I'm playing my first real capes game on Friday and would love to hear what kinds of provisos others have put in their Here's codes...  Can you help me out?

"Hero's Code of Conduct"?

Are you talking about the Comics Code?  That's ... sorta different from any ethical code enforced upon the heroes.

Tony's right.  Assuming you're talking about the Comic's Code, I've put "No destroying the world." before.  Unlike a Code of Conduct, this particular addition to the Comic's Code pretty much assures that the world is constantly threatened with destruction but that it never actually gets destroyed.

TonyLB wrote:
"Hero's Code of Conduct"?

Are you talking about the Comics Code?  That's ... sorta different from any ethical code enforced upon the heroes.

I'm a big fan of Batman and Gotham City.  I'm not so much of a fan of globe trotting or world spanning supers like some of the Justice League stuff.  So I usually put this in the Comics Code:

All scenes must be framed within the confines of The City.
The outcomes of Events and Goals can not impact anything larger than The City.

With these you occasionally get Villains trying to take over the continent or the world but this only results in Gloat Story Tokens and all the action takes place in the familar environs of The City.

Jesse

I used and posted about a No Time Travel item in the Code list at one point.  However, it was for a Heroic Fantasy style game.  I probably wouldn't have that one in a normal Supers game.  If you read the threads on my Fantasy Capes game you'll see that I actually use two types of entries on the Comics Code.  I don't think they are official by any means but they work well for what I was trying to do.  I wanted to create a heroic, high fantasy feel to the game and certain elements of Color would have detracted, so I had Gloatable and Non-gloatable elements in the Code.

Gloatable Elements:
No spotlight character dies without unanimous player approval. (This got Gloated.)
No destroying the world.

Non-Gloatable Elements:
No high-tech elements. (ie firearms, computers, spaceships, etc)
No Time travel.

The reason for two different kinds of elements in the Comics Code is that a normal element actually encourages players to actively pursue those elements.  The killing of spotlight characters is an example.  The villians constantly tried to kill the spotlight characters because Gloating is really cool.  However, making the element Non-gloatable removes the incentive to pursue it.  In fact, in my games, Non-gloatable elements simply aren't allowed in the narration.  It's essentially an automatic veto.

The truth is that I could probably not use the Non-gloatable elements though.  We've never once had to veto anything once the specifics of genre, tone and scope were established before play.  They don't really hurt anything by being in the Code but they probably aren't neccessary either.  Not if you are playing with good players who aren't trying to disrupt the game.

I think sometimes in Capes play you get a "Let's Pretend That Never Happened" scenario going on.  Someone plays a lame conflict, it gets ignored, and then finally someone claims one side so that it can get cleared off the board.

jburneko wrote:
All scenes must be framed within the confines of The City.
The outcomes of Events and Goals can not impact anything larger than The City.

As it should be!

He always gets within inches of leaving (boarding pass in hand, all criminals tucked safely into Arkham) when something comes up at the last minute that means he chooses not to leave.

I think the idea of Gloatable and Non-Gloatable elements of the Comics Code is a good one and would be worthy of inclusion in a revised edition if ever one came about.

There are some things that it would be nice to get off the table, and inclusion in the Comics Code doesn't accomplish that.

dunlaing wrote:
I think the idea of Gloatable and Non-Gloatable elements of the Comics Code is a good one and would be worthy of inclusion in a revised edition if ever one came about.

There are some things that it would be nice to get off the table, and inclusion in the Comics Code doesn't accomplish that.

Yep.  And all my reasoning for why the rule isn't necessary still applies, too.  But, honestly, I think Andrew said it best:

Andrew wrote:
The truth is that I could probably not use the Non-gloatable elements though. We've never once had to veto anything once the specifics of genre, tone and scope were established before play. They don't really hurt anything by being in the Code but they probably aren't neccessary either. Not if you are playing with good players who aren't trying to disrupt the game.

It boils down to this, assuming that there is some code of conduct that you want to prohibit and you also do not to incentivize play *near*, you can deal with that informally or formally, competitively or absolutely.

If your group wishes to prevent, for example, all subject matter dealing with child abuse or child violence, you can:

• 1:Informally agree to avoid it as a group
• 2:Use the Capes rules themselves to deal with and manage this
• 3:Formally create a rule, such as a non gloatable comics code rule that addresses this

The problem with informally agreeing as a group, is that people change and groups change.  Eventually, someone new to the group or someone old to the group who has changed his mind may bring in the forbidden material.  And if social pressures are not enough to get him to withdraw it, then you have failed to avoid it.

There are two opposing ways to deal with this *within* the capes rules:
2a) *punish* the player for bringing in the forbidden material by refusing to engage with that player and their conflicts, and ignoring his or her narratives in general.
2b) *fight* the player for control of the conflicts that involve the forbidden material.

2B is abject failure of course if one's goal is to prevent certain topics from becoming part of the game.
2A may or may not work.  If you have 6 players and only 3 of them including yourself are willing to employ method 2A, then it will fail.  It is also a failure because even though you are trying to shut down the offender, he is still bringing into the game the forbidden material, and the goal of keeping this stuff out is failed.

In my opinion, written rules are important.  There is a reason we have written rules and don't try to do *everything* by social contract.  That same reason applies here - if you know there is some subject matter you know you want to avoid, make it a rule, in black and white.  And as Andrew Cooper said, the most straightforward way to do this is the Comics Code.

Just remember to make it non-gloatable or you will in fact be rewarding players for bringing up it's spectre. And they will.

Have fun

Man, this keeps keeps KEEPS coming up. 

Some people say "You need to write down what is and is not acceptable."

Some other people say "You need to discuss what is and is not acceptable, but writing it down isn't necessary."

And then there's a huge long back-and-forth discussion, usually where at least one person doesn't seem to be listening to the other side at all, with lots of wankery to get the final word.

The assumption is that sooner or later some jerk will break the desired tone with a narration that's unacceptable.  What do you do when that happens?

In the first case you say "We decided that's not allowed.  You can't narrate that.  Look, we had a rule."
In the second case you say "We decided that's not allowed.  You can't narrate that.  Look, we had an agreement."

These are the same thing.  This is basic Lumpley Principle stuff.  If you didn't write it down, the jerk gets to argue about what was discussed and what he agreed to.  If you did write it down, the jerk gets to argue about what your written rule really means and why his narration doesn't break it.  Either way, you're now in a situation where somebody has to decide what is allowable and what isn't.  Where somebody has the authority.  You say that you have that authority, given to you by the agreement (whether written or not).  I'm betting that the jerk's going to argue (because this guy is a TOTAL jerk) that the agreement doesn't, in fact, give you the authority to veto his narration, and anyway now your fragile, delicate web of SIS that so terribly depended upon your initial agreement is blown to flinders.

Oh, and some other other people say "Discuss what you'd like to see ahead of time, but no particular agreement is necessary.  Shut up and play.  Conflict makes good stories.  If somebody's being a dick, warn him once, then kick him out."  I rather like this one.

Matthew wrote:
Man, this keeps keeps KEEPS coming up. 

Some people say "You need to write down what is and is not acceptable."

Some other people say "You need to discuss what is and is not acceptable, but writing it down isn't necessary."

TonyLB wrote:
Yep.  And all my reasoning for why the rule isn't necessary still applies, too.  But, honestly, I think Andrew said it best:

Andrew wrote:
The truth is that I could probably not use the Non-gloatable elements though. We've never once had to veto anything once the specifics of genre, tone and scope were established before play. They don't really hurt anything by being in the Code but they probably aren't neccessary either. Not if you are playing with good players who aren't trying to disrupt the game.

Either you've got players on the same page, in which case the non-gloatable goals become merely an inert representation/reminder of what page that is, or you have people with differing visions, in which case the non-gloatable goals are a means for one side to unilaterally silence their opposition.

dunlaing wrote: I'm not suggesting rules like "No mention of Captain Fonebone losing his courage" as a non-gloatable, but more something like "We're playing Superfriends, so no mention of anything which would get us kicked off Saturday Morning network TV." I just think sometimes it wouldn't hurt to write some of those things down (particularly now that I'm older and have gaming groups that meet more erratically, making it harder to remember ground rules). An attempt to get people to agree to being on the same page and a reminder of which page that is for the future.

Sindyr, I don't really agree with you, but thank you for teaching me this new word, "squick", even though I could have lived a lifetime without knowing about its icky derivation.

Heh, I didn't coin it, I must admit. ;)

We've already talked about how continuity is not Capes focus.  While players a, b and c may agree to a comic's code for playing one day for one session; the events may or may not have occured the next time they play; and if there is a player d, you've created an entirely different dynamic and, I would argue, a different universe. 

The spirit that capes seems to embody is to say that each participant has an equal chance to affect the story; and so to force a new player to follow old rules disrupts that equal chance.

It might be nice to talk about how people have dealt with adding/losing players and having inviolatile CAMPAIGNS.

If I play capes with my friends Austin and Ryan one week and we establish a given comics code and tell a great story; I feel that means squat when it comes to the next time when Austin has to work late and we add Stephan to the game...  This is a game, not a pyramid scheme!  The first people to play the game can't have more power than those that follow; the events and rules established on January 1 by one set of players shouldn't dictate the events and rules established in February by another set of players...

This does create a continuity nightmare; but then, that seems in keeping with both the theme Tony's going for AND the theme of superhero comics in general.  Each person who plays capes should fight not only for their side of conflicts, but should also fight tooth and nail for their limitations in the comics code.  If they aren't willing to fight for it, they probably don't care all that much about the rule and it shouldn't be a rule! 

I see the point I heard earlier that you may want to play with one comic's code one week (with a superfriends flavor) and another set another week (with a Dark Knight flavor); it occurs to me, though, that if you REALLY want continuity, you probably want to stay playing with the same players and hope they don't have mood swings...  Or I guess you could just play with yourself ;), but even then if you don't write things down you're going to end up different each time you play. 

I envision for my games the same group of people playing every week.

Coming late to the discussion as I've been on holiday I'd just like to add a comment:

Every time we sit down to play Capes, whether it is with the same group or not, we have what we have come to call an "Editorial Meeting". We use this to discuss tone for the session and the tone dictates the sets of characters we use, kind of like playing a different comic title per tone. This way we don't get gritty characters in a four colour setting or vice versa...