Just an odd rules question.

Say that a player is using the Robot powerset, and making heavy use of the "Massive Property Damage" Style.  Could I set out a "Goal: Massive Property Damage" and effectively prevent the Robot from using that Style until that conflict resolves?

yrs--
--Ben

Um... you know, I just finished reading the rules and I don't remember anything keeping you from doing it.  In fact, if a character has the Power, "Razor Sharp Claws" I could see you plopping down a Conflict that said "Goal: Wolverine uses his razor sharp claws" and keep him from narrating anything with his claws until it was resolved.

Weird...

Yeah, but you could easily counter with:

"Robot-man attempts to cause Massive Property Damage, but stumbles into a scyscraper instead of laying waste to the city as planned. The building is rocked from the impact, and shudders ominously."

or:

"Wolverine's Razor Sharp Claws fail to deploy as he attacks, causing him to lash out even stronger than he intended, due to an atavistic reaction to the shock of it."

...I think.

Andrew M. has the right of it... most practical goals block off some specific uses, but leave a panoply of more creative ways to narrate the power.  While you can theoretically write "Goal:  Massive Property Damage as an idea, memory, concept or action has any bearing, relevance or influence, direct or indirect over the course of events," (and thereby, I think, kill off most any sort of narration by the Not Yet rule) most people don't.

Yeah, the only time I can conceive of actually doing something like you describe is if someone is being a total dick in free narration.  Then I would block 1 power, I'd go for blocking the whole damn character.

Goal: Captain Spandex uses any of his powers in any way ?

Is this something that actually happened, Jack?  Or are you worried and borrowing trouble?  Or, alternately, are you stepping up to provide the folks on the forum with a fun challenge to work out, so that everyone can applaud and marvel at the grace and artistry with which they handle it?

I'm sort of hoping for that third one, I have to admit.  But mainly I think the discussion will be more fun if we're all on the same page.

More of the third. It struck me as the logical extension of what the first poster was talking about.

Coooool!  Challenge time, everyone.  Jack has posted a beautiful broad-spectrum Preventative Goal (and I agree it's the logical extension of the first poster's comments).  Let's see some entertaining notions for how you would narrate the game-mechanical use of a Power anyway.

Hell, I did this VOLUNTARILY in the game that's going right now.  I had one of my villains Reverend Eden summon Lucifer through a portal and one of the other player's slapped down, Goal: Send Lucifer Back Through The Portal.  It succeeded and massively hosed Lucifer in the process.  He ended up with 11 debt on his undifferenciated drive stack.

So, I decided he was totally stripped of his powers by the process.  So no when I use "Invulnerable" I describe him arrogantly taking a blow from an enemy and then acting totally shocked when he starts to bleed.

Jesse

Goal: Captain Spandex uses any of his powers in any way ?

I'm with Eric on this one.  There's not any way to block someone from using the Power to get to roll the dice.  You can always narrate the character TRYING to use the Power but being unsuccessful and still roll the die.  My initial read on the problem was what Eric describes.  What if I somehow get stuck playing with a total dick?  Can Capes provide ways to curtail the lone idiot at the table?  I think using Powerblocking is an excellent example of how to do so.  It doesn't rob the player from the ability to play but it makes him have to come up with something interesting in order to do so.  Of course, if he's still a dick after that, just quit playing with him.

What Andrew (Gaerik) just said. Use your powers in ways that are meaningless, but let you narrate why you end up rolling the die anyway. "Captain Spandex winds up to use his Thunder Punch, but realizes that violence is not the answer, and convinces the bank robbers to turn themselves over to the police."

Would you actually accept that as a use of a power? I don't have the rules at hand but it seems to me that Captain Spendex thinking about it and doing something else wouldn't reasonably count as using the power.

In one recent session with Tony -- who, y'know, is presumably the world's leading authority on the interpretation of Capes rules -- I realized I had a character with nothing but combat powers who was in the middle of a debate scene where violence was totally inappropriate. (For the moment). I boggled for a moment and then realized: Use the powers metaphorically.

In my case, I had the character, who had the "Shootist" powerset from the click-and-locks, speak in gawdawful inarticulate gunfire metaphors, e.g. I use "Ricochet" and the character says something like, "y'know, sometimes we all make mistakes, where we aim for one goal but everything we throw at it bounces off and does terrible damage somewhere else...." Etc. etc. ad infinitum ad nauseam.

This was a silly example, but you could do it seriously. I had a villainness whose level 5 power was "Cause pain" against whom Tony laid down a preventative goal "Hurt my character in any away." So I simply had my villain cause emotional pain to herself, because she's so damn full of misery and self-loathing, and let that power her towards victory anyway.

Also, on a simpler note:  Where exactly do the rules appoint anybody to "accept" that narration?

Given the conspicuous absence of a formal referee (in other games often the GM) there are two ways of viewing the player relation to the rules:

• The rules are a communal resource, and all uses of them are subject to community oversight.  Any vagueness (and "You must include X in your narration" is, unfortunately, too vague) are referred to the community.
• The rules are individual resources.  Any vagueness can be resolved by each individual as they see fit.

If you're going with the first way then my answer is "Yeah, me personally, I'd accept that narration."  If you're going with the second way then the answer is "Me?  What have I got to do with it?  Does the guy narrating it think that's sufficient?"

I honestly don't think one is better than the other.  The second one is a lot easier (for me) but requires a lot of trust in the other players.  Plus, it's obviously easier for me because nobody's ever called me on whether my use of the rules was correct.  So I don't have to feel in any way that I'm competing for authority over the rules.

I do  know that at GenCon while playing with Tony that I had The Ravager II simply remember Major Victory using his powers in a previous encounter and that counted as using my (MV) powers for the roll.  All the rules say is that you have to "include" the power in your narration.  How it is included isn't mentioned at all.

In any game where Tony is a participant, his authority as creator of the game, and his good-natured, infectious enthusiasm tends to make a very "anything goes" atmosphere as far as accepting narration goes.

But when it comes right down to it, there's no mechanism for enforcing the rule that says that you have to include the power you used in your narration. 

I can recall having a short conversation with Tony in the first game I played that went something like this (and I'm paraphrasing, probably terribly):

Me: "Bleah.  I just can't think of any narration for this, and my '5' is the only power I can use."

Tony: "It doesn't have to be explicit.  Like, if your power were 'throw things' your character could throw his weight around, throw up, throw his back out... whatever."

Me: "Okay...." 

*long pause*

Me: "I still can't think of anything.  'Laser Blast' isn't exactly a broad metaphor."

At this point in the game, NOONE has the *authority* to say, "Well, Fred, if you can't think of anything else, then it's James's turn."  They can SUGGEST that I pass to the next person.

There's a lot of authority in Capes that devolves eventually on group consensus, and the people who can lead or shape that consensus have a lot of power in shaping how the game as a whole turns out.  Just like in any other RPG, but moreso.

Seems to me that part of this problem is an equivocation between a character using a power and a player using a power.  Nothing can stop a player from using a power (although now that I say it, I'm imagining a game of meta-Capes :).  The only constraint that a conflict like 'Goal: X uses a power' imposes is that when a player provides narration for their use of a power, that player needs to feel that the power was mentioned appropriately in the narration, and that the character does not use it.

I'm trying to imagine what the circumstances would be in which that was an appropriate goal to place.  The main one that springs to mind is when a villian or hero is the subject of some sort of suppression beam.  In that case, the narration is simple - the hero struggles to use his power, only to have it foiled by the beam.

Really, this seems similar to the whole 'What if your guy gets locked in jail' question.  The only constraints on narration are aesthetic constraints (which are valid constraints - consider the 'Laser Blast' example).  If someone is such a skilled narrator that they can put down conflicts like 'Your character is in any way better than totally pathetic' and they make sense and are cool, then sit back and enjoy the show.  If they're using narration which is dorky and doesn't make sense, then don't play with them (It's worth pointing out that this is a continuum, and not a discrete measure - I'm happy to tolerate some level of dorkiness in narration, but if someone is trying to disrupt my play that much, I'm not interested in playing).

Sorry to open up what might be an old thread, but this is really bugging me...

Isn't "Powerblocking" part and parcel of the genre? The way to accommodate it narratively has been given, so that's not a problem, provided everyone knows it.

Isn't strapping Superman to a block of Kryptonite exactly this? Goal - stop Superman using any of his powers. I'm straining to think of other examples and failing, but they must abound.

Sam.

Usually players voluntarily stop using their own powers when they start carrying too much debt, and use (say) Kryptonite (or a hiccup of their metabolism or sun-spots or the having been out of the water for too long) as an excuse.

Mandacaru wrote:
Isn't "Powerblocking" part and parcel of the genre? The way to accommodate it narratively has been given, so that's not a problem, provided everyone knows it.

Isn't strapping Superman to a block of Kryptonite exactly this? Goal - stop Superman using any of his powers. I'm straining to think of other examples and failing, but they must abound.

TheCzech wrote:
A goal can block anything narrative but absolutely nothing mechanical. 

Here is a question related to this thread, at least tangentially.

The rules say that when a goal is made for a character, the player of that character can veto it (pg 29).  So with:

Goal: Captain Spandex uses his powers in any way.

How is this preventative?  If the player of Captain Spandex is uninterested, he can veto it.  And if the player finds it interesting, then it either is not preventing him from doing something he wants to do, or its more interesting than what he wanted to do.  At best I would call this a distracting goal, not a preventative goal.  In fact, I have to say that the discussion of preventative goals on page 126 doesn't seem to take the veto power into account.

It seems to me a better preventative goal would be:

Goal: Major Evil prevents Captain Spandex from using his powers in any way.

In this case, Captain Spandex can't veto, I think.  Until the goal resolves, Captain Spandex can do whatever he wants, but if it resolves against Captain Spandex, while his player can still use the traits on his sheet, the player cannot narrate Captain Spandex using his powers in any way, one assumes, until another Goal resovles, such as:

Goal: Captain Spandex regains use of his powers

Am I missing something?  Am I over reading the veto power?

Based on the above, from the discussion on page 126 on preventative goals, to prevent the villain escaping, you can't make:

Goal: Major Evil escapes

without a veto, but you can make:

Goal: Captain Spandex prevents Major Evil escaping

and this achieves the same purpose.  Its a semantic difference, but it seems important to me.

Hans wrote:
The rules say that when a goal is made for a character, the player of that character can veto it (pg 29). 

Hans wrote:
Goal: Major Evil prevents Captain Spandex from using his powers in any way.

In this case, Captain Spandex can't veto, I think.  Until the goal resolves, Captain Spandex can do whatever he wants, but if it resolves against Captain Spandex, while his player can still use the traits on his sheet, the player cannot narrate Captain Spandex using his powers in any way, one assumes, until another Goal resovles, such as:

Goal: Captain Spandex regains use of his powers

Am I missing something?  Am I over reading the veto power?

Hans wrote:
Based on the above, from the discussion on page 126 on preventative goals, to prevent the villain escaping, you can't make:

Goal: Major Evil escapes

without a veto, but you can make:

Goal: Captain Spandex prevents Major Evil escaping

and this achieves the same purpose.  Its a semantic difference, but it seems important to me.

Gaerik wrote:
The problem with your example is that Goal: Major Evil prevents Captain Spandex from using his powers in any way. being resolved doesn't put any limitations on Spandex in any way whatsoever.  Major Evil's player can resolve the goal and on Spandex's next turn his player can narrate whatever he wants.  Goals that have been resolved no longer affect play mechanically in any way.  It only affect play mechanically while it is in play.

Gaerik wrote:
The semantics here are very important.  "Goal: Major Evil escapes" keeps Major Evil's character from narrating an escape until it has been resolved.  "Goal: Captain Spandex prevents Major Evil escaping" doesn't keep Major Evil from narrating an escape.  It keeps Spandex from preventing Major Evil's escape.

I'll leave the question of vetos to Tony.  I'm unsure of them.

Hans, you're making the incorrect assumption that after a conflict has been cleared off the table, that it has any further effect on the game.

A cleared conflict has only three lingering effects, and those only last until they are spent:

1> Story tokens
2> Inspirations
3> Debt

And none of them retain any 'ghost' of the conflict that originally spawned them...

UNLESS

The players involved think it's cool to do so.

Vaxalon wrote:
Hans, you're making the incorrect assumption that after a conflict has been cleared off the table, that it has any further effect on the game...[snip] UNLESS The players involved think it's cool to do so.

For this game, Actual Play is all.  You can't get it from the book.

Yes, for the most part, that kind of thing doesn't happen.

If it does, you're playing with asshats and you should find a new group.

Hans,

Your example with Player 1 and Player 2 are perfectly acceptable according to the rules.  It takes a does take a bit of a shift in how you think games should normally work.  You can probably do a search of this forum for several threads on this exact subject.

There is a way to get the kind of effect you are wanting.  Let's say you, playing a hero, don't want Major Evil to escape during the scene.  During the first turn around the table, plop down "Goal: Major Evil escapes."  Now Major Evil's player cannot narrate him escaping until the Conflict is decided.  After this, don't ever actually claim a side to the Conflict.  Roll on the side opposite Major Evil, if he claims a side but don't ever actually claim it.  If you continue to win without claiming a side the Conflict never leaves the table and Major Evil can't escape.  Once the end of the scene is in sight, then claim the side and try to win.  If you win, the scene ends with Major Evil getting captured.  If not, he gets away.

Note that this doesn't keep anyone from narrating Major Evil escaping from prison first thing in the next scene unless you plop down "Goal: Major Evil escapes from prison." before they can do so.

Actually, it's impossible to put down a goal before Major Evil's player gets a chance to narrate him out of prison, because he can introduce his character before you can lay down your goal... but yeah, you can keep him from escaping for ONE scene, if you're willing to spend the resources you need to enforce it, and have a little luck with the dice.

Gaerik wrote: The semantics here are very important.  "Goal: Major Evil escapes" keeps Major Evil's character from narrating an escape until it has been resolved.  "Goal: Captain Spandex prevents Major Evil escaping" doesn't keep Major Evil from narrating an escape.  It keeps Spandex from preventing Major Evil's escape.

Hans wrote:
Player 1: "Haha, i win the Goal: Major Evil Escapes!  Captain Spandex grabs Major Evil by the arms and puts the cuffs on him.  'Major Evil, you are going to jail for your crimes, you scumbag.  Take him away, officers!' "
Player 2: "Ok, that conflict over?  As part of this other conflict, Major Evil will use power X.  Major Evil knocks the police out and escapes anyway."

In your circle of friends you play with I have to assume this doesn't happen, because I would think it would be intolerable.

TonyLB wrote:
The problem of revolving door prisons is legendary.  What kind of a world would it be where Bizarro couldn't break out of Star Labs at will to rain down confused havoc on the people of Metropolis

Hans wrote:
* Would "Goal:Major Evil Escapes" be vetoable by the player of Major Evil? (my guess is yes)

Hans wrote: * Who can veto "Goal: Captain Spandex prevents Major Evil from escaping"; Spandex's player, Evil's player, or both?  (I have no idea)

TonyLB wrote:

Hans wrote:
* Would "Goal:Major Evil Escapes" be vetoable by the player of Major Evil? (my guess is yes)

Correct.  I will point out, however, that having Major Evil veto this is, in fact, a benefit to Captain Spandex's player.  He's just learned something about how Major Evil's player thinks (specifically "I will not bother to pursue this goal, which means you will never, ever, get Story Tokens out of me by presenting it.")  The veto is a communication tool to help people find conflicts that they'll both be stoked about contesting over, not an authoritative tool to prevent certain types of conflicts from being played.

Hans wrote: * Who can veto "Goal: Captain Spandex prevents Major Evil from escaping"; Spandex's player, Evil's player, or both?  (I have no idea)

Only Captain Spandex.  This is why the veto can never be an authoritative tool, because this little (deliberate!) choice of wording can revise intent to be unvetoable.

Note, however, that the two goals ("Major Evil Escapes" and "Captain Spandex prevents Major Evil from escaping") are very different if Lycra, the boy sidekick, is also playing and wants to show himself the equal of his spotlight-hogging mentor.  Lycra would fight against Major Evil in the "Major Evil Escapes" conflict.  However, in the "Captain Spandex prevents Major Evil (and gets all the credit!)" conflict (reworded for clarity of interpretation) Lycra is pretty likely to side with Evil against the showboating Captain Spandex.