are rearing their ugly heads again. Whether or not Ralph and I are correct is not up for debate in this thread as it's not the topic. I'm not here to argue the point (start a new thread if you really want to see that all again). Merely to correct the impression of the argument that's being presented, and the spirit under which it was presented.

I like Capes, or I wouldn't bother commenting on it at all. If Ralph and I have an agenda, it's precisely that since Capes has similarities to Universalis that we'd like it to be the best game that it can be. The games are not in competition in any way, and sales of one support those of the other. So I'd wish that people would refrain from even joking about our potential motives.

Mike