Are there any circumstances where, for example, the player has a character with a level 5 power that he has not yet used that page but for some reason he cannot use it?

In a related question, is the following allowable under the Capes rules:

Fred: The Captain uses his SuperStrength Power to pick up a car and throws it at Mr Evil:
(Rolls up on Goal: The Captain successfully knocks out Mr Evil. Gets a 5, keeps it)

Matt:  All Mr. Evil has for a '5' ability is his attitude "Charming", so I'll guess I use that for my reaction...
(Rolls down the 5 to a 2) ...and Mr Evil misses...

Fred: Huh?  How are you using Charming to dodge?

Matt: Cause it's my only 5...

Fred: ???

*Is Matt's play, using his ability Charming because it's his only 5 without trying to come up with some way for his ability to be relevant to the goal, is this allowable under Capes?

Matt's just not being creative enough for Fred to understand the narration, but it doesn't matter, Fred has no recourse.  Play continues.

p. 38:  "The Ability they used must be central.  They can add anything else as well, so long as the one Ability that they used has a position of importance."

So, Matt's breaking the rules.  People can say "Matt!  Play by the rules," with or without the threat of wedgies to back it up.

Now if Matt says "Mr. Evil flashes a charming smile.  Women swoon.  Men grit their teeth with envy.  Oh, and also the car misses him," then that is fine.  There's no requirement that the ability be relevant, just that it be narrated prominently.

Thanks, that clears that up for me.

Sindyr,

Just a note.  The character in question doesn't even have to be physically present in the scene to use the Ability to roll up or down the die.  This has been important in a couple of scenes I've been in.

Let me clarify this:

1) Why would a character NOT be physically present?  Can characters exit and reneter scenes?  Is there any token cost to leave a scene?  Or to re-enter it?

2) If the character were not present, and wanted to use his Charming attitude, how would he narrate that to roll down a die?  Narrate a past event's continuing effect? (As the villain tries to free himself from the ropes, he remembers the Captain's Charming smile, and is daunted) Or narrate the effect of charm in some other way? (As the villain tries to free himself from the ropes, Ultraboy charming say, "don't go anywhere" and the villain subsides. [In this case, the Captain is using his Charming ability but narrating another character using charm])

Is either of both of the above legal?  Were you thinking of some other way a character could have an effect in the scene?

I *assume* that it's completely verboten to use abilities of a character that you have not yet brought into the scene at all even once.  Otherwise, why would anyone pay the token to bring one in.

Somewhat confused.

Sindyr wrote:
1) Why would a character NOT be physically present? 
2) If the character were not present, and wanted to use his Charming attitude, how would he narrate that to roll down a die?  Somewhat confused.

This brings up an interesting question...

If a scene starts, I bring in my hero - and on the first page I narrate him taking off.

However, depending on how legal the above stuff is, I can continue to use the hero's abilities to vie for control and narrate what is going on, even though my hero is no longer physically or dramatically apparent.

Which could lead to a player narrating the use of "superspeed" within a scene from which his hero has already departed, and the hero getting (and staking) debt, all while the hero is completely absent.

Is this completely acceptable?  Given that the ability "superspeed" is used in some creative way - such as after effects, or whatnot?

Completely acceptable, yes. 

Another example.  I play Spiderman.  You play Green Goblin.  Somebody else plays Uncle Ben, a character who is dead.  Uncle Ben still has an effect on the scene, if only in Spiderman's memory.

Here's an example from actual play.

Zak is imprisoned on a world off in the time-stream.  Ransom and Kettridge get together in Ransom's office, to decide whether a rescue attempt will be made.  I play Zak.  He's not there, of course, but his character vividly effects the scene.

Is it clear how that works?

So really, I could choose a character at the start of the scene, but never have him actually present.  Interesting.

The idea occurs to me to play a dead superhero, who doesn't come back as a ghost or anything, but somehow continues to affect the storyline in some unexplicable way.

[grin]

Furthermore, it just occrrued to me that this is a vivid proof that it does not matter what happens to the hero, the hero's spirit (manifested by the abilities that can win Conflicts and earn story tokens) line on.

Perhaps by playing a superhero that is dead from the start, not much worse can happen?

Heh heh.

Sorry for the multiple self replies, but I can't edit or add to the original and I keep having ideas:

What about a superhero that is dead, and exists as a super-meme? 

Major coolness.

Sindyr wrote:
Sorry for the multiple self replies, but I can't edit or add to the original and I keep having ideas:

What about a superhero that is dead, and exists as a super-meme? 

Major coolness.

Perhaps Obi-Wan's player played this way after Obi-Wan was "killed"?

"You can't win.  If you strike me down I will have more Story Tokens then you can even imagine."

I love it.

I also imagine a non-physical existence (playing a character after his death) would be freer and more non limiting than playing a living character with the bother of a body and all that entails.

Captain Good (deceased):  "C'mon, Mr Evil.  What're you gonna do, kill me?  Kill my friends?  I've gone beyond death now, thanks to you, and now the rules have changed...  So let's play."

Sindyr wrote:
Captain Good (deceased):  "C'mon, Mr Evil.  What're you gonna do, kill me?  Kill my friends?  I've gone beyond death now, thanks to you, and now the rules have changed...  So let's play."

(heh heh)

Captain Good does not care what people think of him - that does not matter.  Captain Good only cares that he still fights against Evil, from beyond the grave...

The amazing thing about playing a dead character is that death loses all its sting as a threat - both versus him and versus the living. ;)

Hey! A cool plot idea - Mr Evil successfully is able to dominate the planet, but Captain Good unleashes Armageddon, killing everyone on the planet and freeing them to experience the same freedom and the Captain does. ;)

Sindyr wrote: Captain Good does not care what people think of him - that does not matter.  Captain Good only cares that he still fights against Evil, from beyond the grave...

Hey! A cool plot idea - Mr Evil successfully is able to dominate the planet, but Captain Good unleashes Armageddon, killing everyone on the planet and freeing them to experience the same freedom and the Captain does. ;)

drnuncheon wrote:

Hey! A cool plot idea - Mr Evil successfully is able to dominate the planet, but Captain Good unleashes Armageddon, killing everyone on the planet and freeing them to experience the same freedom and the Captain does. ;)

I think you've just turned Captain Good into a supervillain, chief.  That's classic twisted villainthink right there.

J

Sindyr wrote: Captain Good does not care what people think of him - that does not matter.  Captain Good only cares that he still fights against Evil, from beyond the grave...

It doesn't matter what Captain Good cares about - it matters what Sindyr cares about, because that's what gets the debt tokens flowing.

That said, if you don't invest enough of yourself (and your debt tokens) into the game, nobody's going to care enough to put down the conflicts you are interested in.  They're going to go over to the guy who's all "Yeah! Kidnap my character's girlfriend!  Drag his name through the mud!  Reveal his secret identity to his frail old aunt!", and they're going to say, "Sure, Tony, let us help you get rid of some of that debt you're stacking up."

The other secret of Capes, I think, is to be a story slut.  The more you accept what other people throw down in front of you and run with it, the more they will throw down in front of you.  (The classic rule of improv theater is "Never say No", after all.)

Sindyr wrote:
You would think so, BUT if Captain Good *knows* death is not a limitation or end (because he *is* dead) then death becomes a way to free all those enslaved by Mr. Evil.  It's ironic, but given the premise, it makes sense.

You misread what I said.  I said that I *will* invest in the stories that interest me and that I enjoy.  It is the other players job to provide said stories in order to make me want to invest debt, it is NOT my job to care about whatever the other players throw down for conflicts, and *give* my debt away.

drnuncheon wrote:

Sindyr wrote:
You would think so, BUT if Captain Good *knows* death is not a limitation or end (because he *is* dead) then death becomes a way to free all those enslaved by Mr. Evil.  It's ironic, but given the premise, it makes sense.

And yet, it's just the sort of goal that the other heroes would band together to stop - if they are worthy of the title, that is.

You misread what I said.  I said that I *will* invest in the stories that interest me and that I enjoy.  It is the other players job to provide said stories in order to make me want to invest debt, it is NOT my job to care about whatever the other players throw down for conflicts, and *give* my debt away.

Well, here's the thing.  If I've got you and Tony in a game, I'm going to throw down conflicts for Tony, because I know he'll bite, and bite hard.  Remember that each conflict I create is an investment of an action - so I'm going to want to go for the one that I think is most likely to get me the goods.  If I see you ignoring (say) 3 out of the 5 conflicts that get tossed your way, I'm less likely to take a chance on you when I can go after Tony.  (My biggest issue with Tony will be competing with the other people who want a crack at his debt...)

J

dount = doubt

To be more explicit, I have no problem writing an essay about different directions I would like to see my hero explore, and email or distribute them to all the other players.

I am not against giving out the story tokens - I just want to get what I am paying for. :)

Sindyr:  While I can see the history of segues by which we have transitioned from "When can you use abilities?" to "Sindyr believes in limits and boundaries, a reprise" I do not believe that where you are now has anything to do with the title or original intent of the thread.

I suggest you quote this tangent into a new thread that is more appropriately titled.

I do believe we have wandered off topic, thank you.  I think the original question was answered, and the naswer is "yes"

You would think so, BUT if Captain Good *knows* death is not a limitation or end (because he *is* dead) then death becomes a way to free all those enslaved by Mr. Evil.  It's ironic, but given the premise, it makes sense.

And yet, it's just the sort of goal that the other heroes would band together to stop - if they are worthy of the title, that is.

That's assuming the other heroes aren't that bright - but if they are, they themselves may join the Captain to better fight Mr. Evil.

I will try to briefly explain this quick and simply.

The Captain has died.
The Captain still exists.  He still can have an effect on the world - more than he could when limited by having a human body.  He can even *take* a body when he wishes, for a while.

So the Captain know death is not death - therefore murder is not murder. 

If Mr Evil incarcerates all the good people across the planet, how is the Captain's releasing them form their mortal shell in any way bad?  Thay are still here, can do eveything they could, and much more.

Sindyr wrote: So the Captain know death is not death - therefore murder is not murder.

Splitting this off into a new topic "Morality or When is a Superhero not a Superhero?"