Moderator-y Goodness:  Since the old thread was more than a month old, I've split this off into its own thread for discussion.

It is strange the way this thread drifted when you consider the first goal on the table wasn't remotely resolved. By Bathbar's hammer, Sindyr, you shall be avenged ! (and here is how)

First a warning :
"La culture, c'est comme la confiture, moins on en a, plus on l'étale."
- French saying -
i.t. : What you lack most you want to show more (Is that why I write in this form of hypercorrected english?)

WHY ALL THE NOISE ?

At the beginning of this two-fold thread, a strong reaction was triggered. Let's not come back on the scene that I would wish to title "Socrates' bodyguards take out wino from lecture room".  There were the swift takers as Greyorm (bravo !), and the less subtle ones, big dirty paws (wooooh !), relying on number. This scene of extreme rhetorical violence, I must say, compelled me to dive into this forum, and see what could be saved of what opinions I share with Sindyr (which I didn't mean to say had any problem with alcohol or anything). I felt something had gone really wrong, not only because I can't support a bad argument made right by sheer number of voices, or because I saw how hordes of messages can make some authors lose the point they had first in mind...

ANALYZE IS LONGER THAN RHETORICAL SWASHBUCKLING. TAKE A SIT IF YOU INTEND TO HEAR THE WHOLE STORY.
Not only because of those reasons, but also because, actually, I got triggered too by the first post of this thread. Not exactly because I rejected in horror one of TonyLB's statements (I have seen what they did to the poor guy who did, don't want to end up like that), but rather by the position from where they were made. In that, I react a bit the same way Sindyr did, only I hope I will be more articulate, in order to makes most of the "chairs flying above the tables" arguments irrelevant.

AUTHORITY'S BURDEN
Call it metathingie if you want, I would say the problem with TonyLB's message may be more a question of who says what to whom, and in which circunstances, than a syntactic/syllogic one.

After all, I have read many posts where an "aura" effect was nearly palpable around the author of Capes. Not that I don't like it, in some cases (gordian knot scenarios for instance). But not considering this kind of influence may be a mistake. Specially when

THE SUBJECT OF THE THREAD WAS AMBIGUOUS

departing from the realm of Strategy-in-the-Game, where a lot of credit goes to Mister L.B
YES : "it is rewarding in the game to be questionned about one's (character's) values or conceptions"

leaking into (I have only a few words at my disposal, but if it was the in,tent, as it is my intuition, I could use "dangerously drifts close to the shores of")  psychology.

IF I WERE A SOPHIST, I WOULD LEAD IT THAT WAY
To put it in a metaphorical nutsheel : to someone who says some other one is ill, I would ask if he is a doctor, in order to know what is the value of his words. He may not be a doctor and still be right. And I still would insist on getting a real doctor to see the ill person.
//
To TonyLB who says people who fear to be "theatrically" or "virtually" (that is, through their character) violated are immature, I would ask what he knows about being violated first (but then I must say this is pure rhetoric, result of the previous analogy , and I don't know that I am really a sophist), what about being immature (I am pretty sure I can learn something from a male gamer here), and what about the relationship between a character and a player. This last one is my point, and I need some more lines to present the various solutions it breaks into.

WE HAVE FOUND THE HIC JACET... OF THE ORIGINAL PROBLEM (FOR WHAT IT IS WORTH)
- I guess everybody makes use of characters in many different ways. Some cling to them, some don't. It is not a matter of opinion, certainly more of habits, in a word it's a "way". It reveals something about the player, sure. An important point is that, then, there may as well not be a clear (homotetic) "translation" from way of playing to personality. Personnaly, I would say there is not, but it's more a belief than anything, and who cares anyway. I think not only TonyLB's, but many other players'  experience is worth something on that, but as long as I haven't seen more of it (truth is, I don't believe in diplomas totally), I can't tell.

Maybe there could be a thread like "what kind of player are you ?" with lots of assertions of this kind, the value of each one moderated by the number of them. I have seen examples of this in "munckin vs roleplayer" or Champion's BigBlue. It is sometimes funny. Frankly, I prefer Nasredin Hodja tales, but then, it's another story.

TO GO FURTHER INTO THIS, I WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS MYSELF ON SOCIAL PHOBIA, WHICH I USED TO FLIRT WITH
(does this kind of "public confession" really still capt the attention of free men in the US ? I hope not, 'coz this is a dangerous ideologization device. The real topic here is : the initial post felt really condescending, I mean, subtely but really, and this is gross, and this may be what shocked Sindyr but he couldn't put a name on, from the rebellious, exiled and sterile land of late teen-age).

I am not sure being protective of "what you feel your self is"  is as bad as the first post made it look like.

Let me explain : some people identify with their characters. Is it a poor reaction ? Not specially, it's (partly, mostly) what I look for in mimetic games and fiction in general. For some people it creates a stronger link-reaction. They can't 'detach' easily from what they feel is their self. Is it a poor reaction ?

I guess that is this kind of reaction (which may  be more diverse in its forms than a "fear of character rape") this thread was meant to discriminate/criticize/point at (personnally, I prefer analyze, but then...) Now I haven't felt care for these people in the message, and that is too bad. Because, when I see someone who is incapable of playing something, a complete social phobic, I not only feel he is terribly inefficient, I also think he should, say, get a life, worry less. And I suppose I can say playing should be a good "therapy" if, for instance, you are afraid of speaking in public, or if you were always deprived of the freedom to picture mindscapes and their dwellers. With time to ponder it, it is obvious that clinging to a character, being generally defensive, even agressive, is often a clear sign of fear. From my experience with kids and as a teacher, I should say that people who fear needn't be dared to jump first thing, they need care and the assurance of not being judged. And then will come the daring, TonyLB and most of his supporters were from the beginning of the thread equipped with much more "implied principles" than were tolerable to poor Sindyr. And to myself.

So it appears that good intentions (recall that, after all, all things must pass, memento mori, and all There is no 'my character'.
) irritated Sindyr (which, note that gentlemen, tried all the way to be correct, even if intellectual integrity was not always on the menu) because working close to believes and creeds, you are bond to leave LOTS OF ROOM FOR INTERPRETATION
To question what is the "self", if it is anyway, flirts with philosophy, AND psychology, I added, AND THEN it is also very close to some religious believes need I say ?

Touchy subject. But what was the need for all the noise ? Let's break this down and discuss it. I will just skip religion (or art, in the way it was mentionned, it is too close to religious belief) and philosophy. You don't get a story moving with metaphysics. Hey, now I didn't see no thread about other forms of storytelling, like : what is a twist, Propp's contribution to narratology and stuff of this kind that I like and find related to Capes in a strong way.

I am on my way, hoping to have thrown some light into the subject with my reading of it, but I still don't know who gets to roll the dice for my using of "boring the dreck out of people" on Sindyr's side of this goal.

Hiya Nicolas!  Welcome to the Forge and to this forum.  Good to have you.

nicolasfueyo wrote: From my experience with kids and as a teacher, I should say that people who fear needn't be dared to jump first thing, they need care and the assurance of not being judged. And then will come the daring, TonyLB and most of his supporters were from the beginning of the thread equipped with much more "implied principles" than were tolerable to poor Sindyr. And to myself.

Heh...  I was going to jump in and defend Tony's position but to Hell with it.  It obviously doesn't need defending yet.  I'll just point at Tony's post and say, "That's kinda what I was going to say... only better."

Thanks, Gaerik for joining in. I guess you will be of major contribution here, as it appears you have some conceptions in common with TonyLB. Of course, it's OK for me if someone wants to take part. I'd only say : I won't appreciate if someone I was never introduced to posts a full page right in the middle of between two one-liners without making sure beforehand that his/her remarks are of any interest to the presents. Else, anything from "sound of one hand clapping" to "Bloody ruffian ! Bite his eye, go for his eye !" will go. Why, if the threads stalls to a grinding halt, I could just as well go riding my bicycle in the nice summertime we've got here and live through it... So welcome, Gaerik. Only I guesss I will have to "his/her" all my posts now... But, no, really, you couldn't come in a better moment, Gaerik. But then again, I would like to carry on.

IF YOU ARE NEW TO THE CASE, YOU MAY WANT TO READ THE FOLLOWING.
ELSE, JUMP TO "QUESTION"

ISSUE
TonyLB has made it clear (Cf post n-2 & anter.) he wanted to state something so bad that not only he didn't want to say it among other things, but he repeated that he stated that he stated (...he was in debt with assertivity ?), that some players who played in a certain way were not good players. The "bad" word was an hair away on the moment of impact, but I will agree that he didn't use it.

CHALLENGE
I have, so far, stated that I had felt something injust had happened in my "parent" thread, and I would now add that I have seen there the aforementionned TonyLB - that calls me an "inviolable" (meaning "childish", mind you) player without actually seeing me play, which I certainly won't tolerate - that very same TonyLB making several other serious mistakes in his use of judgement, ignoring gentle warnings about possible errors he could make, and (I would like to use "finally", if only to be brief, but it would be untrue) joyfully contradicting himself more than a few times. I hope the latter happened because he would be as a child, not knowing that syllogism is a long-flatlined tool invented by perverts in order to disguise the truth in truth's clothes and eventually get laid with the unwitty. I hope so, or I would have to call him a bloody sophist (is "liar without a code" a modern form for the word anyone could easily understand?).

PROTOCOL
So TonyLB - or Gaerik, if you judge you can talk for him - would you be so kind as to let me share your views on a subject, that, I believe, would be of interest not only to me, but, well... to a large number of gamers (and maybe not to gamers only, if my intuition is correct on this one).

QUESTION TO TONY
Do you know perchance what is "a good gamer" ?

Welcome Nicolas

I do have a few points to make about your post which will hopefully help clarify the current perceptions of the situation:

Thanks, Gaerik for joining in. I guess you will be of major contribution here, as it appears you have some conceptions in common with TonyLB. Of course, it's OK for me if someone wants to take part. I'd only say : I won't appreciate if someone I was never introduced to posts a full page right in the middle of between two one-liners without making sure beforehand that his/her remarks are of any interest to the presents. Else, anything from "sound of one hand clapping" to "Bloody ruffian ! Bite his eye, go for his eye !" will go. Why, if the threads stalls to a grinding halt, I could just as well go riding my bicycle in the nice summertime we've got here and live through it... So welcome, Gaerik. Only I guesss I will have to "his/her" all my posts now... But, no, really, you couldn't come in a better moment, Gaerik. But then again, I would like to carry on.

TonyLB has made it clear (Cf post n-2 & anter.) he wanted to state something so bad that not only he didn't want to say it among other things, but he repeated that he stated that he stated (...he was in debt with assertivity ?), that some players who played in a certain way were not good players. The "bad" word was an hair away on the moment of impact, but I will agree that he didn't use it.

I have, so far, stated that I had felt something injust had happened in my "parent" thread, and I would now add that I have seen there the aforementionned TonyLB - that calls me an "inviolable" (meaning "childish", mind you) player without actually seeing me play, which I certainly won't tolerate

TonyLB making several other serious mistakes in his use of judgement, ignoring gentle warnings about possible errors he could make, and (I would like to use "finally", if only to be brief, but it would be untrue) joyfully contradicting himself more than a few times. I hope the latter happened because he would be as a child, not knowing that syllogism is a long-flatlined tool invented by perverts in order to disguise the truth in truth's clothes and eventually get laid with the unwitty. I hope so, or I would have to call him a bloody sophist (is "liar without a code" a modern form for the word anyone could easily understand?).

Do you know perchance what is "a good gamer" ?

I cannot but disagree with a statement that takes the form of
"playing only (any) one kind of character doesn't allow you to reach your maximum potential as a roleplayer".
or "exclusive character choice is detrimental to roleplaying abilities"
I would agree with most that versatility is a plus for a gamer. Still, this is not the point.

To be brief, I will make this wild guess that you, Tuxboy, have only played "non-stone characters" so far...

Sorry, no harm meant. I mean, really. If anything I wrote read offensive to your eyes, and you thought not every word was part of my actual thesis, there is little I can do to help for the moment.

Nevertheless, I would be glad to go through each step would anyone find it to be more fruitful than boring, to them and all the readers out there, to whom I give my dearest welcome if they came late on the show.

The show so far...
TonyLB has made this assumption (see parent thread), in a way that I found improper, that all players can roleplay any kind of characters to their improvement, provided they are mature and courageous. Many members, it seems to me, have failed to see all the optimism standing there bravely. As far as I am concerned, I like the idea, and I would like to believe as well. I just can't : something inside me insists on knowing.
Another thing I don't know is that to agree with oneself gives any right to be aggresive or to take others for idiots. I am also trying to question that, and I should add that, from what I have read so far, it's a "some do, some don't" situation.

I cannot but disagree with a statement that takes the form of
"playing only (any) one kind of character doesn't allow you to reach your maximum potential as a roleplayer".

I would agree with most that versatility is a plus for a gamer. Still, this is not the point.

Thanks, Gaerik for joining in. I guess you will be of major contribution here, as it appears you have some conceptions in common with TonyLB. Of course, it's OK for me if someone wants to take part. I'd only say : I won't appreciate if someone I was never introduced to posts a full page right in the middle of between two one-liners without making sure beforehand that his/her remarks are of any interest to the presents. Else, anything from "sound of one hand clapping" to "Bloody ruffian ! Bite his eye, go for his eye !" will go. Why, if the threads stalls to a grinding halt, I could just as well go riding my bicycle in the nice summertime we've got here and live through it... So welcome, Gaerik. Only I guesss I will have to "his/her" all my posts now... But, no, really, you couldn't come in a better moment, Gaerik. But then again, I would like to carry on.

I cannot but disagree with a statement that takes the form of
"playing only (any) one kind of character doesn't allow you to reach your maximum potential as a roleplayer".
or "exclusive character choice is detrimental to roleplaying abilities"
I would agree with most that versatility is a plus for a gamer. Still, this is not the point.

To be brief, I will make this wild guess that you, Tuxboy, have only played "non-stone characters" so far...

TonyLB has made this assumption (see parent thread), in a way that I found improper, that all players can roleplay any kind of characters to their improvement, provided they are mature and courageous. Many members, it seems to me, have failed to see all the optimism standing there bravely. As far as I am concerned, I like the idea, and I would like to believe as well. I just can't : something inside me insists on knowing.

Another thing I don't know is that to agree with oneself gives any right to be aggresive or to take others for idiots. I am also trying to question that, and I should add that, from what I have read so far, it's a "some do, some don't" situation.

Good Morning Capes Colleagues;

What an appropriate thread and manner of conversation for the capes universe.  That you are challenging one another and looking at each challenge as something for which you need to defend.  Great stuff.  I hope no one is taking these things as personally as their posts suggest.  I believe the crux of this matter may have something to do with looking at the three styles I keep reading about on this board - does capes lend itself towards narrative play, game play or simulation play?  Clearly from my vantage point (and I've never played but only read through the lite version and read through this forum for a month hoping to garner more insight into the system) it seems clear that capes lends itself most towards game play.  Now gameplay typically has three goals of its own: getting to be better at the game, socializing, and having fun.  While some people may be less comfortable playing multiple characters or having a character vulnerable to certain changes, this relates to "having fun."  So from the "having fun" point of view, for these people it is more fun in the short term (and perhaps the long) to play with these spotlight inviolate characters.  For others it appears that "getting better at the game" is more important to them as they seek a longer term sense of accomplishment even at the expense of occasional short term fun.  People at these extremes tend have a better time in one session with those of a likeminded persuasion (especially at the extremes) which I am guessing is based on the socializing aspect - in order to be social one must have a sense of empathy for others, and extremes don't often lend it self to this end!  While on the surface it looks as though Capes lends itself more to the "getting better" competitiveness side of things, I keep hearing hints that most of the strategies I hear used are focused on comprimise and exchange; so if a person does get good at these skills, this should naturally lead (eventually) to better social interaction as well.

Welcome to the discussion LL

Certainly nothing personal on my side, I'm just aware that the written word can be taken out of context very easily and the issues that can cause.

LemmingLord wrote: While on the surface it looks as though Capes lends itself more to the "getting better" competitiveness side of things, I keep hearing hints that most of the strategies I hear used are focused on comprimise and exchange; so if a person does get good at these skills, this should naturally lead (eventually) to better social interaction as well.

Indeed!  My best friends have been those who have challenged the hell out of me.  In essence, my best friends have all been bastards to me just when I needed a bastard in my life I could trust. :)

Capes and many other games have some great rules to allow people to be bastards to one another in a controlled environment that levels the playing field.  Equal bastard opportunities!

I do like something I read on here (I believe it was under another thread talking about munchkins) if someone is REALLY being a bastard, call them an AssHat and get on with it.

I'm certainly not offended by anything that's been said.  I try to read everyone's comments assuming the most gracious interpretation first.  Regardless, even if someone came out and just called me an asshat and cast dispersions on my mother and family name, I wouldn't really be too offended.  After all, I don't know most of the people here personally and their opinions of me don't really have an affect on my life, so they can say what they will.

I would like to move the conversation beyond just this initial outburst of emotion over Tony's comments about character ownership.  There's lots of good discussion to be had there.  Vincent Baker brought the subject up on his blog "anyway" and it certainly gave me some interesting insights on the subject.  His point was that most people seem to view System as being built on character ownership and that isn't the case.  Character ownership comes out of System, not the other way around.  Once you get that premise down, lots of neat doors get opened.  If we could get past the "Tony (and the others) are mean and immoral!  They're elitist snobs!  They think anyone who likes to play inviolate characters is weak and sucks at role-playing!"  Then we might actually get to discuss something that really has possibilities for interesting conversation.

I'm not sure this has been touched upon here, but Capes, to me, is conflict based and not character based; so while there maybe some great house rules available for those who don't want to risk their favorite character suffering from nasty conflict, I believe the system as it is written (and again, I've only read these threads, went through the tutorial and read the lite rules) is based on the concept of being attached to conflict management and not to character management.

I still think there is some room for comprimise here, of course, between inviolate characters versus free-for-all.  Just as in other roleplaying games, players may want to set about certain expectations.  While I agree with Tony that there are great gains to be made by relying on your own play methods to point things in the direction you want the system to go; I must also point out that there are situations that many people simply don't find appropriate.  Just as the system makes it clear (at least in its lite form) that characters should not die without the players permission (and this is certainly not consistant with the free for all point of view) many players would rather not have their character raped or sexually molested.  I, personally, hate it when games break genre and sub-genre expectations; so character death, rape and even swearing should be innappropriate accept in "gritty" games...

Of course these expectations and house rules can be antithetical to games where perhaps the real player conflicts revolve around golden age preferences and gritty preferences:

The Punishman clobbers Captain Nation in the privates, gouges at his eyes, and illicits from his target swear words that would make a sailor blush.

Captain Nation instinctively pivots his body and twists the Punishman's arms in the class Chickenwing, giving him time to shrug off the pain dealt by the nefarious combatant whilst forcing the Punishman to cry and cower like the misguided soul he is.

I had written this post about how I congratulate some for their benevolence and thank some others for their help, and was even going to tell the encounter of the Monkey King with the Buddha (do you know this one ?) to firmly establish, without fighting it, that Tony's position is still left undefended.

For what I see, many things I wanted to add on the table were in the meantime. So I will just seat there on the hill. In the game of 'go', they say the winning side is always the watcher's. I will take this saying for granted and go back to work on Sam Kieth's Mr Gone & Megan's adaptation as movie characters:) Until I am given a clear shot. Still joking, you see : I think that snipers are really big jerks, those players who play snipers, you know, there should be some special military police force to wrap them in a straightjacket with all the agreed-on epithets we have mentionned last game session. Them and catkickers...

I'm sorry; I have no idea what you meant by that post!  Is there some inside information I need to know to make sense of it?

LemmingLord wrote:
I'm sorry; I have no idea what you meant by that post!  Is there some inside information I need to know to make sense of it?

'm not sure this has been touched upon here, but Capes, to me, is conflict based and not character based; so while there maybe some great house rules available for those who don't want to risk their favorite character suffering from nasty conflict, I believe the system as it is written (and again, I've only read these threads, went through the tutorial and read the lite rules) is based on the concept of being attached to conflict management and not to character management.

I still think there is some room for comprimise here, of course, between inviolate characters versus free-for-all.  Just as in other roleplaying games, players may want to set about certain expectations.  While I agree with Tony that there are great gains to be made by relying on your own play methods to point things in the direction you want the system to go; I must also point out that there are situations that many people simply don't find appropriate.  Just as the system makes it clear (at least in its lite form) that characters should not die without the players permission (and this is certainly not consistant with the free for all point of view) many players would rather not have their character raped or sexually molested.  I, personally, hate it when games break genre and sub-genre expectations; so character death, rape and even swearing should be innappropriate accept in "gritty" games...

I haven't got a hot clue either.  I know the Monkey King and Buddha encounter, but I don't understand how peeing in Buddha's hand has anything to do with with Tony's position.  Or dropping a mountain on someone.

Calliclès, I imagine you're probably pretty intelligent.  I'd just want to maybe ask that maybe to get people to understand you the metaphors and flowery prose might want to be scaled back a bit.  It's hard to discuss things when you don't know what the heck the other person is even saying.

Hello!

I am, I admit, a little lost in this whole dispute.  I have not played Capes, though I have read through the rules and read a bunch of AP stuff about it.  I'm probably not as experienced a roleplayer, and certainly not a designer, as many of you.  Like Nicolas, though, I have an issue with Tony's statement:

"Putting your character on the table as something that other players can effect makes you a better player than you would be otherwise."

It's very tempting to try to boil this down to a problem with definitions - 'roleplayer' and 'better' both seem to be somewhat in dispute here - but that's a cheap rhetorical method and I don't think it really gets us anywhere.

Also, Tony might be talking about inviolate characters in the manner of online freeform play, where the general rule is that nothing happens at all to your character without your consent, whether it be a deep-seated change in their persona or a punch in the nose.  I don't think that's the case, though, as this whole thing started out as a discussion of Capes and how a character you created can be changed on pretty much any level by a conflict started by any player.  We're all used to our characters being punched in the nose without their, or our, consent.  We're not used to having our characters beliefs and nature altered from outside, though, and I think there may be a good reason or two for that.

So here's my spiel for character ownership:  I create characters as tools to get what I want out of play.  I make their beliefs, their capabilities in all arenas, their personalities, their relationships with that thought in mind.  If they don't work right for that purpose or I'm done with that particular tool or way of interacting with the system, but until that point I'm still getting what I want out of the character, and if someone came along and changed that then I've missed out on a lot of what I've been pushing towards since I created that character.  It doesn't matter whether there's other cool stuff that could be done with the character now, because that's not the cool stuff that I want to do with it.  It's not fun for me to have to fight about that with the other players.

Now, Capes may be different, in that the characters aren't the sole point of contact for the players.  They are still the major one, though, and you can't really get anything out of the game unless a character is involved.  And it's easy for me to see why someone would be distressed by losing.  I know that it's been said that you can just force it right back where it was - but, you know, that's not the kind of conflict that I would be interested in.  I don't want to have conflicts with the other players about who my character is.  I want to have conflicts that demonstrate who my character is.  I don't want to have conflicts about whether a character chooses to change dramatically.  I want to have conflicts that give my character a choice about whether to change dramatically.

That probably means that Capes is not the game for me - though I do think I should try it and see.  I don't think that makes me a worse roleplayer.  Maybe it does; I'm certainly not as flexible as those who can roll with those punches and take their character in a wholly new direction.  But I don't believe the purpose of roleplaying is to demonstrate a superiority of technique.  I think the purpose of roleplaying is having fun, and if one can have as much fun with character ownership as without then I don't think that facet of roleplaying can make me 'better' or 'worse' than another.

(Darnit, I couldn't escape from this thing without arguing definitions a little.  Oh, well.)

Tuxboy wrote:
I'm not sure how Buddha teaching Sun Wukong a lesson in humility as the result of a bet has any bearing on the discussion.

WiredNavi wrote: That probably means that Capes is not the game for me - though I do think I should try it and see.  I don't think that makes me a worse roleplayer.  Maybe it does; I'm certainly not as flexible as those who can roll with those punches and take their character in a wholly new direction.

Also, Wired (do you have a real name?),

A quick note to point out that "preferring" one way of playing to another wasn't ever an issue.  Preference is just that... a preference.  If you are perfectly capable of playing well with either type character but prefer inviolate characters, you are quantitatively just as good a player as someone who can play well with either type of character but prefers vulnerable characters.  Whether you like playing one of the other just isn't the point.

Gaerik wrote:
Also, Wired (do you have a real name?),

A quick note to point out that "preferring" one way of playing to another wasn't ever an issue.  Preference is just that... a preference.  If you are perfectly capable of playing well with either type character but prefer inviolate characters, you are quantitatively just as good a player as someone who can play well with either type of character but prefers vulnerable characters.  Whether you like playing one of the other just isn't the point.

While I agree that a gamer will find growth in a game where their character does not have the spotlight protected status; I must give you big noogies and ribbing for making the bogus claim that "no one has made a good claim against it because they can't."  That would be one of those fallacies the people always talk about.  It may be still be true, but it certainly doesn't further the argument either accept in the same way saying "nyah" might.  ;)

Yes there is growth to be won by this system.  There is probably growth to be won by every system... even HarnMaster... But Capes provides a few areas of growth you don't see in many other systems, and you disable one of these areas of growth by making a character inviolate like most any other game system...  At the same time, even with the spotlight houserule, Capes still looks like it has much to offer in the way of gamer growth.

Logic won't work ? Go koans !
You know, he's right about that "nya" thing : Kant gave the proof it is impossible to proove Tony's statement wrong. Why ? We're just on different grounds and Tony won't agree on anything with me in that regard, yet understanding. The koan reference was about assumptions (shame on you for making me kill a good one). Maths heads westerners will understand better the Achille paradox, but it's meaning is really limited. In a nutshell : from my point of view, Tony's still in my hand, and I am in his from his perspective. We could argue on many things, without proving our grounds true. Many mistakes to get there, but as much fun in the making (the peeing maybe ?). Thanks again.

Kill them koans ? Let's experiment then !
I will see for myself how all this will hold with my "inviolate only" gamer. I will offer him to play Capes. He won't refuse the challenge. I accept all material and advice (the clickn' locks I should hand him, what setting goal would work best, all you have). Then I tell you.

Callicles, Mouth-of-Darkness, whoever you are (and I regret that changing your nickname mid-argument is not helping us to know you better) I applaud your intention to play Capes and see how it works.  I hope you will, once you have formed an internal conviction of how you will interpret the rules, double-check it against the examples of play (in the book and online).  Before you set yourself up as the arbiter of the rules for any real, physical players, make sure that you would produce the same results demonstrated in the examples.  It is a useful "systems check."  But that is not, primarily, what I want to talk to you about.

Mouth-of-Darkness wrote:
Kant gave the proof it is impossible to proove Tony's statement wrong. Why ? We're just on different grounds and Tony won't agree on anything with me in that regard, yet understanding.

I just thought : "Did I fail to understand ? Why are you back with such an attitude ? Look ! Look ! It is so stiff ! I can't find any other word. I'd rather not "select an option" in the alternative you offer me if you put it like this !"

Well, yes, I doubt logic sometimes. I don't trust even dialog or language in some cases. How does it offend you ? I have already chosen option n°2 anyway. Why make me repeat ? Did I fail to understand ? (...)

I mean, about presentation, you are doing your best, aren't you ?

Now, I see your point : It is wise to make a fool of oneself in some cases. I couldn't agree more with you. I realize I have done that in (at least) my previous post : me not logic = me fool.

Well, I would like you to withdraw that I am an inviolate player without actually seeing me play. That was my point in the beginning (You did judge my style of play).

Also I will need more time to review past posts to give credits. I am a bad thinker and sure a slow one :) so I could use some help here as well. The fig was about that, you know, laziness.

Hans : I agree with many things you said, but can Monkey have a "leaping" ability ? I suppose the wording on his sheet (glad I don't have to pronounce this one) would be a bit more general, as it had to be used in previous encounters. Or wouldn't it ?

erratum : "in the making" means something else in english. Should of written "in so doing" or something like that. But then, "every-one is at a dis-advan-tage spea-king with a se-cond lan-guage" (Spoon on "Kill the moonlight").

TonyLB wrote:
We may seem very rough and ready to you, but there is something of an informal society on this forum.  One principle my internet neighbors here hold valiantly to (and I am very proud of them for it!) is this simple one:  Civil discussions are valuable even (perhaps especially) when people heartily disagree.  Valuing and pursuing such discussions (and such disagreements) is a way in which we show respect for one another.  You have made a mis-step, but not a serious one (in a community as forgiving as this) so long as it does not become habitual.

LemmingLord wrote:
While I agree that a gamer will find growth in a game where their character does not have the spotlight protected status; I must give you big noogies and ribbing for making the bogus claim that "no one has made a good claim against it because they can't."  That would be one of those fallacies the people always talk about.  It may be still be true, but it certainly doesn't further the argument either accept in the same way saying "nyah" might.  ;)

Eric wrote:

It was a bit of a swipe.  I should probably feel worse about it than I do.  There have just been so many straw men and misdirected threads.  I hope I'll be forgiven a split second of snarkiness.

LemmingLord wrote:
Another very common and important part of the societies of other forums of which I've been apart is 1) staying on topic and 2) letting moderator lectures happen in private messages so they don't disrupt staying on topic.

Mouth-of-Darkness wrote:
Well, I would like you to withdraw that I am an inviolate player without actually seeing me play. That was my point in the beginning (You did judge my style of play).

Glendower wrote:
Ron and Clinton's policy of no deletions are a harsh but useful lesson.  Nowadays, I go through a few drafts of what I put up, checking the preview, checking the spelling, before I finally hit post. 

It is a great thing to write angry. There is no reason to walk around shouting your intentions. Unity is a force. Why lose voluntarily an edge you have ? Don't, please.
Also, rereading is a very different thing from selfcensorship. Also, proactivity in a situation where you have to listen could well be bound to be uncivil.

As there is no way to reach you, I will make my message to M.Sedlacek relatively public.
I would like to point at the massive intrusion of terms such as illusions, lies, and "duplicity stuff" in your text. There is a living theory on theater that would allow one to be self conscious and still play his/her part. Even better this way. "paradox of the comedian"(?).

My main worry is you're going suddenly thematic. The issue was "inviolability", and I see you heading the other way around. The introduction of said terms crossed with the previous sentence is a specific "set mode" of my pugilistic sense. Where are you heading ? I think you're just looking for something and you don't know what. Great lord ! This is Lord Dunsany's hunter made real ! This is adventure !

Of course, I say that because I still have difficulties to handle such terms to get a clear result. I will worry enough for two, so you don't have to.

TonyLB wrote: You're quite right that the post was something I should have convey privately. I regret not having had the sense to do so in the first place, and apologize for the resulting public spectacle.

Mouth-of-Darkness,

Dude, it's time to lay off the drugs. Really.

Yeah, I smoke too much when I get tense. I could have used some anger management therapy as well, but everybody here did great.

To all of you party people outthere : until I get rid of all my own skelettons in the cupboard, I wouldn't blame no little girl for hiding an Otesanek . Only hope she'll be able to tell it before it is too late.

Eric wrote:
When you think a character is playing itself, you have lost sight of the choices you have..

Vaxalon wrote:
Sometimes the illusion you speak of is just the illusion we seek to draw around ourselves.

TonyLB wrote:

Vaxalon wrote:
Sometimes the illusion you speak of is just the illusion we seek to draw around ourselves.

I agree completely.  Sometimes that illusion is what we want.

I don't think that's incompatible with saying that the illusion holds us back.  Do you?

Well, I don't think the movie metaphor matches up with RPGing very well.  The movie venue assumes a social contract in a way which is not paralleled in an RPG.  There are very few accepted venues in which anything other than silence is an appropriate response to a movie:  Rocky Horror Picture show leaps to mind ... how would you feel if someone were shushing the audience of that film?

RPGs can involve thinking-as-your-character or thinking-as-author or both.  In a group where thinking-as-author is acknowledged to have priority there is nothing wrong with vehemently stomping on someone's illusions that their character is running the show. 

In fact, I find it a very powerful technique.  "Okay, what are your stakes?"  "Well, my character wants ... " "Don't tell me what your character wants.  What do you want?"  That's squashing the illusion that the character is driving right there, isn't it?  That strikes me as a good, productive conversation in (say) Capes or PTA.

TonyLB wrote:
In fact, I find it a very powerful technique.  "Okay, what are your stakes?"  "Well, my character wants ... " "Don't tell me what your character wants.  What do you want?"  That's squashing the illusion that the character is driving right there, isn't it?  That strikes me as a good, productive conversation in (say) Capes or PTA.

I disagree with the opinion that a player playing only inviolable characters is childish and fearful. I would like to say that :
SUBSTANCE on SUBSTANCE - sometimes you will see a player so anxious that he resorts to magic. That is, repeating something in order to make it true : for instance "my character is a tank - I play as bunker - it is by retention only that I clad my mind in armour". Many people do that. It is effective only in some specific situations. It is inefficient when a constructive social interaction is required because it prevents perception of the surrounding : bad roleplaying, bad narration. That said, I wouldn't arrange"fearful", "childish" and "playing only inviolate characters" any other way. I know a paranoid player that is very versatile. He pla
SUBSTANCE on RHETORIC - it is known that tagging someone with any (good or bad) names or epithets is proposing him to "internalize" and "be consistant with" the perception you have of him. It is especially effective on people who rely on others to know what they are.

Some people play inviolable self : this is autism. Daring them, getting angry at them won't help no-one.

De wrote:
I know a paranoid player that is very versatile. He pla