I played in four games of Capes at DexCon, three I organized myself and one Andrew put together.  I'm going to be posting a lot of Actual Play about them, and this is the thread where I'll point you to those threads.

Expect great things, folks.  These games started pretty good but got progressively more and more awesome as the convention went on.

One decision that I agonized over was that this year I posted my Capes games as "Experience Required" rather than "Beginners welcome."  As it turns out, the first game got a lot of beginners anyway, but the others got all old hands.  As a result, I can compare and contrast, and the contrast is marked.  I'll be talking about that.

And, to start with, the game played by the group of complete beginners:  The Magical President of Magical Paraguay.

The novelty value of the rules was palpable with these folks.  They wanted to see what they could do.  Exploring the possibilities of the system leads to chaos because those possibilities are so endless.  Which ... okay, cool!  We all had fun.  It was a freakin' blast and I don't think I'm ever going to get tired of such games.  But ... it wasn't like the later games.  You'll see what I mean.

The second session of Capes, this time with experienced (though new-to-me) hands:  Star-Spangled Barbed-Wire Punch

These folks were just workin' the rules like crazy-cakes.  I personally liked the story that resulted very much, but I don't know how much of it was rules familiarity and how much of it was other factors.

The third session of Capes was packed with crunchy, theory-driving goodness.  I'm unpacking it bit by bit.  You can hear about our moment of populist unity in:  I don't save the people ... the people save me.

I don't even know how to talk about this session yet.  It is going to be my go-to game for describing a lot of things in the future.  It was potent, and funny, and directed and fast-paced.  The second session (above) would have made for a good comic book.  This third session would have made for three good comic books, each with a very different tone, but each really cool.  We just got so much done, it was amazing.

Third session, second AP post:  Fighting about what we're fighting about.

An entirely different scene from the previous one ... more intricate and weaving, but no less structured.  It was sorta neat, but I felt like I didn't quite have the mental tools in my kit to deal with it properly.  Hopefully other people have more experience, and can chime in with some tips.

Third session, third AP post:  Owning your tragedy.

Very topical to current discussions, as it turns out.  What happens when somebody proposes something you really, really don't want, and then jams it down your throat?  Do you recoil within your shell of apathy and say "No, that didn't happen, or if it did happen it happened differently, or if it did happen that way then I no longer care about that character"?  Or do you say "Oh God!  No!  Not Doc Cross!  He was only trying to do the right thing, and now look what's happened to him ... I will do my very best to give him a chance to try to fix ... oh GOD!  No!  Right in the face!  Oh the humanity!"

Sneak peek:  I recommend the latter.

And a general thought about The impact of judgment.

This whole idea of giving the RPG a "score" means that I'm telling people (right to their face) "Well, you played a good game, but this other guy played even better."  That's awkward.