If you have two conflicts that are semantically linked, must one be resolved before the other?

For example, Alice, Brad, and Chad are playing capes. Alice is playing Supergirl and Brad is playing the Villain Kane. Chad is playing a non powered charater, Det. Wilkes.

Brad, knowing that Det. Wilkes is about to get in a car and drive to a murder scene, throws down the conflict : Goal: Kane causes [not WILL cause] the Detective to crash his car to crash on the way to the murder scene.

Now Alice throws down a Goal: Supergirl talks with the Detective before he goes anywhere, because Alice wants Supergirl to have a conversation with the Det. before he may or may not get in a car crash.

Does this second goal prevent the first one from being resolved until the second one is?

As I understand it, nothing may be narrated that either makes a goal impossible or completes it until the goal is resolved.  Therefore, the Detective cannot be narrated leaving Supergirl and driving away until the second goal, Supergirl's chat with the Det., is resolved.

And even if the example I came up with is not air tight, please look past it to the overall issue I am bringing up:

If a particular goal prevents a condition from happening until it is resolved, and a second goal requires that condition for its resolution, then the second goal cannot be resolved until the first one is, right?

Or if not, how does one handle this contradiction?

Doesn't really seem to be an issue...logic dictates that they would have to resolve in order just the same as in any "traditional" RPG situation.

GM: What are you guys up to?
Kane: I'm setting up an accident for Detective Wilkes on the way to the crime scene..
Supergirl: I want to talk to the detective before he leaves.
GM: K...what does Supergirl want to talk about?
...

So even if the rules say that a conflict could be resolved at the end of a certain page, if another conflict prevents that from happening, than the other conlfict must be resolved first.

Interesting. Thanks.

So even if the rules say that a conflict could be resolved at the end of a certain page, if another conflict prevents that from happening, than the other conlfict must be resolved first.

Thinking about it, from memory I think there is an example in the rules (I could be wrong and it could have been on this forum) of conflicts being played in the past as some sort of flashback as a dramatic convention.

Sort of like the detective have a flashback to his last conversation with Supergirl as his car spins off the road and crashes into a ditch. Both conflicts can be resolved and under those circumstances it doesn't matter in what order they happen as causality will be in effect.

The more I think about it the more I like the idea...

Sindyr wrote:
If you have two conflicts that are semantically linked, must one be resolved before the other?

Sindyr wrote:
For example, Alice, Brad, and Chad are playing capes. Alice is playing Supergirl and Brad is playing the Villain Kane. Chad is playing a non powered charater, Det. Wilkes.

Brad, knowing that Det. Wilkes is about to get in a car and drive to a murder scene, throws down the conflict : Goal: Kane causes [not WILL cause] the Detective to crash his car to crash on the way to the murder scene.

Now Alice throws down a Goal: Supergirl talks with the Detective before he goes anywhere, because Alice wants Supergirl to have a conversation with the Det. before he may or may not get in a car crash.
.
.
.
Or if not, how does one handle this contradiction?

Interesting.  Three different and equally intriguing answer to the dilemma. :)

What if I reverse the question. What if someone proposes a Goal that would alter the past or contradict something that has been established?

Quick, possibly bad, example off the top of my head:
"Goal: Mr Evil robs the bank on Sunday" was resolved already, with the resolution being that yes, Mr. Evil did rob the bank on Sunday.

Now someone throws down Goal: Mr. Evil was in Jail all weekend.

Now what?  Improper Goal?  Retroactive editing of the story? The guy who robbed the jail looked like, but was not in fact Mr Evil?  Mr Evil suddenly has powers of bilocation or time travel?

Now what?  Improper Goal?  Retroactive editing of the story? The guy who robbed the jail looked like, but was not in fact Mr Evil?  Mr Evil suddenly has powers of bilocation or time travel?

Tuxboy wrote:
I think that really depends on the direction the group want to take the story.

Sindyr wrote:
Now Alice throws down a Goal: Supergirl talks with the Detective before he goes anywhere, because Alice wants Supergirl to have a conversation with the Det. before he may or may not get in a car crash.

Just to let you all know, here:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=17537.msg185392#msg185392

I asked a very similar question, and got an answer from Tony.

Page 1: Brad resolves "Goal: Kane causes [not WILL cause] the Detective to crash his car to crash on the way to the murder scene."

Detective Wilkes gets in his car and drives toward the murder scene. It's wet out, but not dangerously so....until he gets to the spot in the road that Kane has covered in K-Y Jelly! Detective Wilkes' car goes careening off the road and into Seemy Valley!

Supergirl punches Kane and zips up to the rooftop at superspeed, taunting Kane into following her. "You don't know where I was a half hour ago, do you?"

We flashback to a half hour ago as Detective Wilkes is getting ready to leave his office. Supergirl appears as if from nowhere as his blinds clatter in the open window. "You're in terrible danger Detective Wilkes. Kane is going to cause your car to crash!" "Oh no, Supergirl! What do I do?" "Don't worry about it. I'll fly you to the roof at the murder scene so you'll be there when I trick Kane into confessing the whole thing, then I'll fly back, disguise myself as you, and drive your car myself!"

I realized after rereading the thread that my previous post would look like a rehash of what other people said. My point is in the last paragraph. The other stuff was just me having fun with the situation.

Sindyr wrote:
"Goal: Mr Evil robs the bank on Sunday" was resolved already, with the resolution being that yes, Mr. Evil did rob the bank on Sunday.

Now someone throws down Goal: Mr. Evil was in Jail all weekend.

Actual Play wrote: In our first playtest, we had Landshark attack the natural history museum.  Nobody quite knew why he was attacking.  And then there was this obviously mystical amulet just ... well ... sitting there.  For no goddamn reason at all.  And we all thought "Wow ... that's stupid.  But let's roll with it."

So next session Volcanis, explosive hero and all around good guy, got too close to the amulet and was possessed by an evil spirit within it (Wauna-Tiki!)  And, once again, we were all thinking "Oh GOD ... so he just happened to pick something up, and it just happened to possess him.  This story stinks!"

And after the session we were saying "Man, Volcanis is going to be all alone next session, against all our team.  We're gonna freakin' trash him.  What other characters can we bring in to help him?"  And someone mentioned that Volcanis had an Exemplar, Eclipse, who was an ex-partner who had turned to crime.  We all giggled.  "Man, Eclipse is gonna freakin' love this.  He's been trying to bring Volcanis to the side of evil for, like, forever.  And now it's happened totally by accident.  Volcanis would never have gotten near that amulet if Eclipse had been even marginally involved, but just finding it on the floor he had no reason to be suspicious.  I mean, this couldn't have worked out better for Eclipse if he'd planned it that way from the start."

And then there was this long, freighted silence as we all looked from one to the other. "Oh shit," I said quietly.  "He did plan it.  He's been behind it from the start."

Eric summed it up best:  "Wow ... if I hadn't been here, playing the game, I'd think we were all geniuses!"

TonyLB wrote:
Don't try to make things make sense now.  You can just let things seem confusing and impossible now.  Then the characters are motivated to try to find some explanation.  Then the impossible, contradictory things you've defined cease to be a problem for the story ... instead they become an opportunity.  They become a challenge to which your characters (and the players) want to rise.  If they succeed (as, for instance, Alan Moore succeeded in creating a brilliant explanation for the apparently-nonsensical Swamp Thing series) you've got the solution to whatever apparent contradiction occurred.  If they don't succeed then you've still got the mystery, and the mystery rocks.

Actual Play wrote: And after the session we were saying "Man, Volcanis is going to be all alone next session, against all our team.  We're gonna freakin' trash him.  What other characters can we bring in to help him?"  And someone mentioned that Volcanis had an Exemplar, Eclipse, who was an ex-partner who had turned to crime.  We all giggled.  "Man, Eclipse is gonna freakin' love this.  He's been trying to bring Volcanis to the side of evil for, like, forever.  And now it's happened totally by accident.  Volcanis would never have gotten near that amulet if Eclipse had been even marginally involved, but just finding it on the floor he had no reason to be suspicious.  I mean, this couldn't have worked out better for Eclipse if he'd planned it that way from the start."

And then there was this long, freighted silence as we all looked from one to the other. "Oh shit," I said quietly.  "He did plan it.  He's been behind it from the start."

Eric summed it up best:  "Wow ... if I hadn't been here, playing the game, I'd think we were all geniuses!"

Sindyr wrote:
By the way, what was Alan Moore's explanation?

TonyLB wrote:

Sindyr wrote:
By the way, what was Alan Moore's explanation?

In all seriousness, go read it.  It's so cool that I wouldn't feel right spoiling it.

There is something about the example that Tony posted that is not directly relevant to Sindyr's question, but seems so important I that I just have to point it out.

The main reason that the players in that game had such an incredible epiphany and such satisfaction, I am sure, about its resolution, was that they had been PAYING ATTENTION.  Even if something had happened weeks ago in real time, they all were keeping what had gone on before in their minds, so that when this moment came up, suddenly a coherent story self-organized from the chaos because they were carrying these previous "story facts" in their minds. 

Capes is not a game, I think, where anyone can afford to sit back and just let stuff happen; for it to be effective everyone has to be committed to listening to what other people are saying and remembering it.  In other games you can afford to assume the GM will remember it, but not Capes...you ARE the GM.

Sorry to hijack your thread, Sindyr.  But, now that I think about it, it does tie back to the linked conflicts...a lot of the resolutions people have suggest tie back to paying attention to what people actually said (as oppossed to what you, or they, THINK they said) and finding the gaps.

Hans wrote:
Sorry to hijack your thread, Sindyr.  But, now that I think about it, it does tie back to the linked conflicts...a lot of the resolutions people have suggest tie back to paying attention to what people actually said (as oppossed to what you, or they, THINK they said) and finding the gaps.

Eric wrote:
Narrative paradoxes caused by goals are not the problem you might think.  A legitimate paradox might be theoretically possible, but I've never seen one in play.  I have had to scratch my head for a minute to come up with a narration that fits the goal landscape, but there has always been an answer. In fact, some of the most interesting stories come from nonintuitive combinations of goal resolutions. 

A blast from the past to follow up what Hans said:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=14383.0

Vaxalon says:

How do you deal with it, if Doctor Bizarro strangles the Ebony Englishman to death, but you still have "The Ebony Englishman freezes Doctor Bizarro in a block of ice." on the table?

Before I offer suggestions, I'll say that rules-wise the way I handle it is by passing the buck to the player of Doctor Bizarro.  By the "Not Yet" rule, he can't narrate anything that would resolve the outstanding conflict (in this case "Ebony Englishman freezes Doctor Bizarro") one way or another.  Yet, he's got to resolve the conflict.  Which is totally his problem.

But I have never found it particularly hard to work around these things in practice.  Ebony's been strangled to death, but you still want him freezing things?  Okay, options:

  * He's had his trachea shattered, and has been dealt a mortal blow, but has a few moments (as many as he needs) for revenge.
  * Killing him releases his powers in surges from his corpse, so Doc Bizarro needs to get clear fast or he'll be frozen by his enemy post-humously.
  * Ebony did something before he died (super-cooling some water mains, perhaps?) which still effects play after his demise.
  * A clone.  That having been said:  Can the rule system create situations that call upon you to be particularly, sometimes even fiendishly, inventive?  Ohhhh yeah.

Matthew wrote:
Vaxalon says:

How do you deal with it, if Doctor Bizarro strangles the Ebony Englishman to death, but you still have "The Ebony Englishman freezes Doctor Bizarro in a block of ice." on the table?

Hans wrote:
We have two goals on the table, 1 and 2.  Goal 1 resolves.  There are two players, me and you.  You are the resolver of goal 1.  You narrate some stuff.  As I listen to you, I cannot conceive a way to narrate Goal 2, you seem to have made it impossible.  Now, whose problem is that, mine or yours?  Some have been arguing here, if I am reading this correctly, that this is my problem.

I disagree.  The Not Yet rule, to my mind, makes it clear that it is the YOUR problem, not mine.  I can invoke the Not Yet rule as I choose, and require from you, at a minimum, some explanation of how you think the other goal could resolved.  If you can't think of anything either, then you have to change your narration.  It is your job, as the narrator of Goal 1, to make sure you leave "space" for goal 2.

Eric wrote:
To quote directly from the rules, "No player may narrate how the Conflict turns out in the story until they have successfully Resolved the conflict in the rules.  This is called the 'Not Yet' Rule." 

[snip]

That said, Not Yet does have some subjectivity.  Some people will think it applies in situations when other people do not.  My preference is for the most conservative interpretation possible.  Challenging narration in the face of existing previous narration yields some of the best play in Capes.  I don't want to water than down even one drop.

There's a powerful social force stopping people from calling "Not Yet" when things are merely difficult.  Let's say Fiona is working on "Goal:  Super-bitch kills everyone on the planet" and Heidi is working on "Goal:  Major Mom has a pleasant afternoon with her children."

First, let's properly spike the wording of Heidi's goal, to make it explicit.  This is a passionate game.  It's not just "Have a pleasant afternoon."  It's "Major Mom has a pleasant afternoon with her children, at any cost!"

So, Fiona resolves her goal.  Everyone on the planet (including Super-bitch!) is dead.  Dead, dead, deadie-dead-dead.  It's a boneyard.

Now Heidi looks at that and thinks the following sequence of things:

• "Man, it's hard to see a way to succeed at my goal, given the whole mass extinction thing."
• "And Fiona ... she can see that.  I mean ... it's obvious.  She can't have missed it."
• "Fiona doesn't want to get caught out having screwed up.  She's got some way of narrating this already in mind."
• "And if I complain, she's going to just sigh and roll her eyes and say 'Well if Major Mom is going to let a little thing like being dead stop her from spending quality time with her kids then she's not the mother I thought she was.'  I know that's what she'd do.  She's probably hoping that I'll call Not Yet."
• "And then she's going to narrate some spectacular thing about zombie picnics, and totally make me look like a feeb for having complained."
• "SCREW THAT!  I'm gonna figure out a way to narrate this that's twice as good as her way could ever be!"

Make sense?  It's a social dynamic that pushes people to call 'Not Yet' only when they think that someone has (in their excitement) actually overlooked something and would be happy to be reminded.  That almost never happens when the goals are directly running against each other, because folks have had a long time to contemplate the interactions.  It's more common when you've got something like "Goal:  Iron Brain says a kind word to Junior" and someone is just running their mouth in dialogue.

TonyLB wrote:
There's a powerful social force stopping people from calling "Not Yet" when things are merely difficult.  Let's say Fiona is working on "Goal:  Super-bitch kills everyone on the planet" and Heidi is working on "Goal:  Major Mom has a pleasant afternoon with her children."

TonyLB wrote:
There's a powerful social force stopping people from calling "Not Yet" when things are merely difficult.  Let's say Fiona is working on "Goal:  Super-bitch kills everyone on the planet" and Heidi is working on "Goal:  Major Mom has a pleasant afternoon with her children."

Sindyr wrote:
Tony, please do not take offense and become reactive, but I find your solution artificial, and unrealistic - that is, I can never imagine *any* gamer I have known, should we find ourselves in Capes and in that position, going down the fanciful path you illustrated.

I *do* of course reserve the right to change any and all opinions I express after I have experienced many play sessions of Capes.

;)

(And I *am* continually trying to get a Capes game going, even though I don't talk about it all the time here)

Hans wrote:
I think there is usually so much interesting stuff going on in a game of Capes anyway that using your action to cunningingly craft a goal you think blocks another is probably a waste of time.   Really all you are doing is throwing down a gauntlet to the other players to imaginatively come up with a way around it and do what they wanted to do anyway.  You action is better used to try to affect the original conflict, OR, play a distracting conflict (that is, a conflict that doesn't attempt to block the other conflict, but instead is SO much more interesting than the first one).  Preventative conflicts are much better are preventing specific narration (Villain escapes), rather than messing with other existing conflicts.

I made a separate thread, because I wanted to pull some of these thoughts out away from the issue of linked conflicts.  I hope people will take a gander, and maybe contribute.