This doesn't just apply to Capes, but it has come up in relation to Capes, so here are some thoughts of mine...

When playing an rpg, each player has boundaries, lines that we each want the other player (and GM(s)) to respect and not cross.  This is I think a meta-game consideration - it's one that in several ways precedes the ruleset of whatever game we decided to play.  However, a games like Capes or Universalis may see these questions come up more due to their more open ended play experience.

And I firmly believe, I *know*, that while some of us have fewer forbidden areas than others, fewer and more open boundaries, that even the most open and least sensitive person still has *some* boundaries that they would experience hurt, anguish, or suffer were it to be crossed.

So everyone has boundaries, and the sensible thing to do would be to discuss these before playing any game, especially Capes.  Get the forbidden areas discussed up front, and the meta-rules figured out how boundary issues that come up in play will be handled. (It's worth noting, however, that no amount of up front discussion will guarantee that an unforeseen blind spot won't rear its head, necessitating an on the spot in the middle of the game boundary negotiation.)

That's not to say that games (like Capes) could not address such issues within its ruleset and its not to say that doing so would be wrong.  Handling boundary issues can be done by implicit assumption with no discussion (a bad idea in my opinion), by open and frank discussion about what will be done when the issue rears its head in gameplay, and/or by the game being played having rulesets and protocols (whether built-in or added house mods) that explicitly answer these questions ahead of time. (I think it's probably a *good* idea to have a protocol, a known procedure for what one is supposed to do when one has to say to another player or GM that the game is becoming hurtful)

With some reflection, it seems to me that these boundary issues fall into four main categories: Squick, Tone, Ownership, and Consistency.

Squick is the easiest to illustrate. In short, Squick is when someone can't handle a narration or event. For example, four gamers could be playing Capes together, 3 men and one woman.  Unbeknownst to them, perhaps the woman is a rape survivor, or maybe one of the guys was beaten as a boy.

Later, in a piece of the story a rape may be about to occur, or a child may be about to be beaten.

This can make the game extremely uncomfortable for one of the above players, to the point of making the game a hurtful experience.  Of course, you don't have to have a specific history for that to be true - even if none of the players was beaten as a child, one or more of them may simply not be alright with stories that include narrations of violence against children - and their objection is still just as acceptable, just as worthy of our respect.

A Tone violation is when someone signed up to play a general happy, poetic justice type of game and the game turns into a bleak gritty affair.  For example, the Heroes try to save the City, and fail, millions die, and now the game is stained by the horrible tragedy. 

Each player gets to say (preferably at the start): "I am willing to play these Tones, but not *these*."  And should the game be heading in a direction that were to violate this, a correction should be made.

Ownership concerns are present in the vast majority of rpg's, though not necessarily all.  Most gamers (although this may not be true for the Capes slice of gamers) want to have absolute, non contested ownership over  some piece of the story.  For "players" it is ownership over their character, the sole ability to determine that character's choices, behaviours, actions, morals, etc.  This to them is ownership.  For "GMs" it is ownership over everything else - the world, the NPCs, everything.

Of course, in a game like Capes everybody are GMs, contesting over the right to narrate.  No GM in Capes has any ownership not earned through battle.

In *some* Capes game, a level of ownership of certain characters is present via "spotlight" characters - and I believe this rule is here to serve a base need of the rpg player to have at least one thing he owns, one thing no one else can have.

Now, how the spotlight rule is executed differs from game to game - I don't think it is part of the core Capes game - so its implementation varies.  But the core idea behind it is the concept of Ownership.

Personally, I think the best spotlight rule, if one were to have a spotlight rule at all, would be something like:
"Each player is allowed to create or choose one spotlight character. Additional spotlight character may be chosen for 1 story token each (or freely?).  There are two limitations on spotlight characters:
1) Only the owning player can introduce or bring in the character, and likewise only the owning player has access to using that character's resources and abilities.
2) If another non-owning player narrates an action, unwritten trait, behaviour, or other choice, impulse, or feeling of the spotlight character that is *not* due to external causes (like a mind ray, or poor lighting) that part of the narration may be summarily vetoed by the player that owns that spotlight character."

Such a rule would prevent narrations (and Goals) that purports, for example, to demonstrate the clumsiness of a character.  It would NOT prevent narrations of the character stumbling because of external factors, such as poor lighting, being drugged or sleepy - or because the character in question has Clumsy or something similar as an Ability listed on his sheet.

Now perhaps many of you do not play with an ownership rule of any kind - maybe each and every character can be picked up by any player with no restriction in your games.  If so, than it seems you may not have any aspects of Ownership in your game - and if all your players are happy with it, more power to you.

On the other hand, I know some number of Capes player *do* use some version of the spotlight rules, so Ownership is an important issue for some of you.  It is for me too.

The final kind of boundary is Consistency.  A glaring example of this is if we know that the character Fred Wilkins is allergic to shellfish from last session when he was forced to eat some by the villain, this session he should not be seen to be enjoying shellfish in the VIP party scene without good reason.

Perhaps it's not really Fred, but someone disguised as Fred.  Perhaps the scene is taking place on a holodeck and none of it is real.  But without intentionally meaning one of those two things to happen, were I to challenge the narrating player with "by the way, remember that Fred is allergic to shellfish" the other player is then forced to either retract or modify the inconsistent bit ("Shellfish? Sorry, I mean the VIP party is serving *caviar*) or affirm that he intended what is occurring to occur and that by the end of the scene he will explain how the apparent contradiction is not in fact a problem.
("Fred is actually dreaming - a fact Fred doesn't know, Sindyr, so keep playing him as though he believes everything is real - unless of course *he* notices the shellfish contradiction")

I think those four things - Squick, Tone, Ownership, and Consistency - represent the bulk of the metagame issues that could come up that one should be prepared for.

Just my $.05 (inflation)

Sindyr wrote:
And I firmly believe, I *know*, that while some of us have fewer forbidden areas than others, fewer and more open boundaries, that even the most open and least sensitive person still has *some* boundaries that they would experience hurt, anguish, or suffer were it to be crossed.

Sindyr wrote:
So everyone has boundaries, and the sensible thing to do would be to discuss these before playing any game, especially Capes.

Yup.  In fact there are many folks I know who would go so far as to say the entire purpose of roleplaying is to check out those rocks.  There've been many discussions about how to handle various areas delicately (lines and veils) and so forth, but I'd say that while there may be some variation in degree on how you approach the rocks...the rocks are where the purpose is.

Avoiding the rocks to me = why am I bothering to play this?

I could just read a book to get the same effect...or play a video game.

But if I'm going to take the time to actually play an RPG with other human beings...I better come away from the session with something more than I went in with.  Greater insight into myself.  Greater insight into my friends. A closer bond...that sort of thing.  And that doesn't require being all dark and moody and angsty either.  I've accomplished those things playing Toon.  But it does require heading off-road and spending some time navigating the rocks.

Driving on the the pavement is like playing Monopoly but never bothering to collect the rent you're owed.

To clear up some confusion...

The above essay was a collection and organization of thoughts about meta-game boundaries and understandings, especially as related to Capes.  It was especially in reference to all players agreeing to the basic underlying assumptions - and possibly to having protocols for resolving assumptions found to be in conflict later, after the game has started.

But many of the observations could present boundary concerns from more than one direction.

My standard example is if a player expects to join a particular Capes group, and finds the play, narration, and storyline depressing, gritty, neanderthalic, etc, he may find himself in a Tone violation situation. He may want to play a four-color upbeat game instead.

It's just a true that if a fan of brutal realism joins a Capes group with players that play a four-color sort of game, they may object to his adding elements of graphic violence or negativity to the four-color toned game they have been playing.  In this case the gritty player may find himself in a Tone violation situation.

In neither case is it anyone's fault, and in neither case is the gaming group obligated to change it's permitted tone for the new player.  Each gaming group should fee free to serve the needs of it's players, and what works for one gaming group does not necessarily work for another.  It doesn't mean either group is wrong, it just means that the players in each group have different needs and are gathering to tell different kinds of stories.

Hope that helps.  Most of the essay above was me thinking through what possible boundaries players may have in Capes or any RPG, what kinds of limitations that we want our gaming group to observe.

Of course, the formation of a gaming group is a process of a group of people finding each other that have similar needs.

After all, RPGing is supposed to be fun, and if people aren't having fun, whether its because the game isn't gritty enough, or because its *too* gritty, then people will drop out of the game to find one that *is* fun.

Sindyr wrote:
In neither case is it anyone's fault, and in neither case is the gaming group obligated to change it's permitted tone for the new player.

And given that concept you could have the others beginning to soften the dark hero's world view with corresponding goals like :
"Goal: Show that the End doesn't necessarily justify the Means"

I like the idea. The characters would grow dynamically as "people". Character growth through narrative evolution, one of the great strengths of Capes.

Going to a Con this weekend will have to give it a try ;)

TonyLB wrote:

Sindyr wrote:
In neither case is it anyone's fault, and in neither case is the gaming group obligated to change it's permitted tone for the new player.

The "gaming group" doesn't set the tone for the game.  The gaming group is an abstract.  Individual members create the tone, by bringing their individual intentions to the table and thrashing out how to combine them.  Capes has rules for how to thrash that out.  Those rules make disagreements fun.

So they agree to ban the use of spin tactics from their games of ping pong.  Later on a fifth person joins them.  They explain that one of the house rules is no spin maneuvers.  This new person has four choices:

1) Choose to join the game and respect their house rules. He may ask them what if he teaches them how to spin, would they open it up, but if they say no thank you, he accepts it, stay and plays without spin.
2) Choose not to join that group and instead find people that play the way he does.  All the same, he bears the group he didn't join no ill will and does not judge them.
3) Tell them how stupid and how weak they are, and how they are lacking as human beings, and how they should play the *real* game the way he does.  People who do this are so high on themselves that in being intolerant of other they show that it is they who are severely lacking in the evolution department.  Get a clue.
4) Join, and continue to use spin until they kick him out, and *then* run his mouth off at them.

I have no respect for anyone who commits 3 or 4 - no decent human could respect someone who does 3 or 4.

The correct choice is of course, 1 or 2.

Sindyr wrote:
If 3 people gather to game, and they want to play in a four-color story, especially if that is explained to a potential new group joinee, than it is obviously highly inappropriate for him to try to highjack the group choice to NOT partake of a gritty story.  If the original 3 players set that as how they want to play, and simply do not want to open the door for gritty realism, than we should all repsect their choice.

Tuxboy wrote:

So they agree to ban the use of spin tactics from their games of ping pong.  Later on a fifth person joins them.  They explain that one of the house rules is no spin maneuvers.  This new person has four choices:

1) Choose to join the game and respect their house rules. He may ask them what if he teaches them how to spin, would they open it up, but if they say no thank you, he accepts it, stay and plays without spin.
2) Choose not to join that group and instead find people that play the way he does.  All the same, he bears the group he didn't join no ill will and does not judge them.
3) Tell them how stupid and how weak they are, and how they are lacking as human beings, and how they should play the *real* game the way he does.  People who do this are so high on themselves that in being intolerant of other they show that it is they who are severely lacking in the evolution department.  Get a clue.
4) Join, and continue to use spin until they kick him out, and *then* run his mouth off at them.

I have no respect for anyone who commits 3 or 4 - no decent human could respect someone who does 3 or 4.

The correct choice is of course, 1 or 2.

You missed out option 5

5. Teach them the techniques involved in the use of spin and the ways to deal with spin in the game. Expanding their understanding of the game and developing their abilities and learning new skills.

He may ask them what if he teaches them how to spin, would they open it up, but if they say no thank you, he accepts it, stay and plays without spin.

I didn't miss it - it was part of option 1 above, see it?

TonyLB wrote:

Sindyr wrote:
If 3 people gather to game, and they want to play in a four-color story, especially if that is explained to a potential new group joinee, than it is obviously highly inappropriate for him to try to highjack the group choice to NOT partake of a gritty story.  If the original 3 players set that as how they want to play, and simply do not want to open the door for gritty realism, than we should all repsect their choice.

Why is that any more valid than saying, instead, "If the new player wants to play a gritty story then we should all respect that choice"?

Tuxboy wrote:

I didn't miss it - it was part of option 1 above, see it?

I saw it, but rather than rejecting it out of hand I added an option where they accepted the new experience...or is that not an option?

Sindyr wrote:
Because he is joining an established group.  They *do* respect his right to choose how to play, but that does not mean they have make their pre-existing group open to his preferred tone.

TonyLB wrote:

Sindyr wrote:
Because he is joining an established group.  They *do* respect his right to choose how to play, but that does not mean they have make their pre-existing group open to his preferred tone.

So it's seniority?  Well, that sounds wrong-headed to me but let's explore it.  Anne, Barry and Cindy have played three sessions.  Doyle joins the game, and wants to change the tone.  A+B+C all say "No, Doyle, you can't play any of your gritty stuff.  You're new to the group."  And Doyle, because he's either a saint or a pushover, goes along with it.

How long is it before Doyle gets a voice?  How long does he have to just accept what the others want before he gets to have an equal say in the group?  One session?  Three sessions?  Nine sessions?  Never?  At what point does he get to say "Okay, we're no longer 'A+B+C, oh and Doyle's visiting ...  we're A+B+C+D, and that's a new group.  What sort of game does that group want?"

Sindyr wrote:
Or they may without being judged politely inform him that he can come or go as he likes, but the purpose of this group is watching SciFi and that all this group wants to watch when they get together.

Sindyr, there's a brilliant essay by Meguey Baker that you should read (on her blog "Fair Game") that takes on a lot of these questions. Basically she divides styles of play into two philosophies, "Nobody Gets Hurt" -- which I suspect is your preference -- and "I Will Not Abandon You [i.e., even if we hurt each other]."

That said, I'd suggest you're thinkin' way too hard about this. Go find some folks and play! In real life, a little patience and openness to other people's ideas can keep a group humming despite, or perhaps because of, creative tensions that look completely irreconcilable in theory.

TonyLB wrote:

Sindyr wrote:
Or they may without being judged politely inform him that he can come or go as he likes, but the purpose of this group is watching SciFi and that all this group wants to watch when they get together.

But ... they'd be mistaken, right?  Because Doyle is part of that group.  So clearly "The Group" is conflicted.  Its members don't, universally, want to watch SciFi (or play four-color).  It is made up of people with different opinions, different voices. 

Unless, of course, you're saying that Doyle never becomes a member of the group.  Is that what you're saying?

Or are you saying that it is possible for "The Group" to want something, even when individual members of the group actually want something completely different?

Sydney wrote:
Sindyr, there's a brilliant essay by Meguey Baker that you should read (on her blog "Fair Game") that takes on a lot of these questions. Basically she divides styles of play into two philosophies, "Nobody Gets Hurt" -- which I suspect is your preference -- and "I Will Not Abandon You [i.e., even if we hurt each other]."

That said, I'd suggest you're thinkin' way too hard about this. Go find some folks and play! In real life, a little patience and openness to other people's ideas can keep a group humming despite, or perhaps because of, creative tensions that look completely irreconcilable in theory.

Read it.

O my god!  Good essay.

I am definitely a NGH player - I like exploring around the boundaries of what's *comfortable* - ie as a GM I like to take people OUT of their comfort zones - but I am committed  to not taking them to a hurtful place.

One example:  One of my past players was a shy type - more of a follower than a leader.  So I gave her a leadership role in the game - which she (with some in game persuading) accepted.  But I never abandoned her, and always had an eye on her comfort level, ready to step in with help should any real anxiety surface.

I suspect most of the other players here are IWNAY players.  And my fundamental point is that okay if all the other players are also IWNAY players.  Like Meguey says, it's when you mix NGH players with IWNAY players that you get trouble.

But I also think its perfectly acceptable for a NGH Capes player to seek out other NGH Capes players - and to limit membership in their game to other NGH types.

Mind you, there are variants of both of the above.  One of my favorite subtypes of NGH is best stated in a response on Meguey's thread:

...I've seen and participated in To The Pain, too. This deal is basically a variant on Nobody Gets Hurt - I will push you, maybe past your boundaries, but I will back off when you tell me to. In return, you will only tell me to back off when it hurts, not just when it's hard.

Sindyr wrote:
When you join a group you implicitly agree to the basic tenets of the group - or else, you haven't really joined.

Sindyr wrote:
But I also think its perfectly acceptable for a NGH Capes player to seek out other NGH Capes players - and to limit membership in their game to other NGH types.

TonyLB wrote:

Sindyr wrote:
When you join a group you implicitly agree to the basic tenets of the group - or else, you haven't really joined.

Are you saying that the only way to resolve conflicts and continue together as a group is to reach consensus?

That, in short, differences of opinion will inherently (indeed, by definition) fracture the group?

TonyLB wrote:

Sindyr wrote:
But I also think its perfectly acceptable for a NGH Capes player to seek out other NGH Capes players - and to limit membership in their game to other NGH types.

LOL!  "NGH Capes."  Heh....

That's right up there with playing "Strong-willed My Life with Master" or "Vegetarian All Flesh Must be Eaten."  Which is to say, sure, you can try it but the rules system is going to fight you tooth and nail every step of the way, so why?

In all seriousness, why not go play Primetime Adventures?  It'll suit you to a tee.

Sindyr,

I don't think Tony's saying that your style or preferences of play aren't perfectly valid or good ways to play.  As the designer, he's pointing out that he didn't design the game to support that style of play and probably even designed parts of the game to specifically discourage that kind of play.  Having played the game a bit now, I certainly agree with him.  My advice...  Play the game the way the designer intended.  It works that way.  You'll spend a whole lot of time and energy trying to cut and patch the game to satisfy another style when you'd be better off just finding a game that supports the style you want.  Trying to play Capes in a manner it wasn't designed to support is like trying to drive a nail with a screwdriver.  Sure you can do it but it'd be easier to just find a hammer.

Sindyr wrote:
I am saying that *unresolvable* differences of opinion will fracture the group.

TonyLB wrote:

Sindyr wrote:
But I also think its perfectly acceptable for a NGH Capes player to seek out other NGH Capes players - and to limit membership in their game to other NGH types.

LOL!  "NGH Capes."  Heh....

That's right up there with playing "Strong-willed My Life with Master" or "Vegetarian All Flesh Must be Eaten."  Which is to say, sure, you can try it but the rules system is going to fight you tooth and nail every step of the way, so why?

Garg wrote:
I do see that Capes would readily stand to award pushing the other players' buttons, but I don't think it's implicitly necessary to the game to shove them out of the psychological comfort zones.

TonyLB wrote:
To my mind, a good Capes goal should always have at least one player respond "Oh hell no!  That is totally unacceptable to me!"  That's how you know you've got a conflict worth discussing.  Now I'm not an expert on "Nobody Gets Hurt" play-style, but isn't that the moment where the original proposer of the Goal would say "Oh, well if you feel that way about it then I'll back off"?

TonyLB wrote:

Sindyr wrote:
I am saying that *unresolvable* differences of opinion will fracture the group.

Your reasoning is in danger of getting circular here, depending on how you define "resolve."  Like, if you said "An issue is resolved if people can continue without fracturing the group."  Let's avoid that, shall we?

Are you saying that a group who cannot reach consensus (everybody agrees on what is right and what is wrong) on an important issue must fracture (or, perhaps, already is fractured, and not a group at all)?

Sindyr wrote:
No.  The original proposer of the Goal backs off if someone tells them that it is hurtful or couses them anguish.

Sindyr wrote:

In all seriousness, why not go play Primetime Adventures?  It'll suit you to a tee.

I don't know the game you are recommending so I can't say if this is in jest or seriousness.  I have never heard of Primetime Adventures - although I own over a hundred rpgs...

In any case, even if PA is some kind of real and interesting game, it make Capes no less interesting to me, so I am afraid you may have to be reigned to some NGH'ers playing it.

Gaerik wrote:
Sindyr,

I don't think Tony's saying that your style or preferences of play aren't perfectly valid or good ways to play.  As the designer, he's pointing out that he didn't design the game to support that style of play and probably even designed parts of the game to specifically discourage that kind of play.  Having played the game a bit now, I certainly agree with him.  My advice...  Play the game the way the designer intended.  It works that way.  You'll spend a whole lot of time and energy trying to cut and patch the game to satisfy another style when you'd be better off just finding a game that supports the style you want.  Trying to play Capes in a manner it wasn't designed to support is like trying to drive a nail with a screwdriver.  Sure you can do it but it'd be easier to just find a hammer.

TonyLB wrote:

Sindyr wrote:
No.  The original proposer of the Goal backs off if someone tells them that it is hurtful or couses them anguish.

Okay.  You think it's easy, fine.  Tell me, how do you draw that line?

Suppose I can threaten "Goal:  Kid Wonder is captured and tortured by Jester" and that's fine ... it makes you really uncomfortable, but that's good and earns me resources, so the more you yell about it the more I should stick to my guns.  But I can't threaten "Goal:  Kid Wonder is raped and killed by Jester" because that makes you "really uncomfortable plus one," which would earn me even more resources (because you'd fight against the goal even harder) but now it's bad and I'm supposed to back off?

How do you draw that line?

Sindyr wrote:
Almost.  I am saying that if people in a group cannot agree what to play or how to play, if for example Bill wants to play D&D and Al, Chad, and Dave want to play Capes, and none of them are willing to budge or entertain a compromise, than I cannot conceive a way in which they will continue to stay together as a group. 

Matthew wrote:
As an aside that is totally not intended to threadjack or derail the topic (which is important, I think), Primetime Adventures is totally real and totally interesting.  You should check it out.  It creates great games in a very different way from the great game stuff you'll get from Capes.  Assuming you can find some players, I mean.  I hope you do, because I think that when you do get to play it a few times, you'll find that a lot of your concerns about it will turn out to be less of a big deal than they seem now.

It's really pretty easy for your fellow players to tell the difference between "Oh no, that sucks, I'm totally staking debt to keep that from happening," and "Oh no, that sucks, not only are you not getting any Story Tokens for that from me but I'm also not sure I like you anymore, Steve."  They'll rapidly find out that it's in their best interests to keep you happy because that's what earns them the resources.

TonyLB wrote:

Sindyr wrote:
Almost.  I am saying that if people in a group cannot agree what to play or how to play, if for example Bill wants to play D&D and Al, Chad, and Dave want to play Capes, and none of them are willing to budge or entertain a compromise, than I cannot conceive a way in which they will continue to stay together as a group. 

Lots and lots of ways.  Here's some examples: <snip>

Sindyr wrote:
But that's a different issue, and not my problem.  All I care about is can I have fun playing Capes NGH or TtP without IWNAY?  The answer seems to be a clear yes.

Sindyr wrote:
Why does that bother some folks?  Unless its just a case of "not in *my* backyard you won't."

I will add: if two or more members have diametrically opposed positions, and cannot or choose to not work out a compromise, then assuming one side does not give in, you will have a group fracture where each subgroup leaves to pursue it's own needs.  This is natural and acceptable.

TonyLB wrote:

Sindyr wrote:
Why does that bother some folks?  Unless its just a case of "not in *my* backyard you won't."

If I manufactured circular saws, and somebody said "Hey, I'm going to use this to drive nails!  I'll just hold the nail and move the spinning blade near it until the teeth drive that nail right into the wall," I would be concerned.  I would say "This tool is likely to do things other than what you're planning ... like cut your fingers clean off."

Hearing the person in question say "No, no, don't worry about it!  I've never actually started the circular saw up, but I've examined the structure of it very carefully.  I'm quite sure that it will work for this task" doesn't make me feel more comfortable.  On the contrary, it convinces me that the person is sufficiently confused that they will actually try this thing without the slightest worry.

Nobody here is trying to convince you this is a bad idea this because it will hurt us.  We're trying to convince you it's a bad idea because it will hurt you.

Sindyr wrote:
None of those ways work unless the participants agree on using them. If you have that agreement, fine, problem solved.  If you don't, you still have a problem.  That's all I am saying.

Sindyr wrote:
But even though they told Columbus he would sail of the edge of the earth, he felt *compelled* to try  - because, what if? What if?

TonyLB wrote:
I'm not sure I get the distinction you're talking about here.  You push someone's buttons to get a response, you get rewarded.  You push the buttons harder to get a more passionate response, you get rewarded more.  Where's the line between "He's pushing my buttons" and "He's pushing me beyond my comfort zone"?

To my mind, a good Capes goal should always have at least one player respond "Oh hell no!  That is totally unacceptable to me!"  That's how you know you've got a conflict worth discussing.  Now I'm not an expert on "Nobody Gets Hurt" play-style, but isn't that the moment where the original proposer of the Goal would say "Oh, well if you feel that way about it then I'll back off"?

Oh, and as a possibly more "in line with Capes" option, it seems like the best way to circumvent issues like this would be to A) communicate and B) fail to dive in on the Conflicts with such issues.  If the other players can't abuse your Achilles' Heel for Story Tokens, then they'll probably stop poking at it.

Just a thought.

Garg

Garg wrote:
Oh, and as a possibly more "in line with Capes" option, it seems like the best way to circumvent issues like this would be to A) communicate and B) fail to dive in on the Conflicts with such issues.  If the other players can't abuse your Achilles' Heel for Story Tokens, then they'll probably stop poking at it.

What if Capes *can* be played just as competitively and fun even while respecting certain limits?

Well, that would certainly be something.

If I fall over the edge of the earth, I fall.  I guess to *me*, that's the bravery which others have alluded I do not posses.

I dare to try.

TonyLB wrote:

Sindyr wrote:
No.  The original proposer of the Goal backs off if someone tells them that it is hurtful or couses them anguish.

Okay.  You think it's easy, fine.  Tell me, how do you draw that line?

TonyLB wrote:

Sindyr wrote:
None of those ways work unless the participants agree on using them. If you have that agreement, fine, problem solved.  If you don't, you still have a problem.  That's all I am saying.

I'm pointing out that there are ways of resolving conflicts that do not generate consensus and do not need it.  Your response seems (to me) to be saying "But that's conflict N.  Sure, they can resolve conflict N by means that don't generate consensus.  That just proves my point!  Because how did they resolve conflict N-1 about what rules they would use to resolve conflict N?"

TonyLB wrote:

Sindyr wrote:
But even though they told Columbus he would sail of the edge of the earth, he felt *compelled* to try  - because, what if? What if?

Uh ... quick history correction here.  People didn't tell Columbus the world was flat.  Everybody at the time knew the world was round.  Where they disagreed with him was about its circumference.

Columbus asserted, with utter certainty, that the world was so small that he had enough supplies to sail across the Atlantic ocean and reach India.  Other people told him "Sir!  Your calculations are in error!  India, she is more than twice as far from Spain as your calculations indicate!  Surely you will run out of supplies in the middle of your journey, and unless by sheer luck there happens to be yet-uncharted land in the middle of the ocean from which to resupply then you and all your crew will die a most painful and ignominious death."

Garg wrote:
Oh, and as a possibly more "in line with Capes" option, it seems like the best way to circumvent issues like this would be to A) communicate and B) fail to dive in on the Conflicts with such issues.  If the other players can't abuse your Achilles' Heel for Story Tokens, then they'll probably stop poking at it.

Just a thought.

Garg

Tuxboy wrote:

What if Capes *can* be played just as competitively and fun even while respecting certain limits?

Well, that would certainly be something.

If I fall over the edge of the earth, I fall.  I guess to *me*, that's the bravery which others have alluded I do not posses.

I dare to try.

I don't feel that whether or not it can be played in a NGH manner or not is the issue anymore, its the constant circular argument over the philosophy of boundaries and group dynamic that seems to be the major issue now.

Here is a radical idea:

Sindyr gets a group together, plays the game in a NGH manner and starts a thread from actual play examples to discuss the success or failure of the experiment. That way we will have some concrete empirical evidence to base the discussion on. I think this will be a much more constructive use of everyone's time than what seems to be a constant downward spiralling theoretical argument, which seems to be becoming increasingly destructive.

So what does everyone think? It seems to me this is a situation that will never be resolved until actual play occurs so best to leave it until it does...

"Blessed are the cheesemakers"

In the meanwhile, however, I will continue to engage in Capes discussion, not avoid it, because right know this is all the Capes goodness I can get. :(

I can see that point, Tuxboy.  Perhaps the whole issue of Capes NGH/TtP vs. Capes IWNAY play is more of a theory post - course it's also a Capes post.  I guess it could fit either place.

Of course the irony here as you observe is I am engaged in this discussion in a very IWNAY way...  as long as people keep responding, keep wanting to converse, and/or keep asking me questions, I feel both interested and obligated to reply.

It *is* a delicious irony.