Just a though that occured to me.

Does anything in Capes forbid me from creating a "character" which is nothing more that a list of attributes?

For example, what if I create:

Powers:
Blinding Light(3)
The Impossible is Possible(4)
Luck(3)
Strange Time Shifts(2)
Strange Mood Shifts(1)

Styles:
Man That was Cool(4)P
An Unexpected Surprise(3)
Screw the Rules(2)
Karma(1)P

Attitudes:
Pride(3)
Optimism(2)
Hope(1)

Drives:
Justice:1
Truth:2
Love:3
Hope:3
Duty:1

So here's this character sheet - what if I *don't* associate it with and in-game persona or entity?  Is there anything in Capes that prevents me from gaming the system itself in a way?

The character sheet represents my ability to win conflicts, stake debt, etc.  I can do all of that with no central in game persona or entity.

This is a radical shift, I think, but not a rule breaking one.

So, for example, if Fred has a conflict out "The bad guys escape with the loot" , he has claimed the red die which is a 5.  I have claimed the blue die which is also a 5.  I am going last this round.  I announce that I am using "Blinding Light" (and acquiring debt) to roll down his 5.  I roll, and get a 2, which I keep.  I can narrate this several different ways:
"A Laser Beam security system shoots off a blinding light that vaporizes the bad guys."
"The sunlight reflecting off of a mirror makes the guy carrying the money bags trip, and the money bags fall down the the stories of stairs back down into the basement."
"The SWAT team has arrived and set off their 10,000 watt flash bangs, rendering the robbers immediately unconscious"
"Upon exiting the bank, a blast of divine light shoots down from the heavens, turn the robbers good, and they drop the money and go turn themselves in"
or maybe the divine light incinerates them.

But I hope you get my point.

You can have a character sheet, with all the influence that can bring to bear on the resolutions of conflicts, without ever having any kinds of persona, character, or entity in game.

What do you think?

Sindyr wrote:
You can have a character sheet, with all the influence that can bring to bear on the resolutions of conflicts, without ever having any kinds of persona, character, or entity in game.

Sindyr wrote:
What do you think?

Clearly you have an "entity" if it has drives! 

Don't worry, though, having this name "entity" attached doesn't prevent it from being a very valid charater even if it doesn't have a name or body or even presence except in the vaguest sense...

You could do the same character with the same list of abilities as a ghost, an angel, an astral being, a god, or just (like you said) just a list of attributes. 

That last bit does make drives very confusing...  What do they represent if you do not have a cohesive name to your character?  There must be some kind of perceived consciousness if there are drives, wouldn't you say?

This particular character was one I made up in two minutes for the sake of example, I would not be playing it.

"What do you think" = "What do you think about Capes players choosing to play an entity-free character"

Because, ultimately, if I have a character called "Superman" he can have loved ones to be threatened, weaknesses to be exploted, and I the player may care about his reputation.

If instead I have the exact same set of stats, the exact same character sheet, but associate it with no particular entity in game, this would seem to give me an advantage in that since I am not strongly connecting to any *particular* character, I will become a ton harder to manipulate and force tokens out of. While *still* have the same amount of influence in game - even more potentially.

Abstract metacharacters ftw! ;)

LemmingLord wrote: There must be some kind of perceived consciousness if there are drives, wouldn't you say?

They may Stake Debt on any number of Conflicts that provoke the character to prove themself in the relevant moral Drive.

But when they Stake Debt, it must be on a Conflict that is morally charged for that particular character and Drive.

If it is a spotlight character you can do that with impunity probably; but there's nothing to say other otherwise players can't give such a vague character more shape.  If I don't like the way a story is going with your superman collection-o-powers concept, I'll make sure during narration to give it form and substance.

On the other hand, I believe capes defines characters in certain classifications (characters, places, phenomenae, etc.); but as you said, you can just say "yep, this conglomeration of attributes is a character" and the rules gives you full power to do so. 

If someone ever uses this or any other tactic and it  isn't fun, I will make sure to 1) come up with a foil strategy so that it becomes fun; 2) suggest a house rule against it OR 3) stop playing with that person! (going through those options in that order until the game is fun again!).

LemmingLord wrote:
If it is a spotlight character you can do that with impunity probably; but there's nothing to say other otherwise players can't give such a vague character more shape.  If I don't like the way a story is going with your superman collection-o-powers concept, I'll make sure during narration to give it form and substance.

On the other hand, I believe capes defines characters in certain classifications (characters, places, phenomenae, etc.); but as you said, you can just say "yep, this conglomeration of attributes is a character" and the rules gives you full power to do so.

If someone ever uses this or any other tactic and it  isn't fun, I will make sure to 1) come up with a foil strategy so that it becomes fun; 2) suggest a house rule against it OR 3) stop playing with that person! (going through those options in that order until the game is fun again!).

The Teaser must arouse the interest of the players, not by forcing them to be interested (by, for instance, threatening their character) but by showing them the many options that they will have to control the outcome of the story.

Goal: The mysterious entity becomes trapped in a human body
Event: The mysterious entity sacrifices itself for humanity
Goal: The mysterious entity falls in love.

Yeah, I'm not seeing any problems with this.

Ben wrote:
Goal: The mysterious entity becomes trapped in a human body
Event: The mysterious entity sacrifices itself for humanity
Goal: The mysterious entity falls in love.

Yeah, I'm not seeing any problems with this.

Sindyr wrote:

Ben wrote:
Goal: The mysterious entity becomes trapped in a human body
Event: The mysterious entity sacrifices itself for humanity
Goal: The mysterious entity falls in love.

Yeah, I'm not seeing any problems with this.

What mysterious entity?

You see what I mean?

Ben wrote:
If I win the conflict, I get to narrate.

Are you *really* willing to risk me narrating?

yrs--
--Ben

Sindyr wrote:
Could be the universal drives of Hope, Duty, etc - the impersonal and overarching drives of the cosmos being tuned into, eh?

Ben wrote:
Goal: The mysterious entity becomes trapped in a human body
Event: The mysterious entity sacrifices itself for humanity
Goal: The mysterious entity falls in love.

Yeah, I'm not seeing any problems with this.

Sindyr wrote:

LemmingLord wrote:
If it is a spotlight character you can do that with impunity probably; but there's nothing to say other otherwise players can't give such a vague character more shape.  If I don't like the way a story is going with your superman collection-o-powers concept, I'll make sure during narration to give it form and substance.

On the other hand, I can simply say, that's sounds interesting what you are describing, but it isn't my character.  You can build anything you like,  but you cannot make it link with my character sheet unless I choose to buy into it.  Of course, what you built may have been so cool I will be persuaded to anyways, or not.  After all, my character has no body, no form, no description, no presence in the game at all.  The only things it has a presence on are metagame actions like conflict resolution, which only indirectly influence the game.  If I narrate a lightning bolt coming out of the heavens striking a bad guy as the result of me winning a conflict, you are free to introduce a mage that threw it.  But I do not have to agree that the character I am playing is the mage, it may instead be some unquantifed and unquantifiable things that caused the mage to throw that bolt.  Maybe it was simply the act of throwing the bolt.  When one is playing something as ineffable as karma itself, I don't know how you could force an embodiment on it that I could not simply say is a lower form of something which is itself higher and formless.  Shades of possible Buddhist or Hindu thought here?

It doesn't matter whether you've filled it in or not; only the social level prevents the narrator from totally re-imagining the character when he narrates.

LemmingLord wrote:
Yes, you can say it has nothing to do with your character; but when I'm the narrator what I say happens and so if I say your very undefined character is a double decaf latte with mocha sprinkles with these attributes there's nothing in the rules to suggest otherwise. Muhahahaha. 

I also disagree that your "list of attributes" is not an entity.  With its own volition and pattern of interfering with other characters, it is an entity - and one, no doubt, that would get named by anyone paying enough attention.  One character may name it his "bad luck" that lightning bolts keep dropping out of the sky at inopportune moments; while another character might say its the ghost of her father; and because you have made these characteristics so undefined, whoever is narrating will give it form and substance that you don't provide... Or at least they can.. 

It seems in absolute keeping with the system for you to be as vague as you'd like AND for everyone else to fill in what you do not.  As long as this isn't a spotlight character, there's nothing to stop the narrator from saying Bob Smith had a girlfriend twenty years ago, has a mole on the side of his face, or that string-o-attributes is a cosmic chicken come to earth in its avatar, a double decaf latte with mocha sprinkles... :)

Since its making me laugh; I think I could make this fun.  :)

Sindyr wrote:
"What do you think" = "What do you think about Capes players choosing to play an entity-free character"
[snip]
If instead I have the exact same set of stats, the exact same character sheet, but associate it with no particular entity in game, this would seem to give me an advantage in that since I am not strongly connecting to any *particular* character, I will become a ton harder to manipulate and force tokens out of. While *still* have the same amount of influence in game - even more potentially.

So, create a conflict that draws *me*, the player in.  A conflict that is part of a story of hope, or accomplishment, of growth and success, and ultimately not of loss, suffering, surrender, or conflicted moralities.  And I will reward you richly.

But when they Stake Debt, it must be on a Conflict that is morally charged for that particular character and Drive.

Goal: The mysterious entity becomes trapped in a human body
Event: The mysterious entity sacrifices itself for humanity
Goal: The mysterious entity falls in love.

What mysterious entity?

Sindyr: I stake two hope debt on this conflict.
Me: One moment please, to whom is this debt staking morally charged?
Sindyr: My character.
Me: What character, I don't see any character? 

The phenomenon being proposed here isn't unique to the "bodiless, persona-less character".  Any player can employ the techniques described to deflect any consequences or actions away from the character they are playing.  Let's take an example.

Nameless Character with list of attributes played by Player A

Player B:  The nameless entity gets trapped in a human body...
Player A:  The thing trapped in the body is something else...

Here Player B tries to say something happens to Player A's nameless character.  Player A dodges by saying while what Player B said happened, it doesn't have anything to do with his character.  That's fine.  Player B could have dodged it by saying it was a dream, a TV show, or some other explanation.  It makes no nevermind how he dodged.  Just that he did so.

Zoit the Pinhead Barbarian played by Player A

Player B: Zoit gets trapped inside the body of a little girl...
Player A: It's somebody else that gets trapped, not Zoit...

There's nothing functionally different here from the example above.  Player B says something about Player A's character.  Player A dodges the issue with his narration.

However, Sindyr, I would say that your character isn't legal.  It doesn't have a name.  There is a spot on the Character Sheet for a name.  Every character in the rulebook has a name.  Even the characters that are objects or ideas or whatnot have a name.  They have a name specifically so that they can be referenced for Conflicts and such.  I'd say the strong implication is that characters have to have names of some sort or another.  Even if it is just "Something".  Once it has a name I can reference it for Conflicts.  You can veto the Conflicts as per the rules and you can still dodge any effects from the Conflict via narration just like before, if you like.

Essentially what I'm saying is that the nameless entity isn't functionally different from any other character.  It doesn't gain the player any extra protections from narration or Conflicts or anything.  It just makes it a little easier to dodge stuff you don't like without having to rack your brain for appropriate narration.

Andrew wrote:
Essentially what I'm saying is that the nameless entity isn't functionally different from any other character.  It doesn't gain the player any extra protections from narration or Conflicts or anything.  It just makes it a little easier to dodge stuff you don't like without having to rack your brain for appropriate narration.

Andrew wrote:
However, Sindyr, I would say that your character isn't legal.  It doesn't have a name.  There is a spot on the Character Sheet for a name.  Every character in the rulebook has a name.  Even the characters that are objects or ideas or whatnot have a name.  They have a name specifically so that they can be referenced for Conflicts and such.  I'd say the strong implication is that characters have to have names of some sort or another.  Even if it is just "Something".  Once it has a name I can reference it for Conflicts.  You can veto the Conflicts as per the rules and you can still dodge any effects from the Conflict via narration just like before, if you like.

Essentially what I'm saying is that the nameless entity isn't functionally different from any other character.  It doesn't gain the player any extra protections from narration or Conflicts or anything.  It just makes it a little easier to dodge stuff you don't like without having to rack your brain for appropriate narration.

Sindyr, come back after you've played Kismet in Capes, with someone who knows how Capes works.  I think you will have changed your mind.

In fact, if you want to set a date to play in IRC, I'd be willing to show you what I mean.

Hans wrote:
I think it is a bad idea, because I think your rationale for it is flawed.  You are correct, in that it is harder to come up with narration that will manipulate you, the player, into doing things with this character.  You have succeeded in creating an untouchable character.  Congratulations.

The problem is that, since your character is untouchable, it really cannot TOUCH, either.  There is really no point of engagement to this character for the other players.  All that can be done with this character is monkey with other people's action, not really generate any of its own.  Once the cleverness wears off, I believe that it will just be dull, a glorifed NPC that serves no real purpose in the story. 

If you play this character with me, an equally likely course of events would be me saying "Ok, Sindyr.  The rest of us are going to have a game of Capes over here, pitch in whenever you see anything that interests you."  Then, I pretty much ignore you.  I can get rewards from other people at the table, and am liable to have more fun in the process.  This has nothing to do with kind of character you created, or the kind of story going on.  I would have the exactly the same response if your disembodied nothingness had abilities like "Despair", "Oh crap, not this again", "Oh my God, NOOOO!!!", "Just bad luck, I guess", etc. 

A big chunk of the fun in Capes is not just manipulating other people's characters, but having your own character manipulated.  (This is beginning to sound a bit risque).  That is, it is fun to lay down the goal that makes your opponent say "Oh HELL no!" in that excited way, but it is also just as much fun when another player plays a goal that makes YOU say "Oh HELL no".  Why?  Well, first, it means that your fellow players get IT, the thing you are trying to do with this character.  It means you have created something that is interesting enough for them to challenge.  Second, it makes YOUR character the center of attention: all action around that goal is going to be about whether or not this challenge to your character succeeds.

Moreover, to give this "force of destiny" drives, to my mind, is to risk actually breaking the rules of the game.  On page 32 it states:

But when they Stake Debt, it must be on a Conflict that is morally charged for that particular character and Drive.

 
You have successfully created a non-entity; what could possibly be morally charged for this nothingness that has no real existence?  You said, in one post:

Goal: The mysterious entity becomes trapped in a human body
Event: The mysterious entity sacrifices itself for humanity
Goal: The mysterious entity falls in love.

What mysterious entity?

But here is an alternative bit of game business:

Sindyr: I stake two hope debt on this conflict.
Me: One moment please, to whom is this debt staking morally charged?
Sindyr: My character.
Me: What character, I don't see any character? 

It can accumulate debt, but I would argue it can never actually stake it without some semblence of a personality.  And a semblance of personality makes the character touchable.

Vaxalon wrote:
Sindyr, come back after you've played Kismet in Capes, with someone who knows how Capes works.  I think you will have changed your mind.

Hans wrote:

Andrew wrote:
Essentially what I'm saying is that the nameless entity isn't functionally different from any other character.  It doesn't gain the player any extra protections from narration or Conflicts or anything.  It just makes it a little easier to dodge stuff you don't like without having to rack your brain for appropriate narration.

I will dissent here, Andrew.  I think what Sindyr has proposed is very different from a PLAYER character.  I think it does give you extra protections from narrations and conflicts, because, frankly, there simply aren't that many things that are interesting to narrate or make conflicts about.  Reading between the lines of Sindyr's other posts, I suspect that Sindyr is VERY concerned about people narrating things he doesn't like about his characters.  He has achieved just about the perfect defense against this possible danger; he has created a character about which very little interesting can be narrated, by anyone, including himself.

Seems to me that your non-person character isn't substantially different from the ones in the book.  Public Opinion, Murphy's Law, etc.  Yours has Powers, but still completely legitimate.  I'm kinda with Eric on this:  Having unpersonified Fate as a regular intervening force over the course of a game could be super awesome.

I rather agree with Hans, though.  This doesn't sound like you're doing it because you think "Fate takes a hand" is a cool idea.  This is a dodge so that you can play Capes while avoiding having to actually put anything at risk.  You aren't suggesting using this as a sometimes character or along with some real-people characters.  That makes a big difference to me.  You intend to play Kismet exclusively so that nobody can threaten you. 

If you were to sit down with me and three other guys and say "Hey, I'm just gonna play the unpersonified force of Fate, so that I can meddle with you, but none of you guys can do anything to me," I'd roll my eyes.  No, if you're gonna do that, I don't want to play with you.  "Hey, I know this is poker night and you guys always play for money.  You go ahead and play for money, but I'd just like to play with chips, no money.  Cool?"  No, dude.  Not cool.  We're over here trying to have a serious game with serious stakes.  You want an equal opportunity to affect the outcome?  Let's see the color of your money.

Said another way:  You're trying to put yourself in a position where you get to meddle with the story as an outsider.  The story will be about the characters that the other players created and put on the table, with each player saying "This guy is interesting to me.  Let's see what he does and what gets done to him."  What you're saying is "I'm not putting a character on the table.  I don't trust you with my character, but I still want the opportunity to do stuff to yours." 

As an aside, here's a question:  What if every player played a non-person character like yours?  Would that be a fun game?

Matthew wrote:

As an aside, here's a question:  What if every player played a non-person character like yours?  Would that be a fun game?

Personally, since you brought up asshats and jerks, I think the asshats and jerks are the ones who would only play with you if they can have a way to threaten to hurt you and coerce you.  The ones that lose all interest when the only way they can intereact with you is in a positive way.  :)

More to come.

Matthew wrote:
Seems to me that your non-person character isn't substantially different from the ones in the book.  Public Opinion, Murphy's Law, etc.  Yours has Powers, but still completely legitimate.  I'm kinda with Eric on this:  Having unpersonified Fate as a regular intervening force over the course of a game could be super awesome.

I rather agree with Hans, though.  This doesn't sound like you're doing it because you think "Fate takes a hand" is a cool idea.  This is a dodge so that you can play Capes while avoiding having to actually put anything at risk.  You aren't suggesting using this as a sometimes character or along with some real-people characters.  That makes a big difference to me.  You intend to play Kismet exclusively so that nobody can threaten you. 

If you were to sit down with me and three other guys and say "Hey, I'm just gonna play the unpersonified force of Fate, so that I can meddle with you, but none of you guys can do anything to me," I'd roll my eyes.  No, if you're gonna do that, I don't want to play with you.

  "Hey, I know this is poker night and you guys always play for money.  You go ahead and play for money, but I'd just like to play with chips, no money.  Cool?"  No, dude.  Not cool.  We're over here trying to have a serious game with serious stakes.  You want an equal opportunity to affect the outcome?  Let's see the color of your money.

Said another way:  You're trying to put yourself in a position where you get to meddle with the story as an outsider.  The story will be about the characters that the other players created and put on the table, with each player saying "This guy is interesting to me.  Let's see what he does and what gets done to him."  What you're saying is "I'm not putting a character on the table.  I don't trust you with my character, but I still want the opportunity to do stuff to yours." 

As an aside, here's a question:  What if every player played a non-person character like yours?  Would that be a fun game?

LemmingLord wrote:
Although this idea can be abused easily, I think it has lots-o-potential.  It is also another great way to slap people like me who are having so much trouble divorcing myself from characters (even though I'm eager to do so!!).  It becomes an interesting challenge indeed to try to figure out what is important to a player who may be playing such forces or phenoms...You don't get their character's success and failure mixed up with the players's own goals. 

Sindyr wrote:
Personally, since you brought up asshats and jerks, I think the asshats and jerks are the ones who would only play with you if they can have a way to threaten to hurt you and coerce you.  The ones that lose all interest when the only way they can intereact with you is in a positive way.  :)

Hans wrote:
Sindyr, you seem to assume that any game you play with, say, me or Tony, will involve goals like:

Goal: My character rapes your chracter
Goal: Your character becomes a serial killer and loves it, drinking the blood of innocents
Event: Puppies are murdered
Event: All goodness is sapped from the world by the forces of darkness

or whatever.  You seem to consistently assume the worst of a bunch of people you have never met.  If you are in a game and someone plays a conflict like those above with absolutely no warning, no hint it is coming, and no prior discussion, then I'll tell you what I would do.  I would slowly back out of the room and run for it.  For your information, these goals appeal to me not at all...except maybe the last one...the last one could be kind of cool in the right circumstances.

Here, for you information, are the kind of manipulative goals that I might play;

Goal: Doc Ock frames Spiderman for a crime
Goal: The Vulture scares Aunt May into a heart attack
Event: Mary Jane breaks up with Peter
Event: An editorial by Jameson incites the city against Spiderman
Goal: Peter Parker makes it to the hospital to before Aunt May goes into surgery

If you are playing Spiderman, I'll point out that three out of the five above are even vetoable by you.

Thats what I mean by meddling, manipulating, challenging you.  If you cannot bear the thought of any of those things hitting the table unless you think of them yourself, then, yes, you and I should never, ever play in a game together, and if you think I am a jerk and asshat for wanting to play them, then fair enough.  I can live with that. 

First, I can see no relation between playing a non entity and being frightened. On the contrary. It is so abstract and dry and vulnerable it can only be brave to try and play it.

The, Sindyr, you have a very beautiful mind, but creations of the mind are fragile. We realized in Son of Love thread that the less "contact surface" your character has, the stronger he will get glued in the end by all kind of players with a peculiar idea of fun. A character such as the "non entity" described above has only one point to target, and it will be targetted. It is not the character's psychology, drives, body, whatever. It is the character's name.
example of goal : Kismet is turned into a blooming lotus flower by Sun Wu Kong.

That does not terribly concern me, for 2 reasons:

-I believe that Kismet is eternal and eternally ineffable.  The blooming lotus flower may have come from Kismet (or not) but here the rub:  No matter what happens to that flower, nothing can affect or curtail how me, the player can use the abilities on Kismet's character sheet to affect the storyline.  That, combined with the nature of the character as envisioned leads me to experience the flower as nothing more than the child of Kismet at most - a child that Kismet may or may not interact with.

-It is completely unnessecary for players to be able to play goals on my character in order to earn my resources.  If they entice me and draw me in on ANY conflict, they will get my resources.  Kismet is in some ways like the Hand of God.  God is *not* the central character of the story though.  In a story about Doc Ock versus Sandman and Spiderman, Doc Ock may be played by player A, and Sandman by player B, and Spiderman by me, even though none of us have character sheets for those characters.  For example, I may be playing the Kismet character sheet, player A may be playing a character sheet called "Villainous Forces", and player B may be playing a character sheet called "Poetic Justice" - but the story, and what we narrate, is the adventures of Sandman and Spiderman against Doc Ock.

I think we need to make a fundamental shift in thinking when it comes to Capes, to realize it's full potential.  We are GM's first and foremost, not PC's.  Our character sheet is mainly to give us a way to affect, channel, and compete for narrative control.  That the character sheet be representative or linked to any incarnate entity in the narration is entirely not only unecessary but superflous.  With the Kismet character sheet, I can still play Spiderman in almost every important way.

I imagine the natural evolution of people who play this game is to more and more embrace the separation of the meta game from the narration.  I myself think and I am going to throw myself fully into this.  Not just as a method of self-protection, but because it now seems true that this is the true spirit of Capes, as designed.  This is what the absolute separation of the metagame and the narrative leads inexorably to, and its very interesting.

Wow.

Sindyr,

Now that is something I think could be really cool.  Go play that game and tell us how it turns out.  I'd love to hear it as I think the Capes rules would rise to the challenge quite well.  I could see a three player game where there were characters representing The Forces of Good, The Forces of Evil and The Hand of Fate.  Where "Forces" didn't neccessarily refer to specific people rather a metaphysical state of the universe.  I just wonder how you would deal with changing characters between scenes.  I think it would become boring to constantly play those incorporeal, big-picture characters constantly.  Sometimes I'd want to dip down into the smaller scale of single characters.

Sindyr wrote:
No matter what happens to that flower, nothing can affect or curtail how me, the player can use the abilities on Kismet's character sheet to affect the storyline. 

Andrew wrote:
Sindyr,
Now that is something I think could be really cool.  Go play that game and tell us how it turns out.  I'd love to hear it as I think the Capes rules would rise to the challenge quite well.  I could see a three player game where there were characters representing The Forces of Good, The Forces of Evil and The Hand of Fate.  Where "Forces" didn't neccessarily refer to specific people rather a metaphysical state of the universe.  I just wonder how you would deal with changing characters between scenes.  I think it would become boring to constantly play those incorporeal, big-picture characters constantly.  Sometimes I'd want to dip down into the smaller scale of single characters.

Vaxalon wrote:

Sindyr wrote:
No matter what happens to that flower, nothing can affect or curtail how me, the player can use the abilities on Kismet's character sheet to affect the storyline. 

Of course, that's true of EVERY Capes character.

Please let us know how this play turns out.

Sindyr wrote:
Will do.  I am arranging to use a room at an art center in the local town weekly for this, and they seem to be given approval, though we still have to rangle over how age appropriate this game must be to be held there.  Anyways, with luck I should be playing on a weekly basis soon.

Yeah, Hans, I think you are right - they have enough to learn with basic Capes, so I will be doing baby steps with 'em.

Sindyr wrote: What kind of blows my mind, in a very good way, is that by playing Kismet I am essentially playing *myself*, my godlike ability as a player to reach into the world of the narration and affect it, helping that which I want to support, combating that which I want to curtail....you have made a character which is you, the player's, proxy within the narrative world.

The character is not a character.  The points are not points.  The game is not a game.

When you understand these things, Grasshopper, then you will understand Capes.

:)

Uh, I'm pretty sure the game is a game, actually.

Sydney wrote:
Excellent insight. May I go one further? To echo Fred (Vaxalon), "that's true of every Capes character." In fact, that's true of every character ever played in any roleplaying game, just as fictional characters in a story are projections of their author. Your "kismet" approach just makes it more obvious. But even if you set out to create a character in the image of someone else's idea -- "this is Spiderman!" -- or in the image of some real person -- "this character is my real-life cousin Barbara, y'know, the one you met last week?" -- you still end up portraying, not the established canonical character or real-life person, but the idea of that person in your own mind. By how you turn your model into Abilities and Drives (or whatever statistics the system gives you); by what you choose to emphasize or deemphasize about your model ("I love the Spidey-MJ romance, but the whole Green Goblin nemesis thing blows"; "Yeah, I know Barbara's a good cook, but I'm not wasting an ability slot on that, what really matters to me is her loyalty to her friends"); by the very choice of one model over another in the first place -- by all these things, you are being selective about your sources, making a statement about what you want to include or avoid in the imaginary world, and therefore making a statement about yourself.

And by how the other players react to your character and what he/she/it does -- even if you're playing a game where (unlike Capes) their reaction has no game-mechanical effect, but is purely social, whether it's whoops of approval or weary eye-rolling -- they are making a statement about your character, and about you.

So, guess what. There is no "safe" way to play. There are no "inviolate" characters. There are no "characters" at all, in any observable sense. There's only you and your friends around the table.

Sydney wrote:
Uh, I'm pretty sure the game is a game, actually.

Sydney wrote:
Uh, I'm pretty sure the game is a game, actually.

Heh.  The things you folks get up to when I'm away.

Sindyr, you view the ways you can be engaged through your character as weaknesses.  Okay.  Fair enough.  They are.  When someone challenges something that you can't let pass without a fight then you have less choices than you would otherwise.

Now:  Those vulnerabilities are also strengths.  They are the way that you draw people to engage with you.  People want to be in a conflict that matters to other players.  They don't really care if it matters to the fictional world.  They care if it matters to you.  They will spend their resources (and thereby give you resources) to engage with a conflict that matters to you.

So I'm totally in agreement with you that you can do this thing, and protect yourself from being vulnerable to manipulation.  Do you agree with my point that it is bad strategy to have that be your only mode of play?

TonyLB wrote:
Sindyr, you view the ways you can be engaged through your character as weaknesses.  Okay.  Fair enough.  They are.  When someone challenges something that you can't let pass without a fight then you have less choices than you would otherwise.

Now:  Those vulnerabilities are also strengths.  They are the way that you draw people to engage with you.  People want to be in a conflict that matters to other players.  They don't really care if it matters to the fictional world.  They care if it matters to you.  They will spend their resources (and thereby give you resources) to engage with a conflict that matters to you.

So I'm totally in agreement with you that you can do this thing, and protect yourself from being vulnerable to manipulation.  Do you agree with my point that it is bad strategy to have that be your only mode of play?

Sindyr wrote: 1) That playing a cosmic force not tied to an in-story persona is quite different from playing a persona based character.  Whether that difference is quantitative (and demonstrable) or qualitative (perceived and in the eye of the beholder), it seems to be there.
2) That playing a cosmic force gives one more options and latitude - again either objectively by its nature, or subjectively by it's paradigm.

Sindyr wrote:
Does that answer your question?

Sydney wrote:
Now, clearly you personally are more comfortable with this approach, and you feel you have more freedom to avoid being drawn into conflicts. That's fine. There are probably a lot of people who'd share your preference -- but it's only a preference, and not a universal truth. It's as if you're saying, "Look! Now that I've bought an SUV, I'll never have accidents like I did in my old VW bug!" And I'm saying, "well, for a lot of people, that's a more comfortable car to drive, but actually you've gained more chassis strength at the cost of a higher risk of rollovers, so the safety rating's probably about the same; and anyway, driving a different car won't make you much more or less likely to get into accidents, because what matters in the end is the human being doing the driving."

Sindyr wrote:
Spiderman fails either way, but the *meaning* of that failure and it's immanent emotive effect completely changes depending on which I embrace - Kismet's sheet or Spidey's. 

TonyLB wrote:
Well, to the extent that your answer is "No, I don't agree with what you're saying because I don't get it," yeah that answers me very well.  Given that answer, I hope you won't be surprised if I elaborate a little bit.

Capes is about creating conflicts that people will care about.  But that doesn't have to be passive.  "What people care about" is not a static target.  It is not fixed.  It changes.  You can change it.

You can passively sit and observe and figure out "Okay, this is something they already care about."  Or you can actively go out and say "I'm making this conflict and I'm going to make people care about it."  Or you can do a variety of things in between ... finding something close to what they care about, and drawing them to care about it fully.

But changing what people care about is a two way street.  If you aren't open to being engaged then you aren't engaging.  I can go into detail about why I think that is, but the observed fact of it hits me in the face every time I play the game.  Making yourself vulnerable to being engaged is the first step to making people care about what you want them to care about.

Does that make more sense of why I describe vulnerability as a strength?

Sindyr wrote: On the other hand, they also take the risk that there are ultimately *two* outcomes - success and tragedy, and if it is the latter, it's going to hurt them as a human being deeply if they are really being that vulnerable and open.

TonyLB wrote:
If you have never volunteered for tragedy, maybe you think that being hurt can only be a bad thing.  But man, no.  Just no.  I'll be posting actual play about this, on the soon side, but in the meantime:  Sad songs have their place.  Not every movie would be improved by a happy ending.  Sometimes being beaten and being forced to accept heart-breaking tragedy makes for the best game of your life.  It's happened to me.

TonyLB wrote:

Sindyr wrote:
Spiderman fails either way, but the *meaning* of that failure and it's immanent emotive effect completely changes depending on which I embrace - Kismet's sheet or Spidey's. 

Why?

If my character sheet is Spiderman, then I take it personally.  I am bummed, angry, frustrated, and toxic.  The game's fun has evaporated, replacing it with a very real desire (not acted on, of course) to harm the players physically, to do violance upon them for what they have done to me.  This is not a good place to be, not a place I want to risk arriving at.

But if my character sheet is Kismet, even if I having been *playing* Spiderman narratively exactly the same, when Spiderman fails to save the innocent person, I do *not* take it personally.  I am bummed on Spiderman's *behalf*, but from my current point of view, the point of view of Kismet, all things will eventually work out for the best, taking the long view.  Spiderman's failure is simply one knot on one thread in the entire fabric of the tapestry, and that failure may lead to an even greater order of magnitude of goodness and triumph.

Now, if I am playing Spiderman's character sheet, I cannot take that more impartial view, I guess cause I feel like by choosing to link the character sheet to the character Spiderman I am choosing to link Spiderman to *me*.  But by playing Kismet's character sheet, I don't feel Spiderman as being *me* any more than I feel Doc Ock to be *me*.  They are both threads in the tapestry, and its the overall design of the whole thing that I am interested in.  And I am not even striving toward a particular design, I am striving toward making whatever design emerges the best, most coherent, and pure design that I can.

Sindyr wrote:
But I don't think Capes requires an experience of deep pain, although it is an optional (and valid) component for those who value it.

TonyLB wrote:
Opening yourself up to be hurt is a vital strategy in Capes.

Are you able to hear that and to recognize that "But I really, really don't want to be vulnerable" is true and fine but completely irrelevant?  You're allowed to not want it.  Not wanting it means precisely nothing to its importance to the game system.

Sindyr wrote:
And it further seems to me, not being available to coercion does not change my desire to garner their resources by giving them what hey want in terms of conflicts and also does not change their desire to get their hands on my resources by doing the same for me, given the above caveat that they are not seeking to be rewarded by the feeling of the infliction of pain and hurt itself.

TonyLB wrote:
You're mistaken.  Protecting yourself from being changed by other players will vastly reduce your ability to engage them.

What they want, more than any individual thing in the fiction, is to make a human connection.  They want to have an impact on you, and that means changing you.  They want the opportunity to make you feel and do things that you would not have felt and done anyway.  The story and the game is driven by that desire to connect, and it rewards those who give people that connection.

>sigh<

Sindyr, I really, really wanted this to be something different from the same unsubstantiated claims you made way back in March, but it just isn't.

I'm telling you that the game pushes people to seek out each other's areas of engagement and to push them.  That's what the game does, and if you're not part of it then you're not part of the game.  You're saying that you believe enlightened souls wouldn't act as the game encourages people to act, and therefore there must be a way to make the system not do what it does.  It's not an argument from reality, it's an argument from your desires.

All of the arguments I made back then still apply.  You're still just asserting "It can be different!" without responding to any of the explanations why the game is as it is.  Way back when, we ended on this note:

TonyLB wrote:

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.

Then I will continue to point out that you have not made any case for your beliefs, until such time as you make a case.  Sounds like we both know where we stand.

I have three comments to make:

1.
I have been embracing in this conversation the very qualities under discussion.  Instead of being cautious and defensive, I have made myself open and vulnerable.  I have been genuine, truthful, honest, and sincere in the latest interchanges with you, Tony, on this thread.

So that's why your latest response is hurtful to me, that is why I have some feelings of betrayal.  I feel like I decided to trust you, and what you wrote above seems to show me that I should not have.  It's very disappointing to me.  But, since there is nothing I can do about it, and since my mistake may have been in trusting you to really engage with me - it just seems to me to be more fuel to fire of never letting oneself be that open, of always keeping some defense up. Anyways, I felt that the spirit of your response was innapropriate vis-avis the spirit of my side of the conversation - but that is not your problem, it is mine, and I will simply have to deal with it.

2.
You keep repeating stuff like "You still haven't made an argument.  I've still made dozens." and other similar statements of what seems to me to be bravado.  Well guess what?  I feel exactly the same way - that *you* Tony haven't made an argument and *I* have made dozens.  I will admit that *perhaps* I am wrong and you are right - because as a person committed to an open mind I have to.  I can't see you making any similar consession. In any case, as things stand, I fimly believe I have said many significant and valid things that you not only have not countered, most of them you haven't even addresssed.

We both have strong opinions.  We both believe that we are saying something valid, vital, and true; and that the other is not.  We both claim to be right.  There are only 3 differences between us:
a) I am open to the idea that it may be you that is in the right, despite the fact that I at this moment cannot see how..  You do not seem to be open to the idea that you may be wrong and I may be right, despite the fact that currently *you* don't see how.
b) You are the forum moderator, which gives you abilities and powers that I do not posses.
c) Obviously, one of use is more correct and the other is not, though we currently disagree on which is which.

It may be that you have a blind spot that prevents you from seeing that I am right and you are wrong.  It may be that the blind spot is mine, and the situation reversed.  It may be that there are no blind spots, and that our language and starting paradigms are simply completely incompatible for finding agreement.

Whatever the reason, I cannot at this time see how it can be profitable for either of us to continue to enagage the other, especially on this or similar topics.  So perhaps we shouldn't?  Unless we want to get bogged down in a repeating cycle of us basically saying to each other, "You're wrong, and I'm right"

3.
The topic and purpose of this thread is to discuss non-persona-ed characters in Capes, their use, and ramifications.  I think the interchange between you and I has veered somewhat off of that topic, to land somewhere nearer the topic of whether non-consensual coercive play in Capes is necessary for Capes to work and whether it is a good thing in general.
To bring things *back* on topic I give you this:
a) It seems entirely valid within the written rules of Capes to create a non-persona-ed character sheet and character.
b) PLC's (Persona-Less Characters) seem to allow me, and I would imagine others, to more easily disregard coercive play, making each conflict more of a choice of whether or not to get involved, and less of a manipulation.
c) PLC's also give much wider lattitude for the scope of one's involvement.  By playing a PLC such as Kismet, I can partake of Spidey's struggle with Doc Ock, Ock's struggle with Spidey, or the experience of a third party.  I am not locked into one persona's perspective, giving me a much wider vantage point.
d) PLC's, by the very nature of Capes and it's meta-game seem more suited to Capes than PC's, and more of a pure evolution of the very Capes fundamental principles.

Hopefully that will bring us out of the muck of the off-topic irreconcilable difference we have Tony, and back into the thrust of this thread.

If you start a thread about the value of coercive play, I may partake of it.  But I am unfortunately not convinced that you and I can ever see eye to eye on this.

All the best.

Sindyr, I can't recall a single incident when Tony has used moderator powers against you. (Yes, he's warned you not to bring up what he considers extraneous and distracting arguments in certain threads, but he's never even threatened to prevent you from raising those arguments in their own threads, nor has he actually moved any posts or closed any threads that I know of).

Tony, I actually think Sindyr's made a significant breakthrough towards (our way of) understanding Capes in starting to think of characters as being no more nor less than the real-person-playing's ability to influence the story. I think Sindyr's still got one eye blindfolded in his insistence that a "persona-less" character fulfills this role more easily than any other kind, but maybe that realization will also come in time.

And, as Sindyr asked, back to that precise topic -- and with apologies for point-by-pointing, but in this case it seems clearest:

Sindyr wrote: a) It seems entirely valid within the written rules of Capes to create a non-persona-ed character sheet and character.

b) PLC's (Persona-Less Characters) seem to allow me, and I would imagine others, to more easily disregard coercive play, making each conflict more of a choice of whether or not to get involved, and less of a manipulation.

c) PLC's also give much wider lattitude for the scope of one's involvement.  By playing a PLC such as Kismet, I can partake of Spidey's struggle with Doc Ock, Ock's struggle with Spidey, or the experience of a third party.  I am not locked into one persona's perspective, giving me a much wider vantage point.

d) PLC's, by the very nature of Capes and it's meta-game seem more suited to Capes than PC's, and more of a pure evolution of the very Capes fundamental principles.

Sydney wrote:

b) PLC's (Persona-Less Characters) seem to allow me, and I would imagine others, to more easily disregard coercive play, making each conflict more of a choice of whether or not to get involved, and less of a manipulation.

If it works for you, great, though I'm not sure I've ever experienced "coercive" play as you describe it.

c) PLC's also give much wider lattitude for the scope of one's involvement.  By playing a PLC such as Kismet, I can partake of Spidey's struggle with Doc Ock, Ock's struggle with Spidey, or the experience of a third party.  I am not locked into one persona's perspective, giving me a much wider vantage point.

Not really.
Sure, I can narrate the Abilities of an abstraction like "the Hand of Fate" into all sorts of situations where I'd be hard-put to justify the physical presence or indirect influence of "Joe Blow," but conversely it's harder to narrate "Hand of Fate" staking Debt because, with no personality, it's tricky to explain how it cares about anything. Better for one thing, worse for the other.
And you're never "locked into one persona's perspective" in Capes. You can introduce new characters for a single Story Token at any time, or for free at the start of a new scene, and even if you're playing the same guy all the time, you're free to narrate what happens from an external perspective as opposed to through his eyes.

d) PLC's, by the very nature of Capes and it's meta-game seem more suited to Capes than PC's, and more of a pure evolution of the very Capes fundamental principles.

Since I fundamentally disagree with you that there's much of a difference between "PLCs" and "PCs," naturally I don't considered one or the other "more suited... [or] more of a pure evolution."

Sindyr wrote:
If you start a thread about the value of coercive play, I may partake of it.  But I am unfortunately not convinced that you and I can ever see eye to eye on this.

Sydney wrote:
Sindyr, I can't recall a single incident when Tony has used moderator powers against you. (Yes, he's warned you not to bring up what he considers extraneous and distracting arguments in certain threads, but he's never even threatened to prevent you from raising those arguments in their own threads, nor has he actually moved any posts or closed any threads that I know of).

TonyLB wrote:

Sindyr wrote:
If you start a thread about the value of coercive play, I may partake of it.  But I am unfortunately not convinced that you and I can ever see eye to eye on this.

Why would I have any interest in starting such a thread?  It has no bearing on this discussion.

If you want to say "A system that rewarded people for finding their fellow player's weak spots and ruthlessly jabbing at them would be an evil, immoral, unevolved system" then that's fine.  I totally support your right to say that.  It's a value judgment.

That has no bearing, one way or the other, on the simple fact that Capes is that system.

Like, you can't do the syllogism this way:

• Capes is a good system for me
• A good system for me will not penalize me for not taking a risk that could hurt me badly.
• Therefore Capes will not penalize me for not taking a risk that could hurt me badly.

... because we have so many people who have actually played the system, and know that it will penalize you for not taking such risks.

So when you argue that a good system for you would not penalize that defensive stance it doesn't prove that Capes doesn't do that ... it just proves that Capes is not a good system for you.  See?

I have an idea about why Tony and Sindyr seem to be talking past each other, and I'm going to try to express it and hope not to cause more problems than I solve. All the below is my interpretation and perception, of course, and I apologize for any misrepresentation.

Sindyr is seeking some area of the game where he is safe, where his concept rules and what he says cannot be challenged by anyone else. In traditional RPGs this is the area inside a PC's skin (modulo personality mechanics, but let's not go there for now). In Capes as written the space available for this is very small -- basically things forbidden by the Comics Code and what is (only temporarily, of course) forbidden by the Not Yet rule. I think that fact makes Sindyr uncomfortable.
Tony is saying that you cannot play the game well unless you have a significant space where you *can* be challenged, and the bigger that space the better, the more engaging the game is. Commonly that space is around 'your' character -- defending Doc Achilles looking brilliant got Tony going, I think -- but it certainly doesn't have to be the only space, even in 'beginner-level' Capes.

Sindyr is finding ways (within the rules as written) to carve out certain inviolate narrative space. Tony is saying that, if you end up not having anywhere to be challenged, Capes won't work. These are not incompatible things. Why can't Sindyr have spaces that are 'inviolate', as long as he has plenty of places where he can be challenged, where he does *care* what happens, even if it's not 'his character getting altered' kinds of challenges? If Sindyr, the player, really wants a romantic triangle in the story, even if he's not playing one of the characters directly, he's going to get heavily involved and committed to conflicts bringing out the conflict. Even if none of the characters anywhere in the story are his 'avatar', I can certainly imagine him getting engaged and stoked about defending certain aspects of the story. On the other hand, Sindyr could do this just as easily with a personaed (is that a word?) character, not letting himself get too attached to the character any more than he would as affecting the story as Kismet; but maybe Sindyr finds that kind of detachment from 'his' characters difficult to achieve.

I do think that this constitutes advanced play, though. RPGers have a natural attachment to 'their' characters, and so Capes uses that attachment as easy creation of engagement, and that works as a good place to learn Capes. It will be more challenging for Sindyr to find places to allow others to challenge him and engage him, the more space he claims as inviolate, and failure to have points of engagement will surely lead to rather flat, mechanical play; the more he relies on abstractions like Kismet to defend himself from these challenges, the more he will have to work to avoid it.

Sindyr wrote: I believe that all of that is incorrect, specifically, I believe:
-There are ways to validly play Capes effectively and well without using coercive play.
-I can play in such a way as to be uncoercible, and still partake in a valid Capes game that is fun and fulfilling for all.
-I can play in such a way as to avoid coercing others, and still partake in a valid Capes game that is fun and fulfilling for all.

Sindyr,

You need to go test your theory and beliefs.  Sit down at a table and play Kismet (or some facimile of him) with players who both know what they are doing with Capes and don't play that type of character.  See what happens.  I don't know what will happen.  I've never done this before.  What I suspect will happen is that you will find yourself falling behind in terms of Story Tokens, Debt and Inspirations.  I also suspect that you will become to a certain extent marginalized as the other players fail to find you engaging and simply engage with each other in ways they find exciting and entertaining.

Now sit down and play Kismet with a group that also plays that type of character.  I think you'll find the experience somewhat different but you'll have to have discussed the basis of the game on a social level before play.  Otherwise you just end up in the same situation that I described in the first paragraph.

This is the type of thing that backs up your beliefs with something more substantial.  You then have Actual Play experience that demonstrates your points (or not).  Tony, the others here, and I all have enough play experience to say, "The system rewards this type of behavior.  Players will behave this way during play."  That's not just our belief.  It is demonstratable.  We've seen it happen.  Tony designed it that way.  It works that way.  If you try something else and demonstrate that it works another way under certain conditions, we'll consider that.  But until then you're just throwing your beliefs in front of our experience and it doesn't amount to much in the way of convincing us of anything.

*NOTE:  I personally think playing a game where the players are all The Force of Good, Hand of Fate... et al.  Would be fun.  I'd certainly try it with you if you are going to be at GenCon.  So, I'm not saying your idea of everyone playing that type of character is a bad one.

TonyLB wrote:
And I'm fine with you believing it.  But you need to learn to difference between believing it and having made any sort of argument for it.

You can avoid being coerced, and you can avoid coercing others.  You've made good arguments that you can do those things.  But doing either (much less both) of those things cripples your ability to push Capes strategy.  As before:  You can play football without pushing people, and without being pushed, but if other people are willing to rough-house then they will beat you.

You can play Capes the way you're describing, but other people are going to blow right past you, and you will end up marginalized.

Are you arguing that you can play Capes in the way you're describing and still keep pace with other players who aren't so limited?

Sindyr,

Play Kismet. I'd love to see what happens. Post some actual play here so we can see what goes on. :)

I'm still working on Gods and in my (admittedly limited) actual play I've found that anything can be played as a viable character and engaged - in the one AP I posted here I actually played a network of caves inhabited by blind albino creatures. Now, that was not an unengagable character and my friend Jeff actually had his Sorcerer-King use magic to take control of all my critters (in spite of my "Oh NO you DIDN'T!"), so I'm interested in seeing if you can successfully avoid being engaged by the other players.

Good luck.

Andrew wrote:
You need to go test your theory and beliefs. 

Sit down at a table and play Kismet (or some facimile of him) with players who both know what they are doing with Capes and don't play that type of character.  See what happens.  I don't know what will happen.  I've never done this before.  What I suspect will happen is that you will find yourself falling behind in terms of Story Tokens, Debt and Inspirations.  I also suspect that you will become to a certain extent marginalized as the other players fail to find you engaging and simply engage with each other in ways they find exciting and entertaining.

Now sit down and play Kismet with a group that also plays that type of character.  I think you'll find the experience somewhat different but you'll have to have discussed the basis of the game on a social level before play.  Otherwise you just end up in the same situation that I described in the first paragraph.

This is the type of thing that backs up your beliefs with something more substantial.  You then have Actual Play experience that demonstrates your points (or not).  Tony, the others here, and I all have enough play experience to say, "The system rewards this type of behavior.  Players will behave this way during play."  That's not just our belief.  It is demonstratable.  We've seen it happen.  Tony designed it that way.  It works that way.  If you try something else and demonstrate that it works another way under certain conditions, we'll consider that.  But until then you're just throwing your beliefs in front of our experience and it doesn't amount to much in the way of convincing us of anything.

*NOTE:  I personally think playing a game where the players are all The Force of Good, Hand of Fate... et al.  Would be fun.  I'd certainly try it with you if you are going to be at GenCon.  So, I'm not saying your idea of everyone playing that type of character is a bad one.

Threlicus wrote:
Sindyr is finding ways (within the rules as written) to carve out certain inviolate narrative space. Tony is saying that, if you end up not having anywhere to be challenged, Capes won't work. These are not incompatible things. Why can't Sindyr have spaces that are 'inviolate', as long as he has plenty of places where he can be challenged, where he does *care* what happens, even if it's not 'his character getting altered' kinds of challenges? If Sindyr, the player, really wants a romantic triangle in the story, even if he's not playing one of the characters directly, he's going to get heavily involved and committed to conflicts bringing out the conflict. Even if none of the characters anywhere in the story are his 'avatar', I can certainly imagine him getting engaged and stoked about defending certain aspects of the story. On the other hand, Sindyr could do this just as easily with a personaed (is that a word?) character, not letting himself get too attached to the character any more than he would as affecting the story as Kismet; but maybe Sindyr finds that kind of detachment from 'his' characters difficult to achieve.

Bret wrote:
Now, that was not an unengagable character and my friend Jeff actually had his Sorcerer-King use magic to take control of all my critters (in spite of my "Oh NO you DIDN'T!"), so I'm interested in seeing if you can successfully avoid being engaged by the other players.

Good luck.

Sindyr wrote:
Considering how I felt that you went innapropriately on the attack earlier out of the blue, I admit to not having much trust in your motivations, so before I set myself up I would like an assurance on your part to examine my arguments thoroughly, objectively and rationally, with no preconceptions, but truthfully I am not sure you can do that at this time where I  or my ideas are concerned.  I am not gong to open myself up to attack without thinking there's a reasonable chance that you are open to the possibility that I may be right and are willing to make a real effort to try to be open to that.  At the moment, I do not sense that.

Btw, Bret, your Gods idea is really cool, kudos to you for coming up with it!  I look forward with interest to see how it develops.

Between PLC's, Gods, and more, it seems that the evolutions of Capes is going strong.  I like that.

TonyLB wrote:
Great!  Don't make your arguments.  That's your prerogative.

Every time (every time) you bring this topic up, I will point out that you have never made any arguments for your beliefs.

You want to lament that I'm being unfair?  Go right ahead.  But don't claim that you haven't been warned.

Oh wait ... your whole sense of betrayal is based in the idea that you hadn't been warned, that this response came "out of the blue," rather than being exactly what I told you I'd do months ago.  So ... uh ... don't claim that again, I guess.

Sindyr wrote: You may think that coercive non-consensual play is central to Capes and unavoidable, but you still have not shown that it is so.

Sydney wrote:
Assuming that by the jargony and pejorative phrase "coercive non-consensual" you mean "one player can make things happen in the story that affect other players without their consent (except for consenting to play Capes in the first place), I'd respond:

Sindyr wrote: What can make this consensual however, is that some players have the reaction "bring it on" when this sort of play occurs.

Sydney wrote:
Okay, but the Capes rules don't distinguish between "bring it on" and "please don't" -- players can make either statement all they want, but the game doesn't give either mechanical force. (N.B. lots of exceptions about Comics Code, spotlight characters, "not yet," and the conflict-veto rules). So if that distinction is critically important to you, you need to give it some game-mechanical authority, which means a different set of rules, which means a different game.

Sindyr wrote: ...at this point I would probably not ask any player to change their tactics for me....

Sindyr, I'll reiterate my offer to play with you over IRC.

Vaxalon wrote:
Sindyr, I'll reiterate my offer to play with you over IRC.

Vaxalon wrote:
Sindyr, I'll reiterate my offer to play with you over IRC.

I am always willing to change my mind as I experience new facts.  I dont like to type much if I can avoid it, but I would be willing to play by Skype, Teamspeak, or Ventrillo.  Or in person in Mass, VT or NH.

Skype is fine.  I also have Ventrilo, and access to a server.

Let's do it this way...

Anyone interested, email me with times available, systems usable (Skype, Ventrilo, Teamspeak) and we'll set something up.

vaxalon@gmail.com

You just made my day. Woot!

Email is being sent.

At the risk of dragging this back on topic I have a couple of major issues with the premise...

Quote from: Sindyr on July 19, 2006, 09:15:43 AM
a) It seems entirely valid within the written rules of Capes to create a non-persona-ed character sheet and character.

b) PLC's (Persona-Less Characters) seem to allow me, and I would imagine others, to more easily disregard coercive play, making each conflict more of a choice of whether or not to get involved, and less of a manipulation.

c) PLC's also give much wider lattitude for the scope of one's involvement.  By playing a PLC such as Kismet, I can partake of Spidey's struggle with Doc Ock, Ock's struggle with Spidey, or the experience of a third party.  I am not locked into one persona's perspective, giving me a much wider vantage point.

d) PLC's, by the very nature of Capes and it's meta-game seem more suited to Capes than PC's, and more of a pure evolution of the very Capes fundamental principles.

Tuxboy wrote:
1) As a bodiless, persona-less character I don't think you can justify giving the character Drives.

drive (n) - A strong motivating tendency or instinct related to self-preservation, reproduction, or aggression that prompts activity toward a particular end.

Without a persona Drives would be impossible...

Could be the universal drives of Hope, Duty, etc - the impersonal and overarching drives of the cosmos being tuned into, eh?

All that's really required I think is that

(from the Capes rulebook)
"They may Stake Debt on any number of Conflicts that provoke the character to prove themself in the relevant moral Drive."
-and-
"But when they Stake Debt, it must be on a Conflict that is morally charged for that particular character and Drive."

Who decides if the Conflict is "morally charged" or if it "provokes the character to prove themself"?  The character's owner does.  And I don't think any other player can gainsay the owner.  I could simply say, "this character IS this collection of Powers, Styles, Attitudes, and Drives - in other words, this character sheet and the info contained within it, and no more besides what fancy is in my head.  I will let you know when a Conflict is morally charged or provocative from time to time for this character (sheet) by staking debt appropriately - if I stake debt, then you know it's morally charged for this character (sheet)."

It's an unusual approach, but not as far as I can see, an invalid one.

Instead of it being Persona-less per se, it is Persona-*light* - it only has enough Persona to justify having drives, but apart from that has no ego or other sentient aspects.  Consider the PLC not to be sentient but to be meta-sentient - a quality of being that affords the minimum neccesary to qualify for drives but does no more than that.

Tuxboy wrote:

c) PLC's also give much wider lattitude for the scope of one's involvement.  By playing a PLC such as Kismet, I can partake of Spidey's struggle with Doc Ock, Ock's struggle with Spidey, or the experience of a third party.  I am not locked into one persona's perspective, giving me a much wider vantage point.

This is pretty much true of any character, its one of the joys of Capes.

Rolling on Spidey's "Bravery" I roll up the Conflict "MJ escapes the Green Goblin's clutches" narrating "MJ remembers all those times Spidey saved her against overwhelming odds and struggles to break free, distracting Green Goblin."

First and simplest, if I have Spidey's character sheet in hand, and I want to find some way to affect the fight that Catwoman and Dock Ock are having while Spidey is slumped unconscious, I am going to have to do more work to apply "Spidey-Sense" on the character sheet to help Catwoman win the conflict.  I am not saying I couldn't make it work, I am just saying it's simpler and more efficient for me to have a Kismet character sheet and simply use the ability "Good Prevails"
Second, by having 12 Spiderman abilities listed in front of me, and by trying to figure out how to use them to win conflicts, I will naturally be drawn into looking at things from Spiderman's perspective.  By having a character sheet based on a wider perspective, such as Kismet, Karma, Poetic Justice, or whatnot, I will instinctively and naturally be open to taking a wider view than only how things are affecting Spiderman.

What kind of blows my mind, in a very good way, is that by playing Kismet I am essentially playing *myself*, my godlike ability as a player to reach into the world of the narration and affect it, helping that which I want to support, combating that which I want to curtail.  Heck, all you really have to do is come up with 12 abilities that represent the kind of effect you want to have on the story, "Poetic Justice", "Fate take a hand", "the Good prevail", etc and there you go, you have made a character which is you, the player's, proxy within the narrative world.

Ultimately, by playing the purely narrative force instead of sheeting up a character as a focus, you are declaring that your primary interest is not in any one character overall - although you may be interested is Spidey's story today - but in the story itself.  You are taking a GM stance as opposed to a PC stance.  And I think this is a good thing, because at the end of the day, playing Capes is not like playing a PC, as Capes does not support player ownership/authority over slected PC's, no instead it *is* like being a GM.  And by playing this narrative force, you are strongly embracing that role.

Put another way, let's say I am involved in a story in which spiderman strives and fails to save the life of an innocent.

If my character sheet is Spiderman, then I take it personally.  I am bummed, angry, frustrated, and toxic.  The game's fun has evaporated, replacing it with a very real desire (not acted on, of course) to harm the players physically, to do violance upon them for what they have done to me.  This is not a good place to be, not a place I want to risk arriving at.

But if my character sheet is Kismet, even if I having been *playing* Spiderman narratively exactly the same, when Spiderman fails to save the innocent person, I do *not* take it personally.  I am bummed on Spiderman's *behalf*, but from my current point of view, the point of view of Kismet, all things will eventually work out for the best, taking the long view.  Spiderman's failure is simply one knot on one thread in the entire fabric of the tapestry, and that failure may lead to an even greater order of magnitude of goodness and triumph.

Now, if I am playing Spiderman's character sheet, I cannot take that more impartial view, I guess cause I feel like by choosing to link the character sheet to the character Spiderman I am choosing to link Spiderman to *me*.  But by playing Kismet's character sheet, I don't feel Spiderman as being *me* any more than I feel Doc Ock to be *me*.  They are both threads in the tapestry, and its the overall design of the whole thing that I am interested in.  And I am not even striving toward a particular design, I am striving toward making whatever design emerges the best, most coherent, and pure design that I can.

Spiderman fails either way, but the *meaning* of that failure and it's immanent emotive effect completely changes depending on which I embrace - Kismet's sheet or Spidey's.  And that to me, is one of the keys (though not IMO the most significant key) in the difference between playing Kismet and Spidey.

The goal of playing Capes (for me) ultimately is to have a positive, meaningful, and fun experience.  This seems far more likely when I play Kismet.  To me, that is a very real and essential difference.  Playing a persona-less cosmic force simply feels different from playing a persona-based character, and as the product of a narrative experience is feeling, that to me seem as objective as one can get.

Tuxboy wrote: This is could be a huge leap forward in your understanding of the Capes ethos though if you take the principles of acting on other characters which you seem to like and accept that it happening to your characters in the same way would not be the end of the world...

*LOL*

The dictionary definition of drive blows the first reason out of the water, to have

A strong motivating tendency or instinct related to self-preservation, reproduction, or aggression that prompts activity toward a particular end.

Isn't "persona-less character" an oxymoron?

*LOL*

Cutting straight to the point...like it!

Tuxboy wrote:
The dictionary definition of drive blows the first reason out of the water, to have

A strong motivating tendency or instinct related to self-preservation, reproduction, or aggression that prompts activity toward a particular end.

you must have a self to preserve which presupposes a body or at least a persona.

joshua wrote:
Isn't "persona-less character" an oxymoron?

Tuxboy wrote:
*LOL*

Cutting straight to the point...like it!

Sindyr wrote:
According to the Capes rules, I can play a PLC with drives.  It does not have to be sentient and posses an ego in the conventional sense.

Sindyr wrote:

joshua wrote:
Isn't "persona-less character" an oxymoron?

No.

But Joshua ... you don't need the character to have a personality in order for it to be at risk.  If I play "Foundry Row," a working-class neighborhood, and some punk supervillain puts down "Prove that the people of Foundry Row are defenseless insects before me," I don't need Foundry Row to have some anthropomorphic sentience in order for me to say "Oh like hell you will!"  I just need to be engaged with the neighborhood as a character, right?

I mean, if you want to object to the idea that a person will profit from playing Capes in a completely disengaged fashion, that's cool.  But don't lump that together with the perfectly workable technique of playing characters that don't have a face or a voice.

TonyLB wrote:

Sindyr wrote:
According to the Capes rules, I can play a PLC with drives.  It does not have to be sentient and posses an ego in the conventional sense.

Dude, totally.  In the next iteration of the Invasion from Earth Prime scenario packet I'm totally going to give the rough and tumble neighborhood of Foundry Row a set of drives and powers.

joshua wrote:

Sindyr wrote:

joshua wrote:
Isn't "persona-less character" an oxymoron?

No.

Well, if you and I were playing together, and you made a character that you claimed was a "persona-less character," I wouldn't buy it. If you create a character with Drives, I don't care if it's sentient or has an ego "in the classical sense." You either make a character for the game or you don't play the game. You either engage with the other players or you don't play the game. You either take the risk of another player doing something to or with your character or you don't play the game. If your character can do things in the game, then other players can do things to and with that character. In all of this thread, I've seen you argue for nothing besides being able to play Capes without running any of the risks that come with playing Capes.

It is ironic to note that both Tony and I embrace the idea of PLC's.

Where we differ on this subject is in our opinions of what can constitute effective play and what PLC play can be engaging and fun.  I tend to have a very wide scope of the above.

No, Tony, I'm pretty much trying to say what you're saying. What I'm quiestioning is Sindyr's argument that playing a "persona-less character" means that if I put down an event "The Hand of Fate manifests in human form," the player of the "persona-less character" (Sindyr) can claim, "But that's not my Hand of Fate, it's a different one!" If you can use your character (a "persona" or a force of the universe) to do things to other players, other players can do things to your character. It doesn't matter whether your character has a personality of not, it's not "safe."

...which is irrelevant.  Drive used in this setting is a Capes term which Capes defines.  The dictionary defination is irrelevant.  should we consult the dictionary on "debt", "conflict", "goal", etc, I am sure we can find more loopholes and invalidation of any Capes play one cares to eliminate.

It is ironic to note that both Tony and I embrace the idea of PLC's.

joshua wrote:
No, Tony, I'm pretty much trying to say what you're saying. What I'm quiestioning is Sindyr's argument that playing a "persona-less character" means that if I put down an event "The Hand of Fate manifests in human form," the player of the "persona-less character" (Sindyr) can claim, "But that's not my Hand of Fate, it's a different one!" If you can use your character (a "persona" or a force of the universe) to do things to other players, other players can do things to your character. It doesn't matter whether your character has a personality of not, it's not "safe."

Tux - sorry, again, not enough time and energy to type debate you, but my invitation for voice chat remains open.

As I said I don't have an issue with PLCs just the way you are trying to use them to set up an involilate character...come on...loosen up, have some fun, actually play the game ;)

Sindyr wrote:

joshua wrote:
No, Tony, I'm pretty much trying to say what you're saying. What I'm quiestioning is Sindyr's argument that playing a "persona-less character" means that if I put down an event "The Hand of Fate manifests in human form," the player of the "persona-less character" (Sindyr) can claim, "But that's not my Hand of Fate, it's a different one!" If you can use your character (a "persona" or a force of the universe) to do things to other players, other players can do things to your character. It doesn't matter whether your character has a personality of not, it's not "safe."

OK, so first off, you have agreed with me and Tony that I can play a PLC within the rules of Capes - Such as Kismet, or the Golden Path, or Poetic Justice, etc.

That's a very important point, and I guess from your words, you are granting that.

Sindyr wrote: Secondly, your idea of the Event, "The Hand of Fate manifests in human form" would never come off because in any event, no matter how we agree or disagree on the other stuff, any player may veto any event.  Any to keep things simple, that one gets vetoed.

So, for the sake of argument lets assume that you are either trying to free narrate my PLC becoming embodied, or you are making it a goal like "Nekro forces (insert PLC name here) into a body"

Problem is, my character concept for the PLC "Poetic Justice" for example, is not only that it does not have a human form, *it cannot*. 

Sindyr wrote: Consider this:
Let's say you play such a goal, and win it, and narrate Poetic Justice being pulled into a corporeal form.  Let's say through further won Conflicts that body is put into a coma, shut down, isolated, locked up.

Let me ask you two very important questions:
1) Is poetic justice gone from the world?  I would say that as long as a single good guy has a success of some kind, or a single bad guy has a failure of some kind, then poetic justice is present in some amount.  In order for it to be completely gone from the world than good guys could never have any joy and bad guys could never have any frustration - and that simply is not gonna to happen, no matter how close you get to eliminating poetic justice, there will always be some.
2) Am I as a player limited in any way from using the abilities on my Poetic Justice character sheet to influence the cause of poetic justice?  Of course not - nothing that happens narratively can ever affect my ability to use my character sheet and what is on it.

Now if you as a player want to think that you have my character locked up, that's fine.  As long as 1 and 2 are both yes's *I* am going to continue to think that the essential essence of poetic justice lies forever beyond your reach.

How can you make it otherwise?

Sure, you can make everyone in the narrative world believe that you are holding Poetic Justice hostage.

But you can't make *me* the *player* believe it, as long as it simply isn't true functionally.

And as long as I can use my character sheet abilities, I can always narrate a boy doing the right thing, getting a karmic reward, and slowly realizing that that wouldn't have been possible if the *real* poetic justice was on ice. :)

joshua wrote:

Sindyr wrote:
OK, so first off, you have agreed with me and Tony that I can play a PLC within the rules of Capes - Such as Kismet, or the Golden Path, or Poetic Justice, etc.

That's a very important point, and I guess from your words, you are granting that.

Well, I'm not granting anything. It's my understanding of the rules of Capes--which Tony also seems to be saying this, and I have no reason to doubt the creator of the game--that you can have a character be "Hogan Alley" or "Suicide Slum" or "The Hand of Fate."

Sindyr wrote: Secondly, your idea of the Event, "The Hand of Fate manifests in human form" would never come off because in any event, no matter how we agree or disagree on the other stuff, any player may veto any event.  Any to keep things simple, that one gets vetoed.

So, for the sake of argument lets assume that you are either trying to free narrate my PLC becoming embodied, or you are making it a goal like "Nekro forces (insert PLC name here) into a body"

Problem is, my character concept for the PLC "Poetic Justice" for example, is not only that it does not have a human form, *it cannot*. 

Well, that's nice--but if it's a Capes character, it has to be treated like any other Capes character. That is, I can create a Goal that does something to your character--whether it has a "persona" or not. That's how Capes is played. The specifics of "But my force of nature can't be put into a human form" is irrelevant. (And in superhero comics, a force of naturing manifesting in human form isn't unusual at all.)

Sindyr wrote: Consider this:
Let's say you play such a goal, and win it, and narrate Poetic Justice being pulled into a corporeal form.  Let's say through further won Conflicts that body is put into a coma, shut down, isolated, locked up.

Let me ask you two very important questions:
1) Is poetic justice gone from the world?  I would say that as long as a single good guy has a success of some kind, or a single bad guy has a failure of some kind, then poetic justice is present in some amount.  In order for it to be completely gone from the world than good guys could never have any joy and bad guys could never have any frustration - and that simply is not gonna to happen, no matter how close you get to eliminating poetic justice, there will always be some.
2) Am I as a player limited in any way from using the abilities on my Poetic Justice character sheet to influence the cause of poetic justice?  Of course not - nothing that happens narratively can ever affect my ability to use my character sheet and what is on it.

Now if you as a player want to think that you have my character locked up, that's fine.  As long as 1 and 2 are both yes's *I* am going to continue to think that the essential essence of poetic justice lies forever beyond your reach.

How can you make it otherwise?

Sure, you can make everyone in the narrative world believe that you are holding Poetic Justice hostage.

But you can't make *me* the *player* believe it, as long as it simply isn't true functionally.

And as long as I can use my character sheet abilities, I can always narrate a boy doing the right thing, getting a karmic reward, and slowly realizing that that wouldn't have been possible if the *real* poetic justice was on ice. :)

The way it would be handled is the same way it would be handled for any Capes character. In other words, your idea of playing Kismet is intriguing conceptually--but I don't see how it would work any differently from any other Capes character. A character is a character. If you can create the Goal "Kismet forces Omega Man to ask Kathy Kane to forgive him for missing their date last Tuesday," then I can create the Goal "Omega Man forces Kismet to piss off and leave him alone."

Let's say you play such a goal, and win it, and narrate Poetic Justice being pulled into a corporeal form.  Let's say through further won Conflicts that body is put into a coma, shut down, isolated, locked up.

Is poetic justice gone from the world?  I would say that as long as a single good guy has a success of some kind, or a single bad guy has a failure of some kind, then poetic justice is present in some amount.  In order for it to be completely gone from the world than good guys could never have any joy and bad guys could never have any frustration - and that simply is not gonna to happen, no matter how close you get to eliminating poetic justice, there will always be some.

But what I can't understand is why you feel you can't you do that with a normal PC?

I've had characters that were dead, on the opposite side of the galaxy or just home in bed have a direct impact on Conflicts by use of their abilities, it is not really different than what you seem to be proposing for your PLCs.

Character focus here is a red herring surely. If you can look at a set of abilities and think in terms of other characters with Poetic Justice then what is stopping you doing the same with, say, Lucky Charm?

Does corporeal character ownership narrow your vision that much? I'm genuinely interested to know.

and how about "Goal: Poetic Justice fails the orphans"...would you contest that?

The poor orphans faith in justice is shaken if you don't...

Tuxboy wrote:
But what I can't understand is why you feel you can't you do that with a normal PC?

I've had characters that were dead, on the opposite side of the galaxy or just home in bed have a direct impact on Conflicts by use of their abilities, it is not really different than what you seem to be proposing for your PLCs.

Character focus here is a red herring surely. If you can look at a set of abilities and think in terms of other characters with Poetic Justice then what is stopping you doing the same with, say, Lucky Charm?

Does corporeal character ownership narrow your vision that much? I'm genuinely interested to know.

Tuxboy asked the question I would have. You haven't said anything about "PLCs" that isn't true for any other character in Capes--except in your head. Which is fine, but that's your problem. You can make your character a "persona-less character" if it works better for you in your head, but in play, it doesn't work any differently from any other character in the game. If it does, that goes to your "but what if the player doesn't buy it" question: frankly, I don't buy that a "persona-less character" is different from any other Capes character, and trying to treat it differently in the game is, I think, a real dodge, trying to avoid risk and responsibility in play.

Sindyr wrote: If I play a PLC like Poetic Justice, I have no trouble embracing the idea that Poetic Justice can never be elimiated from the world.

Tuxboy wrote:
and how about "Goal: Poetic Justice fails the orphans"...would you contest that?

The poor orphans faith in justice is shaken if you don't...

Bret wrote:

Sindyr wrote: If I play a PLC like Poetic Justice, I have no trouble embracing the idea that Poetic Justice can never be elimiated from the world.

"Until I, ANTI-POETIC JUSTICE MAN, was gifted with powers both terrible and amazing after my horrible, yet ironically appropriate, accident. Now, I have created a device that will wipe all poetic justice from the universe. I need only hit the switch on my ingenious device! No one will stop me now! Muahahaha!"

Sindyr wrote:
On the other hand, if its good Capes play to tactically attack, it must be equally good Capes play to tactically dodge the attacks one doesn't find of value - which is one use of a PLC. :)

joshua wrote:
It's my understanding of the rules of Capes--which Tony also seems to be saying this, and I have no reason to doubt the creator of the game--

Oh, dude, I'm sorry.  I misread who was saying that.  I thought it was Sindyr.

It's the whole thing of Sindyr saying "Hey people!  Tony says it, so accept it without question!" that's got the comedic value for me.  I picked the wrong thing to quote there.  There's no humor value to you using me as an authority.

Stupid, stupid Tony.

joshua wrote:
No, Tony, I'm pretty much trying to say what you're saying. What I'm quiestioning is Sindyr's argument that playing a "persona-less character" means that if I put down an event "The Hand of Fate manifests in human form," the player of the "persona-less character" (Sindyr) can claim, "But that's not my Hand of Fate, it's a different one!" If you can use your character (a "persona" or a force of the universe) to do things to other players, other players can do things to your character. It doesn't matter whether your character has a personality of not, it's not "safe."

Actually, you could introduce and win a conflict to eliminate poetic justice, or all living beings, or the color green, from the universe in any Capes game; either people would ignore it as soon as it was over or have some funky narration to do thereafter, but you don't have to have a specific character in the game representing a concept before you can attack it.

Sindyr wrote: Let's say you play such a goal, and win it, and narrate Poetic Justice being pulled into a corporeal form.  Let's say through further won Conflicts that body is put into a coma, shut down, isolated, locked up......And as long as I can use my character sheet abilities, I can always narrate a boy doing the right thing, getting a karmic reward, and slowly realizing that that wouldn't have been possible if the *real* poetic justice was on ice.

TonyLB wrote:

Sindyr wrote:
On the other hand, if its good Capes play to tactically attack, it must be equally good Capes play to tactically dodge the attacks one doesn't find of value - which is one use of a PLC. :)

You might think so, but you'd be dead wrong.  Both sides (winner and loser) are rewarded for fighting.

So, yes, starting a fight is tactically sound.  Fleeing a fight is not.  Staying in the fight, especially when you're going to be utterly demolished, is tactically sound.

TonyLB wrote:
Oh, dude, I'm sorry.  I misread who was saying that.  I thought it was Sindyr.

It's the whole thing of Sindyr saying "Hey people!  Tony says it, so accept it without question!" that's got the comedic value for me.  I picked the wrong thing to quote there.  There's no humor value to you using me as an authority.

Stupid, stupid Tony.

TonyLB wrote:
Sindyr's right, of course, that nobody can force him to care about ... well, anything.  They can't do it in Capes (snip)