Over in the Linked Conflicts thread,

Eric wrote:
You can certainly do things just to poke other players in the eye, but the last thing you want in a Capes game is for the other players to think you are nothing more than a big jerk.  Once that happens, things get very ugly for you.

Tony, you may TRY to be a big jerk, but your enthusiasm is so infectious that you completely, utterly, totally fail at it.

TonyLB wrote:
Over in the Linked Conflicts thread,

Eric wrote:
You can certainly do things just to poke other players in the eye, but the last thing you want in a Capes game is for the other players to think you are nothing more than a big jerk.  Once that happens, things get very ugly for you.

I'm interested to hear what people think about this.  I'm not at all sure that I agree with it as stated.  But maybe I'm not understanding.  I look at it and that "other player think you are nothing more than a big jerk" thing leaps out at me.  Because I totally play to be a big jerk, and people seem to eat it up with a spoon, which may mean that I am being a big jerk plus some critical other element that makes it work.

PS.  Another potential factor: you specifically, Tony, may get special treatment from other players that know you are the author of the game.

Tony,

I think what we're really talking about here is sportsmanship.  You and probably most people, have a really good grasp of what is being a good sport.  So, yes, being a total jerk *within the context of playing the game.*  is both expected and appreciated.  If we were playing monopoly and you know I've been eyeing Park Place for several rounds now and I'm just waiting for my chance to land on it, but then you land on it first and snap it up with a big malicious grin on your face, I may cry out, "Oh you big jerk!"  but you haven't hurt me personally and in some ways you've even deepened my experience of the game by playing with intensity.

What Syndr and others keep talking about when they refer to players being a jerk is not the sportsmanship kind of jerk but the personal hurtful kind of jerk.  The guy who boasts about how perfect his marriage is constantly in front of his friend who just went through a messy divorce.  The dude who takes someone who was sexually assaulted last week out to horror movie featuring several scenes of graphic rape.  That kind of jerk.

There's a big difference between these two things: Knowing that I'm sensitive about teenage girls and thus when playing Capes you put teenage girls in danger all the time because you know I'll get fired up vs. my kid sister was kidnapped and never found and so any time teenage girls in danger comes up you're poking forks in my personal trauma.  One is cool, the other is not.

Here I've gone to some rather extreme examples.  I don't think you need that level of personal trauma I've described here to have the kind of personal wounding reaction.  However, I think someone WITHOUT that kind of personal trauma who has that kind of personal wounding reaction to certain things needs to seriously re-evaluate themselves, but that's a different topic.

Make sense?

Jesse

TonyLB wrote:
I'm interested to hear what people think about this.  I'm not at all sure that I agree with it as stated.  But maybe I'm not understanding.  I look at it and that "other player think you are nothing more than a big jerk" thing leaps out at me.  Because I totally play to be a big jerk, and people seem to eat it up with a spoon, which may mean that I am being a big jerk plus some critical other element that makes it work.

jburneko wrote:
I think what we're really talking about here is sportsmanship.  You and probably most people, have a really good grasp of what is being a good sport. 

There's a difference between being a complete asshat and being competitive.  Anyone who's played in a sport can tell you that it's one thing to be soundly beaten, but another to be soundly beaten by a grinning, mocking, jackass.  

The problem at times is that there are people out there that don't know the difference between the two.  They consider competition to be a hideous thing, detrimental to friends and gatherings.  So even if you beat a person and be very cool about it, they'll still throw a tantrum, toss down their racket (I play tennis a bit) and storm away.  

It's a case of sore losers and sore winners.  Either type make me roll my eyes.

Perhaps we could use an example to help us define and discover who is being a good sport and who is being a jerk.

If address the group, and I say, "I will be bringing in my new character Captain Good - he's going to be my 2nd spotlight character - Julie Jones being my first.  Actually, he and Julie are in a relationship - and guys, I would appreciate it if their relationship is left untouched by all - I will not put any resources to defending it, but if anyone messes with their bond I may well quit the game - its that serious to me.  Also, last week we had some pretty graphicly narrated torture scenes that made me queasy, so I am going to ask everyone to avoid torture, if that's ok.  Again, don't throw down torture Conflicts because I won't fight you for them, I will probably just throw up on you."

At this point, if anyone tries to narrate or create conflicts that threaten to cause Julie and the Captain to fall out of love, or if anyone brings torture into the game, this I think is clearly Bad Sportsmanship, and the one that does is a jerk.

Agree?

Glendower wrote:
There's a difference between being a complete asshat and being competitive.  Anyone who's played in a sport can tell you that it's one thing to be soundly beaten, but another to be soundly beaten by a grinning, mocking, jackass. 

The problem at times is that there are people out there that don't know the difference between the two.  They consider competition to be a hideous thing, detrimental to friends and gatherings.  So even if you beat a person and be very cool about it, they'll still throw a tantrum, toss down their racket (I play tennis a bit) and storm away. 

It's a case of sore losers and sore winners.  Either type make me roll my eyes.

TonyLB wrote:
"other player think you are nothing more than a big jerk"

Sindyr wrote:
If one cannot respect the human limits of the other players, one is a loser to being with, IMO.

Glendower wrote:
There's a difference between being a complete asshat and being competitive.  Anyone who's played in a sport can tell you that it's one thing to be soundly beaten, but another to be soundly beaten by a grinning, mocking, jackass.  

Glendower wrote:
It's a case of sore losers and sore winners.  Either type make me roll my eyes.

TonyLB wrote:

Sindyr wrote:
If one cannot respect the human limits of the other players, one is a loser to being with, IMO.

Sindyr, your continued grinding of this personal ax is getting in the way of people who want to discuss anything else.

You've made your point.  Everyone knows how you feel.  Now is the time for you to stop.

Eric wrote:
Tony is unfailingly gracious in both victory and defeat in fair competition.

Eric wrote:
That's rather funny because I first wrote it without the "nothing more" and realized the sentence needed it.  

TonyLB wrote:

Eric wrote:
That's rather funny because I first wrote it without the "nothing more" and realized the sentence needed it.  

Can you elaborate?

I think also there is a clear and important differentiation between the player playing his character as a jerk, and the player being a jerk.

Tuxboy wrote:
I think also there is a clear and important differentiation between the player playing his character as a jerk, and the player being a jerk.

I think that the word "jerk" has a wide range of meaning. There's a big jerk in the sense of someone who is SO INTO IT that he is totally DUNKING ON YOU and ooh, you just have to show him up by beating him at the game, and you know what? He's ok with that! And then there's the big jerk in the sense of someone who is into beating on you and even though you are clearly in a wheelchair, he insists on dunking the ball and then yelling "in your face!" afterward.

Heh.  Is trash-talk abusive?

Like, say two guys are playing one-on-one basketball.  Harry misses a basket, and Ron says "Ah, MAN!  That basket was wide open for you, man!  I haven't seen an opportunity that wide open since last night between yo mama's legs!"

There are, basically, two responses to that.  Either Harry replies "Aw SNAP, man!  Now you're goin' down just like yo mama on a five dollar john," or Harry says "Hey man!  That's just not called for!  I don't like hearing that kind of talk."

So I've got two things to say about that.  First, I don't buy that Ron is solely to blame if Harry chooses the second response.  Yeah, Ron said the trash-talk, and Harry made it disruptive rather than running with it.  It takes two to tango.

Second, I think games are much more fun when everybody is trash-talking and it's all still friendly.  I think they are measurably more enjoyable than when everyone is restrained and polite for fear of offending anyone.

TonyLB wrote:
Like, say two guys are playing one-on-one basketball.  Harry misses a basket, and Ron says "Ah, MAN!  That basket was wide open for you, man!  I haven't seen an opportunity that wide open since last night between yo mama's legs!"

There are, basically, two responses to that.  Either Harry replies "Aw SNAP, man!  Now you're goin' down just like yo mama on a five dollar john," or Harry says "Hey man!  That's just not called for!  I don't like hearing that kind of talk."

So I've got two things to say about that.  First, I don't buy that Ron is solely to blame if Harry chooses the second response.  Yeah, Ron said the trash-talk, and Harry made it disruptive rather than running with it.  It takes two to tango.

Hans wrote:
To me, here is the question:  Do I think Ron is trash talking because he is full of macho bravado, or do I think he is trash-talking because he has nothing but scorn for me and is just being an ass.  It has less to do with what is actually said, and more to do with how it is said, and what relationship you have with that person going in.  I may be wrong in my assessment of Ron's motives andt attitude, but nevertheless, my assessment will engender my reaction.

TonyLB wrote:
Heh.  Is trash-talk abusive?

Like, say two guys are playing one-on-one basketball.  Harry misses a basket, and Ron says "Ah, MAN!  That basket was wide open for you, man!  I haven't seen an opportunity that wide open since last night between yo mama's legs!"

There are, basically, two responses to that.  Either Harry replies "Aw SNAP, man!  Now you're goin' down just like yo mama on a five dollar john," or Harry says "Hey man!  That's just not called for!  I don't like hearing that kind of talk."

So I've got two things to say about that.  First, I don't buy that Ron is solely to blame if Harry chooses the second response.  Yeah, Ron said the trash-talk, and Harry made it disruptive rather than running with it.  It takes two to tango.

Second, I think games are much more fun when everybody is trash-talking and it's all still friendly.  I think they are measurably more enjoyable than when everyone is restrained and polite for fear of offending anyone.

Bill, you seem to think that my post was meant to refute yours.  I meant it to be elaborating, and addressing a slightly different point.  I figure that we crossed wires somewhere on imagined voice-tone, yes?

That having been said ... if you're playing a fair, competitive game of basketball against a guy in a wheelchair (i.e. you're not holding back and he's so good that he still has fair odds to win) then I would argue that you absolutely do get to crow about your stellar dunk, just the same way that he gets to crow about leaving tire-treads up and down your shins.  Does that seem wildly off-kilter to anyone?

TonyLB wrote:
Heh.  Is trash-talk abusive?

Attitude has a lot to do with what kind of trash talk is cool and what kind is not.

Escalating trashtalk with each side giving as good as it gets?  Totally cool.

One person trashtalking and the other responding with steely silence and focus on the game?  Totally cool.

One person trashtalking and the other withdrawing, knuckling under, even quitting?  NOT cool.  Whose fault?  That depends on whether you feel that the person who dominates a relationship has more responsibility for it or not.  Some people say that dominant people deserve the rewards of dominance, and that you only get what you fight for, others say that dominance entails responsibilities as well as rights.... and those aren't the only two philosophies, either.

Capes is a game that's built on the idea that you only get what you deserve, and there's only two ways to deserve things; fighting for them and working for them.

Trash-talking is about attitude, not really on using cuss-words.

You can say mofo, bitch and whatever, but they're added in order to highlight things. If you're actually using insults in your trash-talk, that's not cool.

Like cussing one another's mother. You do get to belittle one another, that's trash talk, it's all about the 'tude.

Thunder_God wrote:
Trash-talking is about attitude, not really on using cuss-words.

You can say mofo, bitch and whatever, but they're added in order to highlight things. If you're actually using insults in your trash-talk, that's not cool.

Like cussing one another's mother. You do get to belittle one another, that's trash talk, it's all about the 'tude.

Sindyr wrote:
Ultimately, trash-talking is only fun, and perhaps only valid, when both sides are participating - either by trash talking back or glaring as a response.

As Vaxalon says one-sided trash talk with the other guy wincing and obviously getting truly upset, not so much.

Sindyr wrote: As Vaxalon says one-sided trash talk with the other guy wincing and obviously getting truly upset, not so much.

TonyLB wrote:

Sindyr wrote: As Vaxalon says one-sided trash talk with the other guy wincing and obviously getting truly upset, not so much.

Agreed.  That guy who winces and gets upset needs to get his act together, pronto.  Until he starts giving as good as he gets he's just ruining everyone's fun.

TonyLB wrote:
Agreed.  That guy who winces and gets upset needs to get his act together, pronto.  Until he starts giving as good as he gets he's just ruining everyone's fun.

drnuncheon wrote:

TonyLB wrote:
Agreed.  That guy who winces and gets upset needs to get his act together, pronto.  Until he starts giving as good as he gets he's just ruining everyone's fun.

Alternately, the guy who's trash talking needs to get his act together, pronto.  Until he realizes that it's not appropriate, he's just ruining everyone's fun.

Either one could be right, depending on the group.  Personally, I'm not going to trash talk anyone until I know where the lines are.  It's fun until you accidentally hit a nerve, then it's time to be a man and say, "Hey, I'm sorry."  Same as if I'm goofing around and I accidentally twist his bad shoulder or something.

J

J, Sindyr:  Yeah, in general terms either mode of play works fine.  Whatever dynamic the group has is the dynamic it has.  But there are games that form that dynamic for the group, by their very structure.  Capes is one of them.

Capes encourages, rewards, indeed all but requires an in-your-face machismo and an equal willingness to both take and dish out lumps.  So within the context of Capes you can say "Hey, the girl who's projecting in-your-face machismo is playing the game, and the guy who's taking offense at it is not.  She's right, he's wrong, moving on."

TonyLB wrote:
Capes encourages, rewards, indeed all but requires an in-your-face machismo and an equal willingness to both take and dish out lumps.

Damnit J, you beat me to it!

Good analogy...  Capes is competitive - but whether its roughousing or no-holds barred ultimate fighting championship depends on the group.

What you *don't* wan't is a mixed group where some people just want to roughouse while others want to draw blood.  It isn't fair to either side.

drnuncheon wrote:
Again, there's lumps and there's lumps - and I feel like theres an enormous communication chasm that doesn't need to be there, so I'm going to try this bridge one last time:

drnuncheon wrote:
If you were roughhousing around wrestling with a friend, and you accidentally dislocate their shoulder, or break a finger, or draw blood - do you keep going and tell them to suck it up, that's part of the game?

Therefor by being blind to the fact that people *can* be actually hurt by words and fictions, you empower yourself to:
1) Dismiss them and their pain
2) Give no thought to anyone else but yourself as you pursue you course of action(s)
3) Deride and "blame the victim" for not being as macho and tough as yourself
4) Judge them as weak, which coincidentally I guess makes you "strong"

Let me give a personal example.  Extended and graphic scenes of torture are unpleasant to me to the point of causing me trauma, suffering, and anxiety.  I know countless others who react the same way.

A person plays ANY game to have fun - including Capes.  If an opportunistic Capes player were to note my inability to deal with explicit torture, they could try to use that as leverage to get me to pay them off in story tokens not to go there.

The above bully is despicable, assuming that he knows his is exploiting another human beings weakness and corrupting the other's fun to serve his own.

Let me be explicit and 100% clear.

It is ok for a group of Capes players to decide that their game will not have any narrations of torture.  It is further ok for any person that contravenes this social contract to be asked to leave.

It is also ok for a group of Capes players to decide that their game will *not* have any limits on narrations, including torture.  It is further ok for any person that contravenes *this* social contract to be asked to leave.

If a group finds itself with members of both camps in it - some who can't stand torture and some who can't stand limits - then its ok to have a dialogue to see if a compromise can be reached.  If that is not possible, it is ok for the group to fracture so that each subgroup can play the game in the way that works best for them.

Neither the anti-torture people nor the anti-limits people are wrong.

What IS wrong is if either side looks at the other with disdain.  What IS wrong is if either side expects the other to conform their style of play to suit them.  What IS wrong is assuming that only one of the sides deserves to play Capes - or any other endeavor, or that one side does not have a right to pursuing fun, that one side must sacrifice their fun for the fun of others.

That is clearly wrong.

If a group of four Capes players has one member that wants to play the torture card and 3 that want to keep torture out of the game, the three anti-torture players should not be expected to play the game in a way they do not find fun in order to provide fun for the fourth.

Likewise, the fourth anti-limits player should not be expected to play the game in a way that is not fun for him just in order to provide fun for the other three.

Each player or group of players should be allowed without being judged to pursue recreational fun however they choose.  If an endeavor they are in stops being fun for them, only a bully would deride or mock them for taking the rational and suitable step of stopping what is no longer fun to try something else - such as a new and more like minded group of people.

To flip the example, if 3 of 4 Capes players in a group are happy without any narrative limits, but the fourth truly and sincerely cannot handle torture, it is acceptable for the 3 to:
1) Choose to rein in or avoid torture stories out of respect for the fellow.
2) Explain that they prefer to choose to play a game without any limits, and that the fourth guy will have to accept that if he remains.

If the fourth guy *does* leave, then for the other three to deride or belittle him is just sick and more of that macho BS that you see so often in places like the Army and sports.

If that is the case, I find it highly unfortunate that this macho BS has come to RPGs.

I think the key thing to remember is that standing up for the way you want to play, whether that means in this case anti-torture or anti-limits, does NOT mean attacking someone else's choices.

The wise and evolved soul does not judge others for being different than he is, making different choices, or pursuing different goals.

The wise and evolved soul DOES judge others for indulging in the acts of lack of compassion, bullying, and intolerance.

As long as one is not being forced to engage in unconsensual acts, then the only thing we can and should be intolerant of is intolerance itself.

All we have to ask ourselves if do we have any issue with the statement below.  If we do, then that says something (not very nice) about *us*, doesn't it?

It is perfectly acceptable for a group of Capes players to choose to limit or not limit their narrations in any way.  It is furthermore perfectly acceptable for any member or members of that group to choose to leave it (to start or join another group perhaps) without being judged if they find the way the overall group is playing to no longer be fun for them.

Sindyr wrote:
The above bully is despicable, assuming that he knows his is exploiting another human beings weakness and corrupting the other's fun to serve his own.

What if either they do not want to get stronger, or what if the drill sargent is wrong and they can't?

What if all they want to to have fun?

Doesn't what they want matter?

Sindyr...

Those aren't "what ifs" that Tony's going to recognize.

Anyone who can't handle playing with him, or playing his game... shouldn't play with him, or play his game.

Fred called it, folks!  He knows me well.

Sindyr wrote:
Doesn't what they want matter?

I, politely and with respect, disagree.  You built a tank.  Perhaps you intended it for shark use only, but whether people put a shark there or instead play water polo is up to them.

I think Capes can do more than you seem to think it can.

Anyways, I think we have both stated our positions and if you like, we can both now let it drop.

If you like.

Sindyr wrote: Anyways, I think we have both stated our positions and if you like, we can both now let it drop.

I will try not to bother you further, Tony, at least in this thread.  You just seem to have some kind of blind spot or emotional commitment that precludes you understanding my position - which is clear since you say I have none, when I believe I have demonstrated to myself and others proofs and substantive issues which you repeatedly seem to completely refuse to acknowledge or accept.

I bear you no animosity on this and confess to more of a feeling of disappointment.

I will not waste your time or the time of others trying to convince you further.  I will of course not be dropping the subject or refusing to talk about this (and similar subjects) to and with others, as it seems that there are some here that get what I am saying.  But I will accept that you, Tony, for whatever reason of emotion or philosophy, are completely closed to anything I have to say on the matter.

However, I do wish to remind you that while I may find some things about you frustrating and disappointing, I nevertheless honor you for the concept and creation of this game Capes, even if I choose to take it to places you feel uncomfortable with.  Please receive my sincere gratitude and respect for this system.  I hope to build upon your work to take it farther. Please also to not take it amiss as I continue to explore these ideas and thoughts that you denounce with others.

Thank you.

Sindyr wrote:
I will of course not be dropping the subject or refusing to talk about this (and similar subjects) to and with others, as it seems that there are some here that get what I am saying.

The last word is yours. (wink)