From the "Critique my exemplar" thread:

Matthew wrote:
Goal: Prevent Jerry from doing superhero stuff. 
[snip]
However, this is a weak goal because while it's in play it doesn't stop Jerry.  I think it'd be better done as Goal: Do superhero stuff.

I'm going to wait to comment on this.  I'm glad you brought it up, though.  :)

The two goals prevent different things.

The first goal prevents X from doing Y until the goal is resolved.

The second goal prevents Z from preventing X from doing Y until the goal is resolved; but since (mechanically ) Z can't prevent X from doing ANYTHING, anyways, it's a (mechanically) meaningless goal.

To be more clear: The two goals are NOT identical in the "not yet" that they allow.

In the first case, a "Not Yet" is triggered if X does Y.

In the second case, a "Not Yet" is NOT triggered if X does Y, but rather if Z tries to prevent it.

Vaxalon wrote:
To be more clear: The two goals are NOT identical in the "not yet" that they allow.

In the first case, a "Not Yet" is triggered if X does Y.

In the second case, a "Not Yet" is NOT triggered if X does Y, but rather if Z tries to prevent it.

Hans wrote:

Vaxalon wrote:
To be more clear: The two goals are NOT identical in the "not yet" that they allow.

In the first case, a "Not Yet" is triggered if X does Y.

In the second case, a "Not Yet" is NOT triggered if X does Y, but rather if Z tries to prevent it.

So, on the bigger point, Fred, do you think it is true that to prevent someone narrating something you must do so through a goal that they can veto?  If not, can you give an example of a goal that would be functionally equivalent to "Goal: X does Y" that X couldn't veto?

Say I'm playing Jetboy, and my buddy Clive is playing Star-man. If there's a goal on the table "Star-man stops Jetboy escaping", and I narrate Jetboy escaping, surely that makes it impossible for Star-man to fulfil the goal? In which case Clive is totally within his rights to say "not yet".

That is, I think a goal "X stops Y doing Z" can prevent Y from doing Z.

Vaxalon, I am getting confused here - now Adam seems to be making sense - what do you think?

Goal: Star-man stops Jetboy from escaping.

Result: any narration that would indicate Starman at being successful at stoping Jetboy's escape or at failing to stop Jetboy's escape would be forbidden under the not yet rule.

If Jetboy were to escape, than that invalidates the Goal.  Of course, Jetboy might escape right *after* the goal resolves, but whlie the Goal is on the table, Jetboy can not successfully escape, can he?

This would lead to the conclusion that to prevent person X from doing action Y you simply cretae a Goal like:
Goal:  Your character stops X from doing Y.
and while the Goal is in play, X will not be able to do Y without the Not Yet rule stopping them.

I think this is what Adam is saying.  Vaxalon - does this hold up for you?  Because the logic seems flawless.

Not if *your* point is barring house rules and mods, if the player of X really wants him to do Y, then that player simply waits until the Goal preventing X from doing Y resolves, and then X can do Y.

Is *this* your main point??

Okay.

I'm going to sit back and wait for Tony to weigh in on this one.

Ok, I confess that my answer was kind of a cheap way out, because it wasn't exactly addressing the original question. Consider these two goals:

1) Raspberry-ripple-man stops Chocoboy from escaping
2) Raspberry-ripple-man stops Chocoboy from being a hero

Raspberry-ripple-man's player can certainly veto either of these goals, and Chocoboy's player can't veto either of them. Also, while they're in play, Raspberry-ripple-man can't do anything which definitively prevents Chocoboy escaping (in the first case) or being a hero (in the second case). But the restriction on Chocoboy isn't that he can't do those things, it's that he can't take away Raspberry-ripple-man's ability to stop him doing those things. In the case of escaping the two are pretty much identical, because Chocoboy is only going to escape once (assuming that it's implicit in the goal what he's trying to escape from). But 2) doesn't prevent Chocoboy from being a hero, as long as the need for him to be a hero doesn't go away. Say he (heroically) saves a bunch of the hostages, that's fine, as long as there are still hostages left who Ripple can talk him out of going back for. What he can't get away with is resolving the crisis of the moment completely, because that would mean that the need for him to be a hero disappeared before Ripple could try to talk him out of it.

So I think the answer to "is there a goal I can create which X can't veto and which prevents X from doing Y?" is "it depends on what Y is". Like, if Chocoboy's player really wants him to be a hero, maybe you can't stop him doing it that one time, but you can still eventually force him into a situation where Chocoboy has to fight to do what he thinks is right.

Answering Capes questions in the abstract like this seems like tricky stuff. How are we doing with resolving Hans' original concern?

Very good points.

So, what we are saying now is that:
Goal: X stops Y from doing Z
only stops Y from doing Z when Z is non-repeatable.  If Z can be done multiple times, than doing Z now does not prevent X from being able to stop Y from doing another Z later - and therefor does not qualify for the Not Yet rule.

Of course, if Z is NOT repeatable, than Y doing Z would qualify for the Not Yet rule as once done, X would have lost the option to successfully resolve the Goal.

So if someone throws down a preventative goal in the format of "X stops Y from doing Z" and if that Goal-maker does get specific enough about Z, then Y can continuing doing Z.

Example: Goal: Bif stops Marty from driving the DeLorean.
Marty can continue to drive the DeLorean, only having to stop if the Goal successfully resolves, after which he can immediately start again.

Example: Goal: Bif stops Marty from driving the DeLorean at 88 mph, there by time travelling.
Same as the above.

Example: Goal Bif stops Marty from dricing the DeLorean at 88 mph, and exiting this scene.
Does prevent Marty from doing this?

Perhaps the ONLY preventative Goals that work are those that address specific OOC matters, like scenes, etc?

A quick side question: can a Goal or Event even address OOC stuff?
Goal:  Starman stop's Jetboy from staking debt.

Back to the main point: What about this:
Goal: Starman suppresses all use of Jetboy's powers between Noon and 1pm.

Assuming that it is 12:05PM in the story, how is the above goal handled?  If Jetboy uses a power, that invalidates the Goal, bringing the Not Yet rule out. Or does it?

Perhaps this is a way to stop a character from doing general stuff - by creating a goal whereupon *any* action of type Z invalidates the Goal?

Adam wrote:
So I think the answer to "is there a goal I can create which X can't veto and which prevents X from doing Y?" is "it depends on what Y is". Like, if Chocoboy's player really wants him to be a hero, maybe you can't stop him doing it that one time, but you can still eventually force him into a situation where Chocoboy has to fight to do what he thinks is right.

Answering Capes questions in the abstract like this seems like tricky stuff. How are we doing with resolving Hans' original concern?

I just want to touch on this one little thing so as to remove it as an issue.  This is an off-topic aside, and has been covered by other posts earlier.  Not trying to disrupt the thread, which I think is rather important.

Back to the main point: What about this:
Goal: Starman suppresses all use of Jetboy's powers between Noon and 1pm.

Assuming that it is 12:05PM in the story, how is the above goal handled?  If Jetboy uses a power, that invalidates the Goal, bringing the Not Yet rule out. Or does it?

Vaxalon wrote:
In the second case, a "Not Yet" is NOT triggered if X does Y, but rather if Z tries to prevent it.

drnuncheon wrote:
So if Y is like whistling, then X can whistle all he wants, and Z can't stop him until the Goal is resolved.  If Y is like destroying the Earth, then X can't actually destroy the Earth until the goal is resolved.  Unless it's a Groundhog Day-style scenario, or Z can do a "replay" jump-back-in-time-for-5-seconds thing, or...well, you get the idea.

J

Sindyr wrote:

Goal: John prevents Fred from whistling from noon until 1PM.

If it's currently 5 after twelve, then Fred cannot be narrated whistling without invalidating the goal.

Uh ... hold on ... this is so abstract that I'm feeling a little bit at sea here.  What am I supposed to weigh in on?

I'm going to fictionally Actual Play this.  I'm playing Galagon, effete arch-nemesis of the Earth Defense Seven.  His plan has been foiled.  Again.

One of the ED7 creates "Goal:  Galagon escapes."  What outcomes can I get by vetoing?

If I say "Oh, I desperately need Galagon to escape, so I will veto that goal" then I've accomplished nothing.  The person just pops right back and says "Goal:  ED7 captures Galagon before he escapes" and I'm toast.  I can't escape if they still have a chance to capture me before my escape, and they can't capture me before my escape if I escape.  I really can't veto my way to not having to fight in order to escape.  That's not what the veto is for.

If I say "Escape? Uh ... dudes?  Galagon's still got a Thermionic Bomb, and he's a vengeful, self-destructive twit.  Why would he try to escape?" then I've accomplished something.  I've communicated to people that they have misjudged my intentions, and that another goal ("Goal:  Galagon detonates Thermionic Bomb and destroys Tokyo") would be more profitable.  That's what the veto is for.

Does that make things any more clear?  I'm ... a little perplexed by this thread, honestly.  People seem awfully confused in theory by things that I have never seen be more than momentarily confusing in practice, and I'm a little hard-pressed to see what's causing all the hubbub.

TonyLB wrote:
Does that make things any more clear?  I'm ... a little perplexed by this thread, honestly.  People seem awfully confused in theory by things that I have never seen be more than momentarily confusing in practice, and I'm a little hard-pressed to see what's causing all the hubbub.

I know this is an abstract thought experiment that may not come up during actual play, but I am curious to see what the limits of Capes are:

If in game it is 3PM, then,

Goal: ED7 prevents Galagon from achieving or experiencing any kind of success, accomplishment, or satisfaction from 3PM until midnight.

Now, until the Goal gets resolved, Galagon cannot be narrated doing anything significant.

Right?

Sure looks like you've got the wording tied up tight, yep.  The ED7 are constantly hounding his steps, making the food in his mouth taste of dust and ashes, stealing any little joy or meaning from his life.

CURSE YOU ED7!  I WILL NEVER FORGIVE!

FYI  - I would probably never play this on ya, just wanted to know if it were doable.

Thanks Tony.

I wonder if you caught the subtext:  the subtext is that such a "mega-restricting conflict" in no way restricts me (the player) from playing and succeeding at the game or from using Galagon as a tool to do so.  In fact, it's probably a slight losing move for you, because it makes it much easier for me to create entertaining narration and steal your resources. 

I can still win tons of conflicts and basically beat the pants off of the ED7 in every way that matters.  I just don't do it through the direct agency of Galagon.  I use him as a fictional tool rather than a personal avatar.  So Galagon can't achieve anything ... but public opinion can sway to favor this plucky interstellar underdog, and the ACLU can file restraining orders on the ED7, and all that jazz.

So, Sindyr:  Please do play such a conflict on me.  I've had it done.  It works to my advantage, every single time.

Pride goeth before a fall....?

Heh heh.

While being ooposed to subtext (grin) cause I like directness, I knew that.

My question was about preventing the fictional character Galagon from being effective, not Tony. ;)

Thanks

Yes, you can totally prevent Galagon from being effective from his point of view.  You can't stop Tony from using him effectively as a tool to influence the fiction.

Screw Galagon.  He's fictional.  He doesn't get a say in what happens.

Perhaps thats enough - he may be fictional, but he bugs me.

*heh* - pulling your leg a bit.

Sindyr wrote:
Perhaps thats enough - he may be fictional, but he bugs me.

*heh* - pulling your leg a bit.

If the game becomes a never ending cycle of putting down a countless supply of annoying and obnoxious villains, that would get tiresome very fast.  Eventually, hopefully, the game would include more depth, such as character evolution.

In fact, character development is quite possibly the cornerstone of good storytelling.  And I see no reason why this cannot occur in Capes just as easily as any other rpg.

You just need more sophistiticated players that instead of always reaching for the stick to get story tokens, they reach for the carrot. :)

Sindyr wrote:
If the game becomes a never ending cycle of putting down a countless supply of annoying and obnoxious villains, that would get tiresome very fast.

You know me - I think that any group, if they are having fun, is doing something right (and vice versa).

For me personally, I like to see stories that are serial rather than episodic - where some kind of concrete progress is being made - either by the protagonists better understanding themselves, or coming to grips with their problems.  In the best stories, I find the plot is the *backdrop* for the character growth that slowly occurs.

That's just how I see it.  I think Capes can be used to tell serialized stories that go deeper than the bad guy of the week - I think Capes could be used to make a Buffy, for example.  Sure Buffy had new bad guys all the time, but they were backdrops to the themes and character issues within, most of the time.

So the carrot you can dangle is...  character growth.  I would *love* to pay off someone with story tokens to create conflicts that let me slowly and with purpose grow and develop my character.

So when you see me yawning as we beat yet another bad guy, perhaps you can instead see me waving a wad of story token cash around to create something a little different - something for me to fight for instead of against...

[wink]

Sindyr wrote: So the carrot you can dangle is...  character growth.  I would *love* to pay off someone with story tokens to create conflicts that let me slowly and with purpose grow and develop my character.

I am *so* on top of that.

The trick in Capes is, I think, growing a thick skin to refuse to invest debt into any conflict type you dont want to see more of. Because if you fight this time, it just teaches the other players that you want more.

So if a player use a conflict to put my good name at risk, or kill my beloved, or any other type of story I *don't* want to see happen again, then I just have to refuse to engage.

When they finally create for me the kind of story options that I like, stake debt like mad to train them what I want them to be doing.

Sindyr wrote:
The trick in Capes is, I think, growing a thick skin to refuse to invest debt into any conflict type you dont want to see more of. Because if you fight this time, it just teaches the other players that you want more.

I think that is one way to play, but a more subtle strategy would be to not fight (and therefor lose) a few Conflicts if that causes the other players to not waste their time creating the kinds of conflicts that one will not engage in.

Ultimately, the other players will try to latch onto your hot buttons to try to manipulate you to giving them story tokens.

If you simply refuse to reward them so unless they engage you the way you want to be engaged, you have won the war, even if you have surrendered a few battles along the way.

Getting a player to stake debt is the only effective way to get a LOT of tokens.  YOU have the debt, and you have ABSOLUTE control over it.

So if you want to have a story where the main issue is, say, your parents identity, then simply let it be known that you will fight for those goals, and see if they don't get supplied.

Or, if you are tired of the endless loop of the other players putting your character's girlfriend in jeopardy over and over again, then (and I admit this is hard) don't rescue her.  Or rescue her and then narrate breaking up with her.

Better yet, develop a cavalier attitude.  If other players threaten the life of your hero's girlfriend, have that hero go with "there's more fish in the sea".

Sure, I know that may see unheroic, but this is Capes, and unless you either like the rescue of the week stories your best bet is to let it go.  You let enough of those go, the players will stop putting them at risk.

Remember, the core fact is anytime you fight for control of a conflict, you are *teaching* the other players that you want more conflicts just like this one.

Be careful what you train them to do.

Capes is a brilliant game.

This looks achingly similar to what you're saying over in Are abilities *always* available for use?  This new topic emerged when you drifted off-topic there, and it's emerging as you drift off-topic here.  My recommendation is the same:  Quote what you want, and make a thread that's actually about your search for a way to drive people away from certain areas of story without rewarding them in the process.

As you noted on the other thread - you are correct that drift has occured.  May start a new topic later, no time to right now.  Thanks.