Ok, so I played my first game with more than two players today...  It went about as well as I could have imagined - with everyone a bit mentally sore, with some in game and out of game ego conflicts, and with some great questions.

Ben - Lackeyman
Dave - Xeros
Nick - Bachus (god of wine and partying, remember?)
Stephan - Paper Cut (a magneto villain with the power over paper)

I was playing lackeyman and established the goal: impress the boss (paper cut).

I figured that this would be something for my lackey to do while I waited for the big hitters to split their many sixes on the other conflicts already in play. 

Dave decides that with bigger fish to fry (Bachus has taken over the city and made it a drunken party... He also plans to bring the rest of the world here to join in drunken debauchery - much more of a problem then papercuts...) - Dave has Xeros use his techno gadgetry to narrate him handing Lackeyman a rocketpack, to help him impress my boss - so he rolls up one of the ones and gets a 4. 

Knowing Dave will be going first in the claiming order next, and not wanting him to narrate that the Lackeyman needed Xeros's help to impress his boss, I take the oppsing die and roll it up to a 6...

Now Nick is thinking I'm trying to pull something over on him... "That's not right; you two are on the same side.. You are allied in trying to meet Lackeyman's goal... I explain to him the rule that says that there is no defined "for" or "against" on the die... He brings up that what his character really wants to do at this point is foil Lackeyman's goal altogether, but cannot as both sides have narrated "for" the goal.

I see his point.  I tried to explain that it is the die you are allying with and not the player... That confused all of us, including me, to no end (probably because it was getting late).

What recourse does he have at this point? 

I know Bachus can do all manner of things to make Lackeyman look like a fool..

I also know that mechanically speaking he can ally with one of the existing sides and schism (assuming we both don't have 6s...)

If I understand Nick's point, he is having a problem with declaring himself as an ally to a side when clearly his character (and himself) are opposed to that side as it was narrated...   

Any insights?

If I understand what you are describing, you have three people, person A wants to win a conflict that person B is allied to one side and person C is allied to another, and both person B and C are throwing in narrations regarding that conflict that person A doesn't like.

First of, the only way he can override B & C's narrations while the conflict is still in play and unresolved, is by use of the "and then" rule.  In order to employ this rule, and make sure no one else can use "and then" on him in this conflict, he needs to be allied to a side that is currently in control that no on else is allied to.  I think the only way to do this is for him to stake debt and split.  Once he has debt token under those dice that he has split, then he can at any time create a new side with his tokened dice (I think) - preventing people from allying with his side in order to usurp his "and then" power.

Ultimately, if he cares more about the resolution of the conflict, then he may want to skip worrying about the "and then" stuff in the middle, and just claim the conflict at the start of a page and try to win it - then he can outright narrate the final resolution, making all narrations of that conflict up to this point as moot and insignificant as he likes.

Let me go back to the first part, though and pose the question more specifically to see if my idea about it is right:

If I and another player are each allied to opposing sides of a conflict.  My dice are in control, meaning that whatever the other guy narrates, I can add "and then" to it.  A third guy, in cahoots with the second, gets himself allied to my side.  Now when the second guy narrates sometihng on this conflict, both I and the third guy want to narrate diametrically opposed "and then's" - me blocking the second guy, him aiding the second guy.  We are both allied to the controlling side, who gets the first "and then"?  Who gets the last?  How do the third guy and I effectively compete do be the most significant "and then'er" while the conflict is unresolved?

Thanks.

The other option that Player A has is to lay down another Conflict.  If Player B and C are narrating things that he doesn't like and those things are related in some way, then Player A plops down a Conflict related to the narration he doesn't like.  At that point, B and C can no longer narrate the stuff he doesn't like until the second Conflict is resolved.  This is the Not Yet rule.  As Player A, I simply do my best to see that the second Conflict never resolves until I want it to.

For example:

Paper Cut and Xeros have claimed the two sides to "Goal: Lackeyman impresses his boss."  Both seem to want him to impress his boss.  The issue is who is going to be the one who actually helps him.  Lackeyman's player doesn't want anyone to have helped him.  He wants to have done it himself.  So he lays down "Goal: Someone helps Lackeyman impress his boss."  Now, even if the first Goal is won, no one can narrate having helped Lackeyman impress his boss.  Until the second Conflict is resolved, he impressed the boss single-handedly.

I'm not sure the "and then" rule is significant to my colleague's frustration.  He wants a chance to have his own side of the conflict without splitting from a side that, narratively speaking, his character isn't allying with..

We have an narrative creation, a character, allied with a game mechanic, a die on a conflict.  

So picture that there is a conflict between two characters; in another RPG a third player may enter that conflict however he'd like and die roles would help determine if he was successful.  In capes, if two sides have been defined, he has only the one recourse to add a third side, which is to ally and schism.  

The confusion and frustration is in conceptually divorcing the character's alliance or enemity with another character and the character allying with an undefined die in the sky...

Player A, B and C

Goal: A does X.

B goes first; B rolls up side of conflict; B's narration is pro "A does X."

A goes next; A rolls up other side of conflict; A's narration is also pro "A does X," but on his own terms.

Player C wants to narrate "A does NOT X" but cannot do so through narration unless he takes control of the conflict; which he can now only do by allying with one side or the other... Narratively, however, his character is not going to be allying with either of the positions on the table; it isn't like he's thinking A does X is a good idea and then later changes his mind; he doesn't want A to do X... He is opposed to it... So he doesn't think he can legitimately "ally" with one of the current sides unless he narrates that alliance.

Player C doesn't want to narrate his character's opposition to the positions taken by player A and B while simultaneously having his character using the game mechanic "ally with a side" on one of those player's side of the conflict.

This seems to pop up again and again on this forum - the confusion between players and characters.

I guess what my colleageues and I need to hear is "yes, you can say that Bachus is mechanically speaking allying with the die that just got upgraded to "help" the goal while simultaneously narrating his clear opposition to the character to with whom he is meechanically-speaking allying himself with...  I know he can schism; but while he is first "allying" with one of the positions; does his character have be narrated as using his abilities to further the position to which he is allied?

I dont' think he has to... I think he can go right ahead and say "my character uses ability q to do something that will reduce the chances that Lackeyman will impress his boss" roll up either die in the "goal: Lackeyman impresses his boss" and if he rolls it up he is now allied with a side to which his other ally is diametrically opposed.

Goal: Lackeyman impresses his boss:  

Player A, trying to impress boss all by himself, allied with die 1

Player B, trying to help A impress his boss by helping him along, allied with die 2
Player C, trying to make A look bad for his boss, allied also with die 2

More clear?

Andrew wrote:
The other option that Player A has is to lay down another Conflict.  If Player B and C are narrating things that he doesn't like and those things are related in some way, then Player A plops down a Conflict related to the narration he doesn't like...

LemmingLord wrote:

Andrew wrote:
The other option that Player A has is to lay down another Conflict.  If Player B and C are narrating things that he doesn't like and those things are related in some way, then Player A plops down a Conflict related to the narration he doesn't like...

That is actually quite enlightening..  Thanks!

LemmingLord wrote:
If I understand Nick's point, he is having a problem with declaring himself as an ally to a side when clearly his character (and himself) are opposed to that side as it was narrated...   

Hans, he can't wait for the next page.  With both sides claimed, it WILL resolve at the end of this turn unless he does something.  His ONLY option is to ally, split, and schism, and THEN hope that he can win narration in the next page.

As soon as you get people narrating success while rolling dice, and then narrating failure when it's time to resolve, or vice versa, then alliances will become less valuable.  Everyone who has a stake in the outcome of a contest will schism off their own sides in order to make sure that they come out the way they want.

Vaxalon wrote:
Hans, he can't wait for the next page.  With both sides claimed, it WILL resolve at the end of this turn unless he does something.  His ONLY option is to ally, split, and schism, and THEN hope that he can win narration in the next page.

As soon as you get people narrating success while rolling dice, and then narrating failure when it's time to resolve, or vice versa, then alliances will become less valuable.  Everyone who has a stake in the outcome of a contest will schism off their own sides in order to make sure that they come out the way they want.

If you say, "This is the failure side" when you roll up the die, and start narrating successes, with the clear intention that the side you're on will, if it wins, cause a failure of the goal, is cool.

Doing the same thing with the SUCCESS side is NOT cool. I'd be pretty peeved if someone did that to me.  "Hey!  The only reason I didn't oppose you on that is because you were going to narrate a success!  If I had known you were going to fail it I would have played on that goal."

Dirty pool.

It's just as dirty as playing any of the other dirty tricks I've talked about in the past.

One of the core concepts of Capes, as I see it, is offering up play for other people to validate and encourage.  If you play with various tactics that abruptly change play after the validation has happened, then you're attacking one of the pillars that holds the game up.  Legal, but not a good idea.

That's interesting.  Often times when I play, I take a side and don't say which way I'm planning on jumping when the Conflict is finally resolved.  The rules don't indicate that I have to state my intentions.  Am I playing incorrectly (having missed something in the rules) or is this something that gets hammered out for each group.  I could see myself accidentally ticking Vaxalon off if we were playing and not intending to.

Andrew wrote:
That's interesting.  Often times when I play, I take a side and don't say which way I'm planning on jumping when the Conflict is finally resolved.  The rules don't indicate that I have to state my intentions.  Am I playing incorrectly (having missed something in the rules) or is this something that gets hammered out for each group.  I could see myself accidentally ticking Vaxalon off if we were playing and not intending to.

Yeah, Eric, I agree.  I don't do it just on a whim but I do like sudden reversals and interesting plot twists, so if I think of one I'll throw it in as a surprise.  I haven't gotten any bad reactions yet, so I must be doing something right.  I'll just keep it in mind when playing with people I don't know.

Andrew wrote:
Yeah, Eric, I agree.  I don't do it just on a whim but I do like sudden reversals and interesting plot twists, so if I think of one I'll throw it in as a surprise.  I haven't gotten any bad reactions yet, so I must be doing something right.  I'll just keep it in mind when playing with people I don't know.

Oh, I definitely agree that coming IN on a side of a conflict that noone expects is not only fair play but GOOD play.

I just don't see the value of going OUT on the opposite side of a conflict than you had originally said you were on.

If your future strategy relies upon people trusting that you will do what they thought you would do then you probably better not undermine that.

If your future strategy relies upon people being utterly terrified to let you have control of a conflict because there's no knowing what you might narrate then maintaining a reputation for scary randomness can be all to the good.

I generally go somewhere in the middle ... getting across the idea that when I've said I'll do something I will, by God, do it but that when I haven't made any promises and I have that look in my eyes, all bets are off.

I totally don't buy any argument that there is some unspoken context to the games that makes some actions "dirty pool."  I do believe that I've got a section in the book specifically talking about "abusing the system" and how I heartily approve of it on all levels.

LemmingLord wrote:
Stephan - Paper Cut (a magneto villain with the power over paper)