Just purchased the Capes and am about 1/2 through my first reading of the system, thought I would pop in and ask a few questions and check in on a few concepts.

1) When creating a hero using the freeform method, can you create a character with 3 Attitudes, 5 Styles, and 3 Skills and 1 Power?  Must a character have either Powers or Skills, but not both? Why?

2) Your side of a conflict has one die showing a one.  You have two debt you want to Stake and Split.  Are you simply not allowed to Split a die showing a one? Is that explicitly stated in the rulebook? (Or would the die split into a "1" die and a temp "0" die?  Still very useful for rolling)

3) Some styles are "powered" and some aren't.  What does this mean?  How are "powered" styles treated differently from non-powered ones?

4) Must exemplars be unfulfilling and unhappy?  For example, with a Love Drive of 5, say, I have an Exemplar of Lila Howard.  Can she not be just a happy good part of my character's life, without a downside apart from the normal work any relationship entails?

5) If the above answer is negative, why would I want to even take any exemplar's?  How does that help me win conflicts and get story tokens and inspirations?  For that matter, this Free Conflict that endlessly repeats seems depressingly banal.  It's like every tv show where the protagonist keeps trying to impress the girl, but never actually makes any headway - its frustratin and boring.  I like to see - nay, I demand (grin) character growth whereby the characters don't keep going around the same loop over and over again. 

OK< that's it for right now - let me know.

6) Comic's Codes, since they reward players that bring them close to being contravened with Gloted Story Tokens, are more of an incentive to bring the story to the brink of the Code being broken.

If one has a Comic's Code that innocents may not be killed, that actually incentivizes players bringing innocents as close to being killed as possible, as often as possible, correct?

If one wanted to put a limit of narration *wihout* incentivizing it, say you didn't want innocents to be killed, and you also didn't want players to be putting innocents in jeopardy just to get Gloat Story Tokens, One could merely have a House Rule that says some Comics Codes must be Gloated but not rewarded with tokens.

Perhaps something like:

Comics Code:  "no innocents can be killed through the action, innaction, success, or failure of the heros."  This Code can be Gloated, but does not reward Story Token's when that happens.

Or else, player's would have an incentive to put innocents in danger all the time for the tokens, right?

Why would you want to do that?  Threatening harm to innocents is a standard Superhero trope. 

It's just a for instance.  The main point I was making is that Comic Codes actually encourage players to try to pursue that which they forbid, so if they was some behaviour or type or other story limits that you wanted to set but *didnt* want people pursuing, you would have to de-incentivize them by not allowing token rewards for gloating on those ones.

Sindyr wrote:
1) When creating a hero using the freeform method, can you create a character with 3 Attitudes, 5 Styles, and 3 Skills and 1 Power?  Must a character have either Powers or Skills, but not both?

Sindyr wrote: Why?

Sindyr wrote: 2) Your side of a conflict has one die showing a one.  You have two debt you want to Stake and Split.  Are you simply not allowed to Split a die showing a one?

Sindyr wrote: 3) Some styles are "powered" and some aren't.  What does this mean?  How are "powered" styles treated differently from non-powered ones?

Sindyr wrote: 4) Must exemplars be unfulfilling and unhappy?  For example, with a Love Drive of 5, say, I have an Exemplar of Lila Howard.  Can she not be just a happy good part of my character's life, without a downside apart from the normal work any relationship entails?

Sindyr wrote: 5) If the above answer is negative, why would I want to even take any exemplar's?  How does that help me win conflicts and get story tokens and inspirations?

Sindyr wrote: For that matter, this Free Conflict that endlessly repeats seems depressingly banal.

FYI, please don't be upset with me as I go through the process of learning and questioning the game.  Two factors may lead you to think I am attacking you or your work:

1) The parts of your system design that I understand and that I like I will tend not to mention because since I understand and like them, there not much to say that wouldn't be me gushing or preaching to the converted - and also, since time is always precious, I tend to focus my time on areas where I feel work needs to be done - either because I don't understand the area, or do understand it, don't like it, and want to give some critiquing.  Therefor even if I love 90% of the system, mostly you will witness me questioning the other 10%, which may lead you to the impression that I do NOT like the system, which would not be true. But during the learning process you will definitely see me spending the most of my postings on questions on what I don't understand or comments on what I don't currently like.  Just know that the fact I am engaged in the conversation means that I find the system as a whole worth investing a whole lot of my time and energy into, and I am just trying to iron the bumpy bits.

2)  I am not what many would call tactful.  Logical, rational, even open-minded - but also blunt, direct, contrary, and even sometimes a little sharp.  But I *am* sincere about getting the most out of this interesting approach to rpg's.  I apologise if my manner and style of going about the ironing out the bumpy bits grates or seems too confrontational.  I would not be posting questions and differences of opinions if I wasn't respectful of everyone's else's thoughts and opinions - I would just keep it to myself.

Perhaps some of you will wish that I had a little less respect and little more quietly keeping stuff to myself. (grin).

Now, some more questions:

When you make a freeform character, is there a rule controlling how many Styles are powered and how many are blocked?

If I want to make a character that has 3 Powers, 5 non powered Styles, and 4 Attitudes, can I?  Or 3 Powers, 5 Powered Styles and 4 Attitudes?  Or any combination thereof?

Or must characters (made with the freeform system) with Powers have a max of 2 Styles non powered and a max of 3 Styles powered, as the Click and Lock system would cause?

Of course characters without any Powers, that only have mundane skills, would never have Styles that are powered, right?

Also, non_powered character cannot have debt, right?  Therefor they can never stake and split, right?  Therefor in general, I cannot look forward to receiving story token when all the other characters are mundanes?

Finally, what to prevent me from taking a mundane Click and Lock left side piece and saying that each non powered skill/style listed is actually a super skill/style - that this character IS a super, it's just his skills and styles that are abnormally or supernaturally effective?

Thanks!!

:)

TonyLB wrote:

Sindyr wrote:
1) When creating a hero using the freeform method, can you create a character with 3 Attitudes, 5 Styles, and 3 Skills and 1 Power?  Must a character have either Powers or Skills, but not both?

That's correct.  Powers or skills.  Not both.  Per p. 72, "A character may have up to twelve abilities in three categories: Attitudes, Styles and either Powers (for super-beings) or Skills (for mundane characters)."

Sindyr wrote: Why?

Because them's the rules.

If you want to engage me in a discussion along the lines of "Why did you design it this way, rather than some other way," then that's a different discussion from the one where I explain what the rules are.

More questions:

When does a Page end and a new Page begin?  Is it when all players have used their free actions and do not care (or are unable) to pay for other actions?

Also, if Alice, Ben, Charlie and Dave are done Claiming in this page, Alice uses her free action, then Ben uses his, can Charlie Pass, not use his free action, but use it later before the page is declared ended? Or does he simply lose his chance at a free action if he passes?

And when does a Scene end and a new Scene begin?  Is it when all existing Conflicts have been ended and the table is free of notecards?

Finally, Inspirations, Debt, and Story Tokens are the main resources that are won and lost.  For each of those three, which are ties to the character and which are tied to the player of the character?

For example, if while playing Captain Good I get a 5 Inspiration, 3 Debt, and 4 Story Tokens.

I am pretty sure the 3 Debt is tied to the Captain, but if in the next Scene I play Tess Trueheart, do I while playing that character have access to the above won 5 Inspiration or 4 Story Tokens?  What if someone else in the same scene in which I play Tess is now playing the Captain?  Who in this *new* scene controls the Debt, the Inspiration, and the Story Tokens won last Scene when I was playing Captain Good?

Awaiting anxiously your responses to all of the questions asked so far.

PS. Just finished the PDF - the strategy section was awesome.

Sindyr wrote:
Actually, although it *is* a side topic to my quest to understand the "what" of the rules, I would be interested in hearing why you designed the system to have characters have either powers or skills but not both.  I have some guesses, but would like to know your thinking as your were designing this piece of the game...

Thanks Tony! 

Btw, I just confirmed that Insipirations and Story Tokens do indeed stick with the player, not character, and that debt of course sticks with the character - so maybe the best way to get Story Tokens is to play disposable characters that you dont mind getting debt with? ;)

Tony - if you have the time, I would *really* appreciate getting your responses to my above 2 or 3 posts of questions.  Thanks!

PS. Reading the OOC and IC threads of the NecroNazis on RPGNet - very interesting and informative.

Sindyr wrote:
FYI, please don't be upset with me as I go through the process of learning and questioning the game.

Sindyr wrote: When you make a freeform character, is there a rule controlling how many Styles are powered and how many are blocked?

Sindyr wrote: If I want to make a character that has 3 Powers, 5 non powered Styles, and 4 Attitudes, can I?  Or 3 Powers, 5 Powered Styles and 4 Attitudes?  Or any combination thereof?

Sindyr wrote: Of course characters without any Powers, that only have mundane skills, would never have Styles that are powered, right?

Sindyr wrote: Also, non_powered character cannot have debt, right?  Therefor they can never stake and split, right?  Therefor in general, I cannot look forward to receiving story token when all the other characters are mundanes?

Sindyr wrote: Finally, what to prevent me from taking a mundane Click and Lock left side piece and saying that each non powered skill/style listed is actually a super skill/style - that this character IS a super, it's just his skills and styles that are abnormally or supernaturally effective?

Sindyr wrote:
Btw, I just confirmed that Insipirations and Story Tokens do indeed stick with the player, not character, and that debt of course sticks with the character - so maybe the best way to get Story Tokens is to play disposable characters that you dont mind getting debt with? ;)

Sindyr wrote:
When does a Page end and a new Page begin?  Is it when all players have used their free actions and do not care (or are unable) to pay for other actions?

Sindyr wrote: Also, if Alice, Ben, Charlie and Dave are done Claiming in this page, Alice uses her free action, then Ben uses his, can Charlie Pass, not use his free action, but use it later before the page is declared ended? Or does he simply lose his chance at a free action if he passes?

Sindyr wrote: And when does a Scene end and a new Scene begin?  Is it when all existing Conflicts have been ended and the table is free of notecards?

TonyLB wrote:

Sindyr wrote: Of course characters without any Powers, that only have mundane skills, would never have Styles that are powered, right?

Huh.  I never thought about that one.  Not having thought about it, I can answer somewhat certainly "That's gonna make for some weird rates of debt-flow, which will probably feedback to the disadvantage of the player of that character ... which is to say that I think it's a bad idea from a strategy point of view."  Whether I think it's enough of an issue to code it into the rules?  That's a higher standard.  I'll have to ponder.

Blade Lord
Martial Arts Swordman and Cinematic Villain

Abilities

3 Hanzo Sword
2 Agility
1 Spiritual Corruption

Styles

1 Leaping Attack (P)
2 Clouding the Mind (P)
5 The Shadow Step Slice (P)
4 Whispering Influence (P)
3 Every-Way Thrust (P)

Attitudes

1 Furious
3 Calm
2 Zen
4 Centered

TonyLB wrote:

Sindyr wrote: And when does a Scene end and a new Scene begin?  Is it when all existing Conflicts have been ended and the table is free of notecards?

Yep.  If people insist on making new conflicts with their actions then they can force the scene to last until people get really pissed off at them.

At convention games (particularly those with a fixed schedule) I occasionally institute "Sudden Death Overtime" ... a page where everyone gets as many free claims (going around the circle) as it takes to claim all sides of all conflicts, no new conflicts may be created during the page, and any tied conflicts at the end of the page are assumed deadlocked (a loss for both sides).  So that closes a scene at the end of that page, in case you really, really just need to get the scene done with.

Checking:

Any powered ability can be used multiple times per page.  Any "blocked" ability can only be used once per scene.

Is that correct?  I think something above is wrong, but I am not sure which or how.

PS. A powered ability  = a power or a powered style.  A blocked ability = a skill, an attitude, or a non powered style.

TonyLB wrote:

Sindyr wrote: 4) Must exemplars be unfulfilling and unhappy?  For example, with a Love Drive of 5, say, I have an Exemplar of Lila Howard.  Can she not be just a happy good part of my character's life, without a downside apart from the normal work any relationship entails?

As per p. 75 "There must be a 'root conflict' in the relationship between the character and her Exemplar.  This is some fundamental way in which they are forever at odds."  Whether that means the relationship is (on the whole) unfulfilling and unhappy is up to you.  But there's got to be adversity there.

Sindyr wrote: 5) If the above answer is negative, why would I want to even take any exemplar's?  How does that help me win conflicts and get story tokens and inspirations?

It gives other players the opportunity to play your Exemplar in order to drive the story directly at the conflicts that you find most interesting and important.  That helps you (and them) to earn more resources.

Sindyr wrote:
Any powered ability can be used multiple times per page.  Any "blocked" ability can only be used once per scene.

Sindyr wrote:
Could you have a Love Exampler set up as:
Mary Jane and I are totally into each other, BUT sometimes we lose ourselves in each other and lose touch with things we should be attending to,
-or-
Mary Jane and I love each other deeply and have lots of great sex, BUT our inability to keep our hands off of each other leads us to having sex at innapropriate times and places.

Zamiel wrote:
If it were 3 Abilities, 4 Styles, and 5 Attitudes, I might be more concerned, since that's a character who'll burn out his ability to respond in a Scene fairly quickly (once rolls start hitting 5's), but the ability to grab Debt early in a Scene won't be affected. Using the Powers he has in Reactions will spike that Debt early, and then he can use that Debt to do late splitting he re-rolls with unPowered Traits.

Could you have a Love Exampler set up as:
Mary Jane and I are totally into each other, BUT sometimes we lose ourselves in each other and lose touch with things we should be attending to,
-or-
Mary Jane and I love each other deeply and have lots of great sex, BUT our inability to keep our hands off of each other leads us to having sex at innapropriate times and places.

Wow.  Talk about an inappropriate time and place!

TonyLB wrote:
Wow.  Talk about an inappropriate time and place!

Zamiel wrote:
[Alexander introduces "Goal: Goblin begins appearing sexually desirable to Mary Jane." Forget that killing her bit, I want Peter's player to actually throw me some Story Tokens here.]

Sindyr wrote:
[Ummm...  Why would Peter's player care?  As soon as the Goal is accomplished the next narrator can say "MJ wakes up from a very weird dream..."

Goals have no lasting effect apart from house rules that say they do, right? (I am impervious to popcorn)

Sindyr wrote:
Goals have no lasting effect apart from house rules that say they do, right? (I am impervious to popcorn)

Sindyr wrote:
(I am impervious to popcorn)

[Alexander introduces "Goal: Goblin begins appearing sexually desirable to Mary Jane." Forget that killing her bit, I want Peter's player to actually throw me some Story Tokens here.]

Why would Peter's player care?

As soon as the Goal is accomplished the next narrator can say "MJ wakes up from a very weird dream..."

Tuxboy wrote:
As Zamiel says the next narrator is likely to just pick it up and run with it, and even if the dream is narrated, there is nothing to stop someone narrating reoccurring dreams as the Conflict: "MJ succumbs to the mind control device" is introduced

Maybe she's secretly obsessed with powerful men with violent streaks because of her abusive father ...

Glendower wrote:

Sindyr wrote:
(I am impervious to popcorn)

If you're impervious to popcorn, then gaming can quickly become lonely.  It's all social contract stuff, and if you break the contract you break the game. 

While on this subject, apart from popcorn, what's to prevent a player making my spotlight character, the one I am currently playing (say, Spiderman) fall in love with Harry Osbourne?  By using and Event or Goal or some such?

Sindyr wrote:
If someone's taken MJ and made her fall for Goblin, then the social contract has already been broken.

Sindyr wrote:
While on this subject, apart from popcorn, what's to prevent a player making my spotlight character, the one I am currently playing (say, Spiderman) fall in love with Harry Osbourne?  By using and Event or Goal or some such?

Sindyr wrote:

Zamiel wrote:
[Alexander introduces "Goal: Goblin begins appearing sexually desirable to Mary Jane." Forget that killing her bit, I want Peter's player to actually throw me some Story Tokens here.]

Ummm...  Why would Peter's player care?  As soon as the Goal is accomplished the next narrator can say "MJ wakes up from a very weird dream..."

Goals have no lasting effect apart from house rules that say they do, right? (I am impervious to popcorn)

In order to consider a character to be *mine* and to therefor emotionally invested in what happens to it, I need to have authoritative say over what that character tries to do and things like the character's likes, dislikes, moral compass, etc.

I mean, at the opening of the scene, each player chooses a character to play.  There are also in many games Spotlight Heroes that are reserved and can only be played by their creator.

What is the meaning of choosing to play my Captain Good character?  What is the meaning of having that character by my spotlight character?  **What is the meaning of having that character be in any way *mine* if I do not have authoritative say over his motives, choices, and such?**

In short, if my spotlight character is Spierman/Peter Parker, how is it that any other player should be allowed to usurp the choices and values I choose for my character?

I submit that if I create a spotlight character, other players may be allowed to make events and problems and conflicts befall him, but if they ever under any circumstances narrate behaviour or choices for my character, that because it IS my character, I can VETO.

Therefor, it is wrong (and breaking the social contract) for another player to say "Goal: Captain Good is sexually attracted to Mr. Evil" as that is MY choice - but if they instead wish to set a goal of "Goal: Mr Evil is sexually attracted to Captain Good and tries to convert the Capt.", that is fine.

When saying "this is my character" the "my" has to mean something, or else you are just saying "this is *a* character.

I don't know about you, but I am much more interested in stories involving *my* character.

The same could be true of Exemplar's under certain circumstances.

IE.  Captain Good, a spolight character of mine, has as a Love Exemplar Nicole Frank.  I may also take Nicole Frank as a second Spotlight character. Or maybe, with a non shared, non spotlight exemplar, the character to whom it is exemplared to can be assumed to have behaviour/action veto power.

All this means is that another player, should he narrate or use either character in a scene, would be subject to my veto if he narrated any behaviours or actions I felt incompatible with my vision of those characters.  He would not have to worry about my veto with anything he does *to* with (that's what tokens and such are for) but he can be veto'ed with anything he does *with* them.

Of course, this assumes no mind rays or similiar trumping plot devices. :)

The answer to that one is simplicity itself...the character ISN'T yours and therefore everything you wrote above is some nice musings but has nothing whatsoever to do with playing Capes.

In Capes, if you want it, fight for it.  Put your money where your mouth is, step on up and proove how much you think you ought to control what Spiderman feels.

Capes gives you nothing for free.  You don't get to have all powerful mastery over Spidey's feelings simply because your name is at the top of the character sheet.  Capes doesn't care.  If you want to direct Spidey's feelings on a certain thing you have to put on the gloves and battle it out in a no holds barred cage match of dice rolling brutality with every other player who wants to direct Spidey's feelings on that thing. 

Eventually, you'll lose.  Selecting which conflicts you're willing to lose and which you aren't is pretty much the primary overarching strategy of Capes play.  But there are no conflicts you just win automatically because Spidey is your character...that's some other game.

Its pretty radical*.  There aren't that many games that go there.  But I can say from my experience with Universalis its really damn liberating.

* in fact, I'd go so far to say that the game would have been more consistant in its radical message if there were no "Spotlight Character" language at all.  It strikes me that it must have been a moment of weakness.

At the beginning of a scene each player is supposed to choose a character...

Why?  Does having chosen a character give you some ability that not having chosen a charater would not?

From the book, on the Scene page, page 20

Players choose characters in order. The scene creator chooses
the first character, and then other players do so proceeding
clockwise. If someone has chosen a character you want to play
before it gets to your turn then you are out of luck.

Sindyr wrote:
Why?  Does having chosen a character give you some ability that not having chosen a charater would not?

Sindyr wrote:
In order to consider a character to be *mine* and to therefor emotionally invested in what happens to it, I need to have authoritative say over what that character tries to do and things like the character's likes, dislikes, moral compass, etc.

TonyLB wrote:
I play Major Victory a lot at conventions.  Major Victory is everyone's punching bag.  He's so self-righteous.  I've lost dozens (perhaps hundreds) of conflicts like "Goal:  Major Victory's pedophiliac fantasies are revealed," and "Goal:  Major Victory becomes a psychotic mega-villain," and "Goal:  Major Victory becomes Iron Brain's willing minion."

Please stop, take an actual moment (or four) and consider what I am about to say as if hearing it for the first time, with a new and open mind.

To qualify as a role-playing game, the bare minimum is that it must be a game in which you play roles.  Capes does hit that minimum.

But to qualify for what I think is a *real* roleplaying game, not just technically, but actually, it must do more than that.  To be a true roleplaying game, a player must be allowed to *play* his character, to make his decisions, to be the sole controlling force behind his behaviors and actions. (not including mind control, et al.)  He must be allowed to sink into a character and wrap the character around himself, wearing him like a favorite suit of clothes, that the player alone is permitted to wear.

Just about every gamer I meet also seems to want this.  It is like an implicit contract - an RPG’er hears that so and so is running a game, they know that if they join that game, it may be sci-fi or mystery, may be d20 or indie, may be crunchier or more free flowing, but the one thing that we all expect from a RPG is the ability to not just play roles, but to choose one particular role or character to invest in more than the others, to have authoritative internal control over that character such that this character is OURS, not just from a point of view of resources, but ours to *play* - that is, to ACT - that no one else can tell us what our character thinks, likes, attempts, and only *we* are in the pilot seat for that character.

By your words above, Capes is not intended to be such a game.

Choosing a character in Capes, according to what you seem to be syaing, is a matter of choosing what resources you will have access to, in terms of abilities, etc.  You seem to have explicitly stated that if I choose to "play" Captain Good (although apparently, in your game, I do not play him, I play his resources), any of the other players can narrate actions for him limited only by my ability to defend him.  If I am playing with 3 other players who each think it appropriate that Captain Good deck a mouthy NPC and I, the so-called player of that char, think otherwise, it is unlikely that I will be able to prevent a Goal from being accomplished that has my Capt decking the NPC - no matter how out of character and how much a violation of my so-called char I think that is. (All Comic Codes aside)

And no matter how well I play and strategize, given the resources at our disposal, the sheer fact of the matter is that 3 players that want a goal accomplished can outspend a lone player that doesn't want the goal done.

And this is where I think we part company.  You feel, I intuit, that if three out of four players want something, that it should happen, regardless of any other consideration.  I don't go that far - I believe that a special circumstance must exist.  I believe that the implicit contract needs to be honored - that players should be allowed characters that are truly theirs, and that this means while anything can happen to that character externally (even mind control rays where appropriate) that the owning player, and only the owning player, gets to have absolute authority and control over what the character chooses to think and do.  It seems that Capes throws out this basic principle.

And again, if I know that anyone at the table can put words in *my* hero’s mouth that I can’t veto; if anyone at the table can don my hero’s form while I am still wearing it, if any other player can simply and easily trod all over my relationship with that character – than I will quite simply not *have* a relationship with that character.

I play characters in RPG’s not just to tell a story, but to tell the specific story of the character I am playing.  If I have to share ownership of the character, then I have two choices: unwisely continue to emotionally invest in the character – and reap the grief I deserve for doing so when my vision for the character gets repeatedly violated – or *don’t* emotionally invest in any character, and play the game from an emotional distance.

Not emotionally investing in the game causes two related problems.  First, a game I am not invested in is a game I don’t greatly care if I continue playing.  A “shrug” game. Second, without being invested in the game and its world, I will feel no attachment to any Goal or Event happening or being prevented – without being invested, I don’t really care what happens.  This leads to boredom, which leads to me as a player trying to find something interesting yet emotionally safe to do, which can lead to either bizarre surreal games or constantly pushing the game into places that the other players don’t like – all for the sake of boredom.

So, yes, this all makes Capes even more revolutionary and interesting thereby.  But while I maintain a keen interest in all games strange and different, I don’t necessarily want to play them – or even find them playable as RPGs.

So now the question for me is where to go from here?  By removing the traditional and expected authority a player has over his character you seem to have gutted the fundamental RPG player contract.  While this creates an interesting thought experiment, it is not an actual RPG except in the technical sense.

Having heard of a couple successful groups playing Capes, I submit that the authoritative control a player has over his character is rarely threatened in practice, apparently because that right is so implicit that even though Capes does not appear to support it, most people still play as though it did.

So, if most people are still obeying the implicit RPG player contract, does the game even need to have explicit protections? 

Oh, yes.  Without question.

All it takes in one person with an agenda to start tromping all over the implicit contract.  One player that puts down “Goal: Captain Good is having a bad day and maims the next guy who annoys him” or “Goal: Captain Good realizes his love for cows and starts having sex with them”. (yes, I know, hyperbole, but it illustrates a very real point)

If Capes is truly intended to be a system that encourages us to tell stories that make the players want to engage, having  veto power over your character’s actions does not prevent Capes from achieving that goal – it simply prevents (pun intended) character assassination.

The only reason to NOT give me, the player of Capt Good,  the ability to veto someone else’s narration for Capt. Good’s actions or choices, is if you truly believe that anyone at the table has an equal right to decide what my character does, and all that matters is player resources.

If that’s what you truly believe, than you also truly believe that apart from characters being a source of resources, no player should consider any character especially theirs.

And if true and if played this way, this ultimately makes Capes *not* an RPG.

I look forward to everyone’s response to this, especially Tony’s.

Hopefully responses that are more than just flat denials, responses that tackle the issues I raise in a thoughtful and engaging way.

Again, the fact I just spent a couple of hours writing and editing this post certifies my investment and respect for Capes, its author, and the others in this forum.  I am excited to see how much time, energy, and thought is put into considering and replying to the issues that I have raised.

Thanks.

PS.  A easy fix for the above issues would probably be a simple house rule:
>Any narration of an action, behavior, thought, or choice of a character can be veto’ed by that character’s player (or owner in the case of Spotlight characters), assuming the character is free and not under external control.

Perhaps those who respond to the above post might also address if they think the above house rule is detrimental or beneficial to Capes, and why.

Okay, in all seriousness ... I need some help with framing a response that is not, at least in part, a flat denial.  Here's the specific section I've got issues with:

Sindyr wrote:
Having heard of a couple successful groups playing Capes, I submit that the authoritative control a player has over his character is rarely threatened in practice, apparently because that right is so implicit that even though Capes does not appear to support it, most people still play as though it did.

Well, I am not sure how to continue... here are some ideas, which may or may not be mutually possible:

1)  We agree for the sake of discussion, that having players have absolute authority of the internal state of the character is important.  We agree to disagree if that's important to just one person in this whole world (me) or to most, or some where in between.

2)  Perhaps the experience in playing capes without the above control is fun for some AND is not roleplaying in the normal sense?  Perhaps Capes as written is a competitive storytelling game, but NOT a roleplaying game (except in a minimalist sense)?

3)  Perhaps while not gainsaying the fun some number of people have playing Capes qua Capes, we find a way to broaden the potential people having fun with it by meeting the RP players' needs and expectations while still including those already having fun with it?

4) Perhaps we discuss way to maximize serving the needs of both camps without doing either a disservice?

5) Perhaps we discuss what sort of house rule, possibly the one I mentioned at the end of my post, would best accomplish the goals of including people who want to truly own a character, while still leaving the majority of play and strategy in Capes untouched.

6) Alternatively, perhaps we discuss how and why Capes would be irretrievably broken were we to make such a change.

Just some ideas, off the top of my head.

I'll just note that proper construction of the Comics Code could address a lot of your problems, Sindyr.

The idea of "spotlight" characters is the first step.  Extend that outward until the Code says what you want it to say, and protects what you want it to protect.  Then, instead of narrating MJ falling for Goblin, Goblin's player will have to gloat instead of winning the conflict.  "Ha ha!  The hypno-ray is controlling her mind, and soon she'll lead Spider-Man into my trap!"

The exact question of whether Capes is an RPG, and who gets to define the latter term and its taxonomy, isn't really all that relevant.  (I think Tony's heard it often enough, too.)  I had the same reaction when I first heard about it, honestly - "The hell? No GM? You don't have your own character?  This ain't no RPG!"  Once I figured it out, though, it all made sense.  (And people lie when they say Capes is a GM-less game.  Capes is a game where everybody is the GM.)

J

Sindyr wrote:
And if true and if played this way, this ultimately makes Capes *not* an RPG.

drnuncheon wrote:
(And people lie when they say Capes is a GM-less game.  Capes is a game where everybody is the GM.)

This is a critical and I think extremely important point.

Capes *is* a playerless game where everybody is the GM.

I think that is the nut of it.  Whether one allows for a playerless game to be considered an RPG or not is left to taste, I suppose.

I guess I am used to achieving one of two pieces of enjoyment from playing RPGs:
1) The largely effort free ability to play one character, have absolute authority over what that character thinks and attempt (the internals), and to try to pursue that character's storyline in conformity with what I want that character to pursue.
2)  The largely work intensive ability to be the GM, who accepts input from all players but ultimately the absolute and sole authority in all matters that are not related to character volition.  Being a GM is mush like being a god, with my personal goal to use my godlike powers to create a multithreaded interwoven reality within which the players can explore being the characters they chose to portray.  As GM and as the sole creator, I am able to achieve all that I can in Capes, without having to worry about competing or being challenged by anybody else.

So what that means is that if I want to GM, I don't *want* to share creative control.  I want to pursue the Vision I have for the world, plot hooks, etc - I want to run with it.

If I want to play and have someone *else* GM, I want to be able to focus on my character and "own" that character completely.  This means only I get to direct the internal thoughts, choices, motivations, and actions of *my* character.

So, as written, Capes is a playerless game, with each participant a GM vying with all the other GM's for control of the direction of the story and the events and happenings therein.

It seems to me, that with a small change, Capes could be made into a game that would support a multi GM format while still allowing each person to play a character the way I described.  That rule change could be:
>Any narration of an action, behavior, thought, or choice of a character can be veto’ed by that character’s player (or owner in the case of Spotlight characters), assuming the character is free and not under external control.

I would ask again, perhaps such a house rule would best accomplish the goals of including people who want to truly own a character, while still leaving the majority of play and strategy in Capes untouched - or  would Capes would be irretrievably broken were we to make such a change?

Sindyr wrote:
4) Perhaps we discuss way to maximize serving the needs of both camps without doing either a disservice?

You:  You're selling food?  Great, I'm starved.
Me:  Well good!  I've got a spectacular food here.  I find it delicious, and I hope you will too!
You:  That doesn't look like french fries.
Me:  It's not.  It's sushi.  It's yummy.  Want to try some?
You:  Absolutely!  I love new taste sensations.  But I really, really enjoy french fries.
Me:  That's great.  You might find you like this too, and then you'd really, really enjoy two foods.  Wouldn't that be cool?
You:  How about if we fry it?  It would be more like french fries then.
Me:  I ... suppose it would.
You:  Oh, and that looks like fish.  Is it fish?  There's no fish in french fries.  Can we make it with potatoes instead?
Me:  Well, I suppose you could make fried potato sushi, if you really wanted to.  But you haven't even tried the normal sushi.
You:  Yeah, but if you made fried potato sushi you'd be serving both camps:  people who like sushi and people who like french fries.
Me:  But ... I don't want to serve both camps.  I want to introduce people to sushi.  It's yummy in a different way.  To introduce you to that, I want to actively avoid frying it.

Sindyr wrote:
I would ask again, perhaps such a house rule would best accomplish the goals of including people who want to truly own a character, while still leaving the majority of play and strategy in Capes untouched - or  would Capes would be irretrievably broken were we to make such a change?

Sindyr wrote:
I would ask again, perhaps such a house rule would best accomplish the goals of including people who want to truly own a character, while still leaving the majority of play and strategy in Capes untouched - or  would Capes would be irretrievably broken were we to make such a change?

TonyLB wrote:

Sindyr wrote:
4) Perhaps we discuss way to maximize serving the needs of both camps without doing either a disservice?

But ... I don't want to serve both camps.  I want to take people who think they can only enjoy a game where their character is an invincible tower of ultimate authority, and show them that they can have a different kind of fun without that tower.  To do that I want to actively undermine your ability to construct the tower.  Here's a dialogue:

Sindyr wrote:
Torturing another player by repeated abuse of threatening their "soft spots" is unimaginative, petty, mean, and proves that they should never, ever, be given the power of narration, unless the receiver of this abuse is secretly a masochist.

Sindyr wrote: Creating stories and conflicts that the other players care about, giving them a chance to accomplish something amazing or heroic, is what you should get rewarded with story tokens for.

It's weird, its like I completely agree with you and completely disagree with you at the same time.

I think it a wonderful thing to hang a nice shiny thing just out of reach, forcing the person who wants the new shiny bauble to work for it.

I think its a mean and worthless act to take away shiny thing that they already have, and make them work to get it back.

Not just in gaming - with any creative works, any sort of fictions I am entirely unimpressed by the story arc that goes a) the protagonist loses something/something he loves is put in jeopardy b) protagonists suffers and works mighty hard c) protagonist succeeds in fixing the problem, leaving us all exactly where we started.

I prefer a) protagonists gets an idea for a way to make things better in some way b) protagonists works hard c) protagonist succeeds, and now things are different from where we started.  The protagonist has a shiny new thing - a love interest he didn't have before, Mr Evil Behind Bars, a new power, a third world despot overthrown...  ultimately in *this* sort of story, something new was gained - its not about something lost restored.

I despise the over use of storylines in which the protagonist continually fights but rarely makes any forward progress.

A new supervillain to be defeated is one thing.  Fighting the same villain over and over again, even though you have successfully imprisoned him half a dozen times - I dont find that fun, no matter how true to comic books it is - I find it frustrating.

On the other hand, a new super villain that helps an old one escape jail, and by the end of the story not only is the old one back in jail but the new one is in jail now too - thats a net plus from where the story started.

Make sense?

Sindyr wrote:
"let's see how we can threaten to screw over another player by threatening their exemplar once again (yawn)"

it can be "Let's create a threat to the very fabric of our existence, and give the other player an opportunity to shine and show that he IS the protector of the people."

drnuncheon wrote:
Here's a secret: if you don't want people to screw with your character's relationship, don't make your girlfriend an exemplar.  Taking an exemplar is waving a big red flag in front of the charging story bull.  It's saying, "OVER HERE!  THIS IS WHAT I WANT TO TELL STORIES ABOUT!"

Sindyr wrote:
I guess than what I really want is the ability to set a REVERSE exemplar - to be able to set stuff I *don't* want them to screw with.

Although, I wouldn't mind them kidnapping her a couple of times - actually, all I want to to have no actual harm come to my hcar's love interest and to have no one but me decide what she is going to do in any given scene - or at least have veto power if someone else decides something I feel is innaproprite.

Valamir/Ralph -
At the moment I cannot participate in a game of Capes (or any rpg) because I do not currently have a gaming group and do not have the time to form you yet - but will be doing so at some point in the future.

I think one of three things *must* be the case.
Either
A> Capes is not a rpg, albeit a lot of fun in its own right, as a competitive storytelling game.  If this is true, it will probably not fill the need I have to play a character or run a game.  It may be a groovy fun time, but I admit to being addicted to actual RPGs, in either the capacity of GM or PC.  Note: I am not saying Capes isn't a fun game, but it may well not fill the same need that playing RPGs fills for me.
-or-
B> Capes *can* fill the same need if a few small proposed changes are made in support of player owned characters
-or-
C> Capes can, as written, with no changes fulfill the needs that either being a GM or being a PC serves when I play RPGs.

I *think* what you are actually asserting is A.

If what you are asserting is C however, then I am not sure how that jives with the massively negative reaction I have to neither being allowed to own a PC nor being allowed to be the sole director.  I can give up one of those two goals - Capes as written seems to ask me to give up both?

So maybe Capes is a fun storytelling game that is not a RPG (except in the technical sense.)  Maybe I would have a blast playing Capes that way.  But I would still have to find an RPG also to fill one of my two needs above.

RIght?

Jon/Glendower...

The biggest thing I would prefer to protect is the integrity of choice of any characters I possess.

So while someone may be able to make something befall my character, they could never make my chatracter do anything or act in any way that I did not approve of.

That's not absolute control, that's just basic ownership.  I get to chose whether or not someone's else's narration of what my character does and how he acts gets veto'ed.

Pretty Simple, and not at all unbalancing, I would think.

The only other piece I guess would be protecting owned characters from dying or otherwise being severely maimed - such as limb loss, power loss, trauma.

I suppose all of the above (except death, and even death) can be cured by narration as well.

What would y'all think of a player that narrated the death of his character only to bring him back in by surprise weeks later?

I think that would be cool.  In other words, the character never really died, he just seemed to die to all around.

Or he really died, but comic books have a revolving door to the afterlife.

Sindyr,

Here's where I think the crux of the argument lies:

wrote:
I want to achieve one of two things from any rpg I play: ownership of a character or being the sole GM.  Could I have fun playing a game that doesn't have either?  Possibly.  Would I have more fun playing the game that has at least one? In all likelihood, yes.

I want to achieve one of two things from any rpg I play: ownership of a character or being the sole GM.

Sindyr wrote:
A> Capes is not a rpg, albeit a lot of fun in its own right, as a competitive storytelling game.  If this is true, it will probably not fill the need I have to play a character or run a game.  It may be a groovy fun time, but I admit to being addicted to actual RPGs, in either the capacity of GM or PC.  Note: I am not saying Capes isn't a fun game, but it may well not fill the same need that playing RPGs fills for me.

I *think* what you are actually asserting is A.

C> Capes can, as written, with no changes fulfill the needs that either being a GM or being a PC serves when I play RPGs.

If what you are asserting is C however, then I am not sure how that jives with the massively negative reaction I have to neither being allowed to own a PC nor being allowed to be the sole director.  I can give up one of those two goals - Capes as written seems to ask me to give up both?

I can say that since as written Capes seems to be about highly competitive GMing - ie, GvG, I am dubious that this completely different style of game would answer my needs to play or GM in with *some* (not all) of the conventional trappings (like limited PC protection).  I am however not closed to the idea.

As I have said before, I do not currently have a gaming group.  Capes is motivating me to take steps to rectify that.  Once I do, I plan to:

Run it intensively as written the way Tony wants me to, and really get a visceral feel of the play experience a la TLB.  I also play as a player to pull out all the stops and use everything I can to test the limits of the system, to see how far it can go before it breaks - that is, becomes either an unpleasant experience to me or becomes and experience which, however pleasant, is not the kind of fun I am looking for.  I will scour and re scour these forums for all the devious and "nasty" strategies I can use against my fellow player to completely play Capes as well as I can - and I will be informing my fellow players how I am doing this, so that they use the same actions against me so that I can see what a game where one is both the attacker and the attacked feels like.

I am guessing this will take around 2-4 intense 4-5 hour sessions (one a week).  During this period, I will be creating characters and stories that I will not feel devastated if they are defeated, abused, etc... for self protection as I travel rapidly through this new unknown territory.

Then I will examine the results of this experiment, and note things that do not seem to be working for me (should anything seem that way) and come up with house rules to address these issues.  I will have to ask myself, is being a GM in a GvG environment fulfilling my rpg needs?  Is "playing" a PC under the Capes rules fulfilling my rpg needs?  Is Capes as a whole fulfilling my rpg needs? If the answer to those questions is no, then I will need the fruits of my discussions here to figure out how to fix this so that at least one of those questions becomes a "yes".

Ultimately, one of three things is true.  Vis-a-vis my personal rpg needs, either Capes as it stands will be fine as is, or Capes with a few mods will do the trick, or Capes qua Capes is fundamentally unable to serve me in this fashion.

I have seen so much good in Capes that I tend to strongly believe that the third option is not true.  What I don't know (although I have my guesses) is which of the first two will turn out to be the case.

And of course, should it turn out to be the middle one (Capes with a few mods will do the trick) the next round of investigations becomes about answering what mods would be the minimum to make it work for me.

So I am just covering all my bases.  If I start out suggesting that perhaps I will need to mod Capes to make it work for me, know that I am NOT closed to the possibility that Capes as is will be fine for me - in fact I plan to give that a good shot.

And if I spend a lot of time here discussing what the effect of different mods would be, it does not mean that I won't still try Capes un modded, but just that I want to pre-figure possible mods so that they are ready for implementation if and when they are needed.

Some people have concluded that I am anti Capes - and sure, on the very surface perhaps that's the first impression one gets.

But scratch the surface and you will see someone very committed to investigating and trying out Capes, vanilla, modded, everything.  Someone who passionately wants to see Capes work for him, in some form or another.  Someone who keeps at it on these boards even when certain posters have begun to make him feel unwelcome, and who just takes it in stride, shrugs, and gets back to business.  Someone who, instead of staying with Capes light, bought both the download *and* the book.

This doesn't sound like a person who is anti Capes to me.

Thanks to you and all the others who continue the conversation.  I appreciate your intent, and am willing to try most anything rpg related at least once, thoroughly.

Eetu wrote:
Sindyr,

Here's where I think the crux of the argument lies:

wrote:
I want to achieve one of two things from any rpg I play: ownership of a character or being the sole GM.  Could I have fun playing a game that doesn't have either?  Possibly.  Would I have more fun playing the game that has at least one? In all likelihood, yes.

So, based on your intuition, complete character ownership generates more fun. However, what I think people are telling you (at least what I'm about to tell you) is that complete character ownership ends up not being that big a deal, and you get all sorts of (not readily apparent without actually playing) cool things by sacrificing it. In the following, I'll try to elaborate a bit, and allay fears:

First, getting your ownership overwritten (or any other sort of crap) in free narration: isn't really a problem in actual play.

Why doesn't it cause problems: Because playing Capes you very soon develop a very healthy respect for the power of others, and particularly the balance of power. Free narration is like a mini-world where everyone has nukes. You launch one with malicious intent, the whole game goes down in flames as the cycle of retaliation starts. On the other hand, if someone accidentally steps on someone else's toes, natural negotiation ensues, where either the narration is pulled, or the offended party starts to see cool consequences in the narration actually happening.

What does it give: Lots of room to maneuver to set up interesting scenes and conflicts.

Sindyr wrote:
I am guessing this will take around 2-4 intense 4-5 hour sessions (one a week).  During this period, I will be creating characters and stories that I will not feel devastated if they are defeated, abused, etc... for self protection as I travel rapidly through this new unknown territory.

Sindyr wrote:
Is that what you had in mind?

Sindyr wrote:
My only reservation is, if all the other players "gang up" in wanting to be entertained by abusing my character, they will not be happy with repeated threats of nukage to make them stop - they will begin to get resentful that I am standing in the way of their entertainment at my expense.

But perhaps I just nuke anyways, and if anyone has a problem with my character be unavailable for humiliation and abuse, screw 'em?

Well, whatever it takes for certainty. :)

Another thought that just occurred to me:  Perhaps a limiting factor for me is that a story can be well written, complex, and compelling, and I can still utterly fail to enjoy it at all.

Stories for me are escapism - escape from a world where it usually seems that the bad guys are just as likely as the good guys to succeed.

Therefor, when I enjoy fiction, be it movies, tv, books, or gaming, there must be a bias toward the virtuous and the good.  I don't like  tragedy, despair, bleakness.  I don't like gritty sin city style stuff.  I like poetic justice, hope, empathy, compassion, moral evolution, and karma. Positive progress and ascension, not static running in place!

So perhaps while some players of Capes are fulfilled by creating any complex and interesting story, I would actually experience mental anguish at some stories, and boredom at others.

Does this mean Capes is not for me because it equally values any kind of story?  Or do I simply nuke or create rule mods to give protection so that the stories do not become ones that I loathe?

It will be intersting to see how this turns out.

Eetu wrote:
Goal: Captain Good...
...is defeated by a little girl who has no special significance. Consequence: Captain Good has a crisis of faith in his abilities. Maybe someone else was involved behind the scenes intent on just that?
...decides of his own free will to turn evil. Consequence: he has to have some reasons for it. What are they? Is it just temporary, is it necessary for some as-yet-untold desperate personal cause? Maybe Captain Good just wasn't as good as you thought him to be?
...despite being a paragon of grace, becomes foolishly clumsy, again for no good reason. Consequence: Bah, there's always some reason. If nothing else, maybe he isn't always a paragon of grace? For my mind, dented heroes beat squeaky clean heroes in interestingness. Particularly if I didn't at first know they had faults.
...switches sexual orientation Consequence: Whoa! I never would have thought he would! Now I gotta find out why..

etc, these being given as ways the aggressor might possibly make you see the cool consequence possible. And if they can't, they either relent or trust in their vision more than yours, and what eventually comes out either vindicates them or increases group tension.

.... but but, actually leaving the reason unspecified gives YOU (also the other players) more room and leverage to make the reason interesting and good, actually focus the game on it, build up on a resolution, and make the reason something is happening the actual interesting thing, not just that it happened.

If you force a negotiation and decision on the spot of the act, you close all those tantalizing doors, and the act suddenly loses the depth that was possible for it. Not to speak of the fact that being forced to give an explanation on the spot often results in the most obvious, easy to think of, and therefore flat explanation being used.

Aside from that, I think we've come to another important point, that I've sort of been skirting around previously, because I didn't think it actually was central to what we were discussing before: to fully enjoy Capes, you have to change perspective with regards to your character. You can, and will still be really emotionally engaged with them, but you shouldn't think of them as /you/, you shouldn't equate yourself with your character. The character is not your avatar or agent in the imagined world, but a separate entity from yourself, not totally under your control.

For me personally, starting to play with Forge games, that was quite a heavy hit to take at first. And I've seen games skirt real damage when people don't realize it and take things that happen to their characters personally.

And yes, that's a real fork in the road, where you really lose something if you choose to take it, and maybe you don't want to do it always. But, also, as I've already tried to tell, going along with that change of viewpoint does also open up whole new, exciting vistas of roleplaying.

Sindyr wrote:
So perhaps while some players of Capes are fulfilled by creating any complex and interesting story, I would actually experience mental anguish at some stories, and boredom at others.

Sindyr wrote:
My only reservation is, if all the other players "gang up" in wanting to be entertained by abusing my character, they will not be happy with repeated threats of nukage to make them stop - they will begin to get resentful that I am standing in the way of their entertainment at my expense.

I do take your points, but they also sometimes worry me.

I mean, given what you said:

The character is not your avatar or agent in the imagined world

drnuncheon wrote:
I understand a lot of your nervousness, because I've been in the same place.  Sometimes with a character there are things you want to have challenged and changed, and things you don't (because changing them would mean changing the things you find fun about playing the character.)  Whenever you play a character you have to worry about the GM changing the fun things instead of the things you want to have challenged.

Sindyr wrote:
Obviously, the best thing to do is gets from each player what their needs are before starting play, and write them in as house rules (not comic's codes, which actually encourages almost-conflicts).

However, it is unlikely that such a pre written list will be guaranteed to be comprehensive.

If we have to have trust as part of the equation, lets give each other the ability to protect ourselves and *then* trust we will not abuse it.

Yeah, the comic's code will keep it from happening.  But if I don't want to experience not only rape as part of the storyline but even the spectre of rape, than the comics code may not be the way to go.

And I was playing with my girlfriend and my best friend then I wouldn't worry to much about it.  I instead will be going to a game store to find some strangers to help me try out this game.

Maybe this game is best played with good friends?

But to play with complete strangers, perhaps just a few extra rules - not too many, just a couple - might make it possible in relative safety.

Just a thought.

Sindyr wrote:
If there was only some way to ensure that, to make it safe to trust one's fellow player, especially since the game's very nature encourages competition.  If it gets no holds barred, who's to say that leaving the explanation till later won't be used against one?  Now that would be a circumstance I don't ever care to experience - it would make me want to throw something a lot heavier than popcorn.

Sindyr wrote:
What's wrong with inverting the trust issue?  Let's trust that players won't veto something as crossing a boundary that they NEED to protect unless it really does.  If you believe that someone is lying and using this as a tactic, leave the group.

Eetu wrote:
So, beginning Capes play, it's actually good to feel just a little bit unsafe, to go well over the border, chart the foreign land, and maybe even get hurt to find out where the /real/ border is, maybe push it a bit farther than where they previously thought it was.

Sindyr wrote:
I have said that I will give it a shot, but I will say again: feeling unsafe and getting hurt is not cool with me, I loathe it, I hate it, its awful.

George:  Those bank robbers look pretty serious.  I'm narrating, and I say that they don't have any hostages.  All the innocent bystanders have been cleared from the building.  I'll introduce "Goal:  Raptor looks good on television capturing villains."  I don't really care about Raptor, so if it goes wrong that's okay with me.
Tony:  Major Victory glares at the bank and the robbers inside.  "By the pendulous patriotic paunch of Andrew Jackson!  It burns my blood to see these criminals trying to make off with the hard-earned money of the people of Steadfast City!  Wait!  What's that I spy?  Ace reporter Trudy Trueheart is sneaking into the bank in search of front-page-worthy photos!  I'm torn between my loving admiration of her spunk and moxie and my deep concern for her safety!  The only thing to do is to rescue her from her own reckless nature!  Surely that will make her love me the way I love her!"  I create "Goal:  Show Trudy Trueheart that I am the man of her dreams by rescuing her from peril!"
Carl:  Oh ... you can't think that I'm leaving that alone.  You want to lose that one, don't you?
Tony:  Lose it!  Madness!  Trudy means everything to me.  I've got two points of Love Debt that says that Iron Brain will never lay a finger on Trudy.
Carl:  Oh yeah?  I've got three points of Pride Debt that says that Iron Brain will be the one who rescues Trudy from peril and shows her that he's the man of her dreams.
Tony:  See her in thrall to my archnemesis?  Never!
Carl:  Big words.  Somehow I doubt you'll be able to back them up.  Trudy will be Iron Brain's love-slave.
Tony:  You FIEND!  He's a brain in a cybernetic jar!  What's he even going to do with a woman like Trudy?
Carl:  Oh, they have attachments for everything these days.
Tony:  Oh that's just WRONG!  You will never succeed!  I won't allow it!

Tony - I think having you in my game would *make* me safe - everyone would go after you!

(heh heh)

Wasn't sure if you were still following what may seem to you to be either my annoying criticisms or my complete dedication to self-protection.

I feel grateful to see that you seem to be continuing to follow my postings even after all my doubts.

When it comes to stories, or really anything in my life, I do it seriously, intensely, and with full commitment.  I couldn't help tell a story of heroes and villains without really caring about the story, the world, and what goes on.  It's fun, exhilarating, but not just a light-hearted goof.

For example, a villain may purposefully put a hero into the position where the only way the hero can save his love interest is to torture the villain into revealing the location of the victim.

The villain knows that if the hero stoops to torturing him, the hero may save his love but on a deeper level, the hero's morality is defeated, and the hero becomes a villain.  On the other hand, if the hero does not torture the villain, than the hero will have to live with the fact that he let his love die because his morality was more important.  For the villain, it's a win-win.

This is a scene I would love to see played out, BUT a few things must be true.

The player of the hero should not have the decision made for him whether he chooses to torture the villain or not. Or at least if someone else makes the decision, he should be allowed to veto, nuke or something if he totally disagrees.

No matter what happens, the love interest of the player's hero will not die, again unless the player accepts this story point.  However, the hero must still be portrayed as if he believes she is in immanent danger. But whatever happens, whether saved by luck or cunning, the love interest cannot die.

I love these sorts of scene, emotionally charged.  But I *live* these stories, and cannot abide to live through a story in which my hero is forced to villainy by someone else's choice, nor a story where making the right decision (not to torture) actually causes innocents to be harmed.

In this case, if I were controlling the hero, I would reluctantly refrain from torturing the villain - although I would try every other thing - even asking for help from the Dominator (see above) to save my hero's love.

If that all failed, then my hero would be devastated by thinking that he caused the death of his loved one by refusing to stop to villainy... but only for a short while until he found out that he got lucky, and that his love still lives.

Then maybe the hero has a conversation with his love about whether they stay together given the risks...

*That's* a good story IMO.  The story of a my hero torturing a villain, or the story of my hero's love being killed by a villain are not.  Threatened, yes, but killed, no.

I never want to see a good story or any recreational activity turn into something that causes me anguish.

Hope that makes sense to you.

I guess it's all about need versus want.  I am happy to fight for what I want, but I won't fight for what I need - I will simply take it.

The good news is that I think there is much I have to offer Capes within the boundaries of what I want, even if what I need is completely off limits.

George:  Those bank robbers look pretty serious.  I'm narrating, and I say that they don't have any hostages.  All the innocent bystanders have been cleared from the building.  I'll introduce "Goal:  Raptor looks good on television capturing villains."  I don't really care about Raptor, so if it goes wrong that's okay with me.

Sindyr wrote:
Tony - I think having you in my game would *make* me safe - everyone would go after you!

Sindyr wrote:
The player of the hero should not have the decision made for him whether he chooses to torture the villain or not. Or at least if someone else makes the decision, he should be allowed to veto, nuke or something if he totally disagrees.

No matter what happens, the love interest of the player's hero will not die, again unless the player accepts this story point.  However, the hero must still be portrayed as if he believes she is in immanent danger. But whatever happens, whether saved by luck or cunning, the love interest cannot die.

Tony -

that's a helluva good question.  I am going to have to ponder this a bit.  Will reply asap - prolly tomorrow.

TonyLB wrote:
So what's left as a goal for the villain's player to pursue?  She can't make you torture her.  And she can't make you pay for not torturing her.  What impact does she get to have?

I'm asking questions #1 and #2.  I know the answer to #3:  if George uses vetoes and such to build a situation where Carl can't have an impact then Carl won't try a different goal on George at all.  Carl will go to Tony, who's left lots of room for an adversary to play.  And then, if things don't change, Carl and Tony will accumulate more story tokens and resources, and they'll be running the story of their characters, and George will be 90% spectator.

Oh man, and I just realized (glancing back over the thread) that I crossed my wires on Major Victory's patriotic line.  It's the pendulous paunch of William Taft, of course.

Andrew Jackson (as Ben Lehman so memorably informed me) will rise again to send evil on a new trail of tears.

You gotta get these things right.

TonyLB wrote:
I'm asking questions #1 and #2.  I know the answer to #3:  if George uses vetoes and such to build a situation where Carl can't have an impact then Carl won't try a different goal on George at all.  Carl will go to Tony, who's left lots of room for an adversary to play.  And then, if things don't change, Carl and Tony will accumulate more story tokens and resources, and they'll be running the story of their characters, and George will be 90% spectator.

1) <story creation-wise> Why would the villain's player create for the hero this storyline when she knows she will not be able to either make the hero fall or make him suffer the loss of his love?

2) <mechanic-wise> Why would the villain's player create for the hero this storyline/group of Goals because she thinks she will not be able to get story tokens off of the hero's player because ultimately, she can't threaten either of two terrible things, so why would he stake debt?

Sindyr wrote:
The answer to this questions depends on the motivations and story goals of the villain's player.
-If she wants to tell a tale where the villain succeeds at really hurting the hero (by making him fall or killing his love) then obviously, she would be blocked.  If I was the hero's player, I would *not* be interested in exploring the that storyline at the actual risk of such a devastating loss.
-If she want to tell a tale with the hero's character believes he is at risk for one of those two nasty possibilities, but the hero's player knows there really is no such risk, then I as the hero's player would go along with it.

Sindyr wrote: To my way of think, this and this alone is the crux, the fly in the ointment of what I might like to do.  Because story token are the game mechanic incentive for getting people to create for us the stories we want, right?

Sindyr wrote:
If at the beginning of the scene two of the three players choose ordinary, non super characters to play, and I am the lone super, why would I create for either of the other two players storylines that would suit them?

I am going to write two separate replies - one re: what's in it for the villain's player storywise, and one re: how can a villain's player get tokens without being allowed to threaten the actual accomplishment of terrible, unallowable things.  This post deals with the former, the post that deals with the latter will come later today.

TonyLB wrote:

Sindyr wrote:
The answer to this questions depends on the motivations and story goals of the villain's player.
-If she wants to tell a tale where the villain succeeds at really hurting the hero (by making him fall or killing his love) then obviously, she would be blocked.  If I was the hero's player, I would *not* be interested in exploring the that storyline at the actual risk of such a devastating loss.
-If she want to tell a tale with the hero's character believes he is at risk for one of those two nasty possibilities, but the hero's player knows there really is no such risk, then I as the hero's player would go along with it.

It seems to me that you are saying the following:  "If she wants to tell the villain's story, and try to gain success for her character at the expense of mine, that's not cool.  If she wants to support my story, and try to gain success for my character at the expense of hers, that's acceptable."

There's a certain asymmetry there that might seem natural to you after years of "The villains are played by the GM, who isn't like other players," but which looks ... well ... a little strange when all the players are equals.  Yes?

Sindyr wrote:
So if a player suddenly wants her Villain to have equal success and story line effectiveness as the Heroes, she will be disappointed.  But if she is willing to play the villain as a method to let the Heroes get their storyline told, as well as a nice source of story tokens for her, then she can in turn expect us to play the villain for her so that she gets her time to shine with her Hero as well.

Make sense?

TonyLB wrote:
So what's left as a goal for the villain's player to pursue?  She can't make you torture her.  And she can't make you pay for not torturing her.  What impact does she get to have?

Sindyr wrote:
2) <mechanic-wise> Why would the villain's player create for the hero this storyline/group of Goals because she thinks she will not be able to get story tokens off of the hero's player because ultimately, she can't threaten either of two terrible things, so why would he stake debt?

For example, a villain may purposefully put a hero into the position where the only way the hero can save his love interest is to torture the villain into revealing the location of the victim.

The villain knows that if the hero stoops to torturing him, the hero may save his love but on a deeper level, the hero's morality is defeated, and the hero becomes a villain.  On the other hand, if the hero does not torture the villain, than the hero will have to live with the fact that he let his love die because his morality was more important.  For the villain, it's a win-win.

This is a scene I would love to see played out, BUT a few things must be true.

The player of the hero should not have the decision made for him whether he chooses to torture the villain or not. Or at least if someone else makes the decision, he should be allowed to veto, nuke or something if he totally disagrees.

No matter what happens, the love interest of the player's hero will not die, again unless the player accepts this story point.  However, the hero must still be portrayed as if he believes she is in immanent danger. But whatever happens, whether saved by luck or cunning, the love interest cannot die.

Glendower wrote:

Sindyr wrote:
So if a player suddenly wants her Villain to have equal success and story line effectiveness as the Heroes, she will be disappointed.  But if she is willing to play the villain as a method to let the Heroes get their storyline told, as well as a nice source of story tokens for her, then she can in turn expect us to play the villain for her so that she gets her time to shine with her Hero as well.

Make sense?

Let me try to wrap my head around what you want.  You want a happy ending, every time, without fail or possibility of failure.  Oh sure, there'll be little stumbles along the way, but at no point will there be a doubt in your mind that all will go well in the end.

Sindyr wrote: I cannot partake of a story where the villains have any real success, innocents suffer significant loss, or the good aren't ultimately rewarded and the villains aren't ultimately punished.  If I can't even passively watch that stuff on TV, than I sure as heck can't partake actively in the creation of that kind of story.

This is a hard limit for me.

TonyLB wrote:
Capes rewards a specific kind of bravery which you do not possess.  It rewards you for embracing the possibility of big failure, and fighting battles you may not win.

Sindyr wrote:
I am sorry, this was such a personal ad hominem attack coming out of nowhere that it drowned out the rest of what you wrote.

I *can* get excited about fighting a big battle that I can lose.

I thought I was clear.  I as a story creator have NEEDS and WANTS.  Even if I insist that we all respect each others NEEDS to the point of not allowing the story to cross those boundaries, I can still get excited about fighting for my WANTS.

For example, I may WANT to make this new side character my hero's latest sexual conquest.  I may pursue it vigorously.  I may not be victorious if the other players wish it not to be so - of they may get story tokens off of me by allowing me to be successful after staking debt.

Alternatively, I may WANT my hero to be instrumental in saving the city - but he still may well lose the battle.  My hero may be defeated - but I NEED the city not to be defeated - at least not in a non-fleeting way. So maybe the elder gods step in, defeat the villains themselves, and then publicly inform me that I owe them one - or publicly tell me that here was nothing I could have done differently.

Either way, I was defeated in this big battle that I as a player cared enough to strive to win.

What I was trying to illustrate is that there are a nigh infinite possible Goals that cold be created in which I care greatly about vigorously pursuing that still don't cross the line into something that would be hurtful is failed.

And this I think is the proof that Capes and I could be an excellent match - albeit with a house mod or two.

I have to admit I don't feel guilty about proposing mods - since I have seen so many people here that either use some kind of mod themselves or open discuss mods.

I think the question for me is, can the game be modded to respect the needs of the players to have their boundaries respected while still having tons of play opportunities remain?

And I think the answer seems to be yes.

Well, you have fun with that.

Are we done with this thread?

A tone of questions of mine have been answered, and when I come up with more questions, ideas, house rules and mods, I can start new threads.  For example, its probably true that the idea of what happens when someone Crosses the Line with their narration probably deserves its own thread, but that can wait for another day.

If you are asking if you have answered all the questions I presented herin, I think you more or less have.  Anything else I need to ask, discuss, or present can go in a new thread if that helps.

What I need more than anything is actual play experience.  Hopefully I will find some.

I cannot partake of a story where the villains have any real success, innocents suffer significant loss, or the good aren't ultimately rewarded and the villains aren't ultimately punished.  If I can't even passively watch that stuff on TV, than I sure as heck can't partake actively in the creation of that kind of story.

This is a hard limit for me.

Hey, Tuxboy, Sindyr's said that he's done here.  Plus, your tone is particularly combative.  Plus you're asking a question that Sindyr has already answered.

I don't particularly want to break out my Moderator-voice this early in the morning.  Let's just not go there, okay?

I will respond to tuxboy privately in order to let this thread go... ;)

NP Tony :)