Topic: Does Capes need a GM?
Started by: Hans
Started on: 7/24/2006
Board: Muse of Fire Games
On 7/24/2006 at 4:08pm, Hans wrote:
Does Capes need a GM?
Does Capse need a GM? Sindyr said elsewhere...
Sindyr wrote:
-All games, in fact all social activities have a Social Contract.
-What makes D&D not broken ultimately is that D&D assigns ultimate authority to resolve all issues to a single individual. This takes ANY hole in the system and patches it with that single rule. Of course, as much as possible, D&D's authors try to avoid making you use it by trying to have fewer holes.
-Capes has no central authority and proposes absolutely no mechanism for what to do when things break down. Because the Capes rules allow as valid play nigh instant retconning of any won conflict, the Capes rules alone would tend to result in continual and never ending break-downs - which is what I mean when I say it is "incomplete" as it stands and if used only as written would result in "broken play"
-Capes could "fix" this in different ways, including rules for challenging and ruling on valid play that some in the group nevertheless don't like, or rules for creating constraints on future narrations based on the conflicts that have been won in the past.
-Or Capes could simply have no fix for this problem, forcing the players to fix it themselves within the higher level of the Social Contract. (Or with house mods, which of course drifts Capes.)
I bolded the section that I find particularly interesting, mostly because I disagree with it so completely. The rules of a game with a GM give the GM a lot of authority, no doubt about it. However, the rules of any RPG cannot give any one person the right to resolve "all issues". Regardless of what the actual text says, this authority is invested in the GM by the players, not the rules. That investment may be as simple as "we all agree to play this game instead of another one", but it is still there. The "instant retconning" described above still occurs. It just is the priviledge of only one player, the GM; think of all the "fudge the rolls to make things come out right" rules in many books.
Moreover, a game with a GM still requires trust. First, you have to trust the GM to do whatever it is you have invested in him the authority to do. This could be just making sure rules disputes don't happen, or it could be guiding the game story with an iron fist, depending on the group. Think about a total party kill in a D&D game. To some people, this could be a perfectly reasonable thing to have happen, but to some people this could only be interpreted as a failure on the GM's part to do one of the things they have the authority to do (keep people alive so the story can move forward). You also have to trust the GM's veto; that is, you have trust that the GM won't tell you you CAN'T do something that seems reasonable to you. (This is essentially the opposite concern of Capes, where you have to trust people to not to abuse your lack of veto.) How many times have we all seen someone say "my character does X" and the GM say "sorry, you can't, X isn't allowed per your alignment/disadvantages/beliefs/whatever". It takes a lot of trust to let someone do that, and I have seen games break up over the issue.
But you also still have to trust the other players. Two examples, from my own gaming past. College, my first D&D game in 6 years. We all sit down to play, and my friend Chris plays a thief. Me, I'm all about the team challenge; as a GM for my own Traveller games, the players were always team players. First treasure horde we find, Chris's character is trying to pick my pocket. I say "What's up with that? We are a TEAM!" But the GM says "its not against the rules" and I sit there muttering. Or, later in college, playing in a Marvel Super Heroes game. My friend Leigh is playing Captain America. To say that Leigh is an iconclast doesn't begin to describe it. Within moments, she has Captain America is inflitrating a gay bar in leather chaps and doing...other stuff. Hans, the comics purist and prude says "WHAT?! Its Captain freaking America!?" To which, the GM replies "its not against the rules" and I sit there muttering. Were Leigh and Chris wrong? Of course not! No one was right or wrong; we just wanted different things from the game, and none of us had the context or foresight to make that clear before we started. If anything, I was wrong for being such a bad sport.
Did the GM "resolve" the issue? Well, I suppose in one sense he did; his resolution was essentially "Hans, I will do nothing to protect your vision of the way this game should go, like it or get lost!" But in reality this was a group decision, not one strictly by the GM. In the first case, only Chris and the GM were interested in playing a game where PC's can steal from other PC's, and the game folded after one session. In the 2nd case, I was the odd man out, and after I left the game continued on merrily in its comics icon destroying path for a number of other sessions.
So, bottom line, I guess, is that I simply do not agree that the advantage described above by Sindyr is really an advantage, or even remotely the reason one needs a GM in a game.
That being said, there ARE potent advantages to having a GM. Here is a short list, I'm sure there are more.
* It is convenient to have all the bookkeeping associated with the game centralized in one person.
* It is useful to centralize the fiction associated with everyone else in the world besides the PC's in one person. This allows for immersion into one character that is a lot of fun. It lets the other players really concentrate on developing just the one character over the long term, while the GM provides the adversity against which their character improves.
* It allows for "challenge" gaming; the classic dungeon crawl, for example, where it is the PC's versus the scenario.
* It is a good idea to have a central authority that everyone agrees has the final say regarding the rules.
I will say that Capes CAN be better if the first and last items above are centralized. Specifically, I think it is very useful if there is one person who everyone agrees is the rules expert, and who has final say if there is some question about the rules. This is especially important early on, when everyone is learning the rules. Also, the bookeeping thing...in our own group it was very convenient, I think, that I was sort of the group secretary, and kept tract of all the character sheets, goals/events, etc.
But the middle two points above simply aren't what Capes is about; there are plenty of other good games out there that do those things, why make Capes do it as well?
On 7/24/2006 at 4:18pm, Sindyr wrote:
Re: Does Capes need a GM?
This subject is not of passionate interest to me, so I will post my thoghts and move on:
Capes does not need a GM.
-It works fine once the element of the Social Contract is brought in to fill the gaps.
-Having a single GM destroys the fundamental equality of players in Capes, a foundational part.
-Potentially have a ruleset covering a majority rules *board* of all the players to formally settle disputes might be useful.
-Capes as shown in this thread:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20489.msg213837#msg213837
... has a built in problem:
Capes chose the simpler approach. Capes chooses to make no rules contraining narrations to be contrained in anyway by past resolved conflicts. This was I think a very shrewd choice, because rule or no rule, no player is going to let another narrate away or retcon the effects of the conflict he fought for and won, no matter how valid the play is.
This problem does not necissitate a GM, though it *does* demand a solution, which must be one of the following:
a) A formal authority that can be appealed to, that can render judgements ("a majority rules *board* of all the players")
b) A informal authority that indirectly and with no formal validity renders judgements (Social Contract: "He's a jerk, we're never gonna play with him again.")
c) A rule modification or addition to remove the frequent problem by coevering it directly within the ruleset.
That's all I have to say.
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 20489
On 7/24/2006 at 4:37pm, Gaerik wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
Sindyr wrote:Capes chose the simpler approach. Capes chooses to make no rules contraining narrations to be contrained in anyway by past resolved conflicts. This was I think a very shrewd choice, because rule or no rule, no player is going to let another narrate away or retcon the effects of the conflict he fought for and won, no matter how valid the play is.
This problem does not necissitate a GM, though it *does* demand a solution, which must be one of the following:
a) A formal authority that can be appealed to, that can render judgements ("a majority rules *board* of all the players")
b) A informal authority that indirectly and with no formal validity renders judgements (Social Contract: "He's a jerk, we're never gonna play with him again.")
c) A rule modification or addition to remove the frequent problem by coevering it directly within the ruleset.
Capes has a rule for this. The rule is that you cannot constrain someone else's narration after the removal of a Conflict. That is the rule. It deals with the issue. The problem is that you don't like the rule. That's fine. We all get that you don't like the rule. What we won't acknowledge is that Capes doesn't deal with the issue or that Capes method of dealing with the issue is broken.
On 7/24/2006 at 4:38pm, Hans wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
Good gad, I just noticed I posted another book length post! Ok, two paragraph max for me for a while. Geez.
On 7/24/2006 at 5:08pm, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
Andrew wrote:
Capes has a rule for this. The rule is that you cannot constrain someone else's narration after the removal of a Conflict. That is the rule. It deals with the issue. The problem is that you don't like the rule. That's fine. We all get that you don't like the rule. What we won't acknowledge is that Capes doesn't deal with the issue or that Capes method of dealing with the issue is broken.
Wrong. Correction: I am *fine* with that rule. OK? (shakes head, laughs)
However I am simply pointing out in practice is that very few if anyone actually permits this rule to be followed. The Social Contract of almost every Capes game I have heard of prevents retconning. Period. (And with good reason.)
On 7/24/2006 at 5:34pm, Tuxboy wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
Retconning is a crutch that can be replaced by Conflict creation in the normal course of events. I've always hated it.
Athough retconning is also a tool in the case of dealing with some asshat narration of a previous Conflict, but it should really never get to that stage as the popcorn throwing should start at the point that the winning narrator crosses the line and then the negotiation can begin.
Rules should never replace reason...There is a major difference between:
A: You lost!
B: No I didn't...you did!
and
A: You're dead!
B: My body is crushed, but there is still a spark of life in me.
C: I'll wrap him in the Mystic Shroud of Hippocrates and rush him to the hospital!
On 7/24/2006 at 5:51pm, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
I agree - however, you first example is either implicitly or explicitly (people keep telling me different things) permitted by the Capes rules - and results in broken play.
On 7/24/2006 at 5:54pm, Gaerik wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
Sindyr wrote:Andrew wrote:
Capes has a rule for this. The rule is that you cannot constrain someone else's narration after the removal of a Conflict. That is the rule. It deals with the issue. The problem is that you don't like the rule. That's fine. We all get that you don't like the rule. What we won't acknowledge is that Capes doesn't deal with the issue or that Capes method of dealing with the issue is broken.
Wrong. Correction: I am *fine* with that rule. OK? (shakes head, laughs)
However I am simply pointing out in practice is that very few if anyone actually permits this rule to be followed. The Social Contract of almost every Capes game I have heard of prevents retconning. Period. (And with good reason.)
Ah. Okay. That works for me then. I misunderstood and somehow thought you were saying that the rule was broken. My bad. I agree that most of the time people don't just retcon actions in practice. I've run across it a few times though. None of the instances actually broke the game or made it unenjoyable but it it did require that I stretch my tolerance a little. I would also like to point out that the only times I've run into this at all has been with new players. I have a feeling that it is the result of them testing out just how free they are with the game. Once the initial stretching of the wings occurred and had been experienced, the issue never came back up.
On 7/24/2006 at 5:55pm, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
Tuxboy wrote:
A: You're dead!
B: My body is crushed, but there is still a spark of life in me.
C: I'll wrap him in the Mystic Shroud of Hippocrates and rush him to the hospital!
Also, in truth if the player won a conflict that did indeed result in a death, for B to contest a spark of life remains is still significant retconning, it still negates the outcome that was narrated, and depending on the group, may indeed severely violate the social contract, no matter how clever and interesting it is.
In fact, that is the hope - you know you are retconning and that the other player will be pissed, but you hope the *way* you are retconning gets the other players on your side so that you can overturn the results of the other player's victory without being reprimanded by the social contract.
When you think about it, it feels a little slimey to me - like saying that being popular (for this retcom) means that the implicit social contract rules apply to you differently. There's an inequality there that seems ugly to me.
On 7/24/2006 at 6:28pm, TonyLB wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
That is because, as usual, you are ignoring the structure that the rules places on that.
A wins "Goal: Kill Captain Comet dead!" gaining a 5, 3 and 2 Inspiration.
B then says "Captain Comet is dead ... technically, but there is a spark of life which may yet be revived."
A smiles. "Go for it. I'm playing 'Goal: Revive Captain Comet.' Plow in the 2 Inspiration, stake two debt, split, play the five and the three. It's now eight to one against you."
If they do not play that it is because they do not care enough to keep him dead. Which is also fine. Sometime you just want to kill somebody because they deserve a heaping helping of hot steaming death, not because you want to remove the character from the game.
On 7/24/2006 at 8:33pm, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
You are contradicting yourself - either he is dead or he isn't.
Playing word games like this is clearly beneath you - you have many better debating tactics. I know.
On 7/24/2006 at 8:44pm, Gaerik wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
It's Comic Books, Sindyr. Dead people come back to life all the time. It's almost mandatory. Should we count the number of times it has happened? So, Tony is correct. As long as Player A wants to keep paying to keep Character A dead, he has a good chance of doing so. At least an equitable chance. When he doesn't care enough anymore, someone can bring the character back.
That's not a contradiction.
On 7/24/2006 at 8:55pm, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
If what you were saying was true, then people wouldn't be raising the spectre of being called an "asshat" for immediate retconning.
But they did. Can't have it both ways.
On 7/24/2006 at 9:38pm, TonyLB wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
Sindyr wrote:
If what you were saying was true, then people wouldn't be raising the spectre of being called an "asshat" for immediate retconning.
Yeah, if what Andrew were saying was valid then Tuxboy wouldn't be saying something else.
Wait ... are you sure that's right? It looks kind of funny.
On 7/24/2006 at 9:42pm, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
TonyLB wrote:Sindyr wrote:
If what you were saying was true, then people wouldn't be raising the spectre of being called an "asshat" for immediate retconning.
Yeah, if what Andrew were saying was valid then Tuxboy wouldn't be saying something else.
Wait ... are you sure that's right? It looks kind of funny.
I am sure what I said is correct, yes. Andrew is claiming that retconning is valid and acceptable, while some else (Tuxboy?) claimed it was valid and unnacceptable.
Therein the problem lies.
On 7/24/2006 at 9:43pm, TonyLB wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
Because ... they're not allowed to think differently?
On 7/24/2006 at 9:45pm, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
Well, apparently they can't play Capes together.
On 7/24/2006 at 10:02pm, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
To clarify: most people seem to find unlimited and uncontrained retconning abusive and intolerable.
In as much as that is true, my comments stand.
If one however can accept it as tolerable, then the above comments may not apply to one. For example, if after every conflict Andrew wins, I immediately, without even creating a conflict, find a way to free narrate the retconning of Andrew's conflict, but yet no player at the objects or minds, than what I said above does not apply.
If that is not the case however, then everything I said above is underlined.
On 7/24/2006 at 10:04pm, joshua neff wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
Personally, in the playing of Capes, I would have absolutely no problem with characters declared "dead" through narration returning into play--"You thought I was dead, but you were wrong!" or "I was dead, but I made a deal with a demon, and now I'm back!" or whatever. That's a tried & true superhero cliche.
On 7/24/2006 at 10:20pm, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
Yes, but would you have a problem if you (as Nekro) won the Conflict: Nekro kills the Guardian, and in your victory narrate Nekro's ultimate defeat of the Guardian, and at the next available moment for narration the Guardian's player simply unimaginatively says "...and by the way, the Guardian is here and was never defeated by Nekro" without even playing a conflict? And expects to be taken seriously?
So would I. And therein lies my point - Capes permits this. Only the Social Contract does not.
On 7/24/2006 at 10:22pm, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
Yes, but would you have a problem if you (as Nekro) won the Conflict: Nekro kills the Guardian, and in your victory narrate Nekro's ultimate defeat of the Guardian, and at the next available moment for narration the Guardian's player simply unimaginatively says "...and by the way, the Guardian is here and was never defeated by Nekro" without even playing a conflict? And expects to be taken seriously?
So would I. And therein lies my point - Capes permits this. Only the Social Contract does not.
On 7/24/2006 at 10:30pm, TonyLB wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
Sindyr wrote:
So would I. And therein lies my point - Capes permits this. Only the Social Contract does not.
By the way, if there's anyone other than Sindyr who doesn't see why heavy retcon is abyssmally unsound strategy, please speak up. It's hard to tell where there's widespread confusion, and where there's just Sindyr.
On 7/24/2006 at 10:41pm, joshua neff wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
TonyLB wrote:Sindyr wrote:
So would I. And therein lies my point - Capes permits this. Only the Social Contract does not.
By the way, if there's anyone other than Sindyr who doesn't see why heavy retcon is abyssmally unsound strategy, please speak up. It's hard to tell where there's widespread confusion, and where there's just Sindyr.
Well, I see a huge difference between:
1) Nekros kills Captain Alpha dead. Another player then brings Captain Alpha back later, with the explanation, "Yes, I was dead. But I went through a profound mystical journey through the Other Realm and realized my work here wasn't done. Now I've returned, but...changed."
...and...
2) Nekros kills Captain Alpha dead. The next scene, another player says, "I'm playing Captain Alpha." "But I killed him last scene!" "Yeah, whatever! The Capes rules don't say I can't do this, so I'm playing Captain Alpha--as if nothing had ever happened! Eat it, sucker!"
On 7/24/2006 at 10:45pm, TonyLB wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
I particularly like option #1 if you actually play out Captain Alpha's profound mystical journey, so as to allow people who (say) don't want him back to have their say.
On 7/24/2006 at 11:33pm, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
joshua wrote:TonyLB wrote:Sindyr wrote:
So would I. And therein lies my point - Capes permits this. Only the Social Contract does not.
By the way, if there's anyone other than Sindyr who doesn't see why heavy retcon is abyssmally unsound strategy, please speak up. It's hard to tell where there's widespread confusion, and where there's just Sindyr.
Well, I see a huge difference between:
1) Nekros kills Captain Alpha dead. Another player then brings Captain Alpha back later, with the explanation, "Yes, I was dead. But I went through a profound mystical journey through the Other Realm and realized my work here wasn't done. Now I've returned, but...changed."
...and...
2) Nekros kills Captain Alpha dead. The next scene, another player says, "I'm playing Captain Alpha." "But I killed him last scene!" "Yeah, whatever! The Capes rules don't say I can't do this, so I'm playing Captain Alpha--as if nothing had ever happened! Eat it, sucker!"
Well it's nice that you see a huge difference, but my point is that Capes does not. Without the social contract, both are equally valid forms of Capes play.
On 7/24/2006 at 11:36pm, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
TonyLB wrote:
I particularly like option #1 if you actually play out Captain Alpha's profound mystical journey, so as to allow people who (say) don't want him back to have their say.
This is what the social contract generally permits. However, if you don't play out his mystical jouney and do not allow anyone that doesn't want him back to have a say, under the Capes rules alone you would be committing equally valid and acceptable play.
The only difference is in the social contract. Which Capes needs desperately in order to function without devolution, more so than most RPGs.
On 7/25/2006 at 12:28am, TonyLB wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
And, Joshua ... you get why the one where (a) there's more recognition of the importance of the "Kill Captain Alpha" conflict and (b) there's more "grip" for other players to get in on is better strategy, right?
On 7/25/2006 at 1:10am, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
TonyLB wrote:
And, Joshua ... you get why the one where (a) there's more recognition of the importance of the "Kill Captain Alpha" conflict and (b) there's more "grip" for other players to get in on is better strategy, right?
Because if you don't... well, let's not go there.
Of course the importance of the Kill Captain Alpha conflict is vastly reduced if immediate, total, and uncontestable retcons are permitted. Something I am not in favor of.
On 7/25/2006 at 2:12am, TonyLB wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
Sindyr wrote:
Because if you don't... well, let's not go there.
Of course the importance of the Kill Captain Alpha conflict is vastly reduced if immediate, total, and uncontestable retcons are permitted. Something I am not in favor of.
Sindyr, I am specifically talking to Joshua. Like I said, your constant hammering home of your own personal opinions is starting to make it hard for me to provide support to ... oh ... anybody else. I'm trying to address that in a sociable way, still leaving this channel open for you to talk on when somebody is talking to you, or talking generally. But at the same time, I need you to leave some room for other people to have discussions that are not all about you.
On 7/25/2006 at 12:33pm, joshua neff wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
TonyLB wrote:
And, Joshua ... you get why the one where (a) there's more recognition of the importance of the "Kill Captain Alpha" conflict and (b) there's more "grip" for other players to get in on is better strategy, right?
Well, it seems to me (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong--I've only played Capes Lite twice now) that the conflict that is more recognized and grabby means more players really getting involved, probably staking Debt. When the conflict resolves, people will be getting Inspirations and Story Tokens--and people will likely build conflicts off of that grabby conflict. (At least, that's what's happened when we've played. Conflicts that people got invested in spawn new conflicts, while conflicts people weren't all that interested in got quickly resolved and then forgotten about.)
Is that what you were asking?
On 7/25/2006 at 12:49pm, TonyLB wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
Yep!
On 7/25/2006 at 3:10pm, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
TonyLB wrote:Sindyr wrote:
Because if you don't... well, let's not go there.
Of course the importance of the Kill Captain Alpha conflict is vastly reduced if immediate, total, and uncontestable retcons are permitted. Something I am not in favor of.
Sindyr, I am specifically talking to Joshua. Like I said, your constant hammering home of your own personal opinions is starting to make it hard for me to provide support to ... oh ... anybody else. I'm trying to address that in a sociable way, still leaving this channel open for you to talk on when somebody is talking to you, or talking generally. But at the same time, I need you to leave some room for other people to have discussions that are not all about you.
Then I will ask you to return the favor and not insert yourself into a running conversations with others that I have been having, which you have done recently at least once or twice.
On 7/25/2006 at 5:23pm, TonyLB wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
Sindyr wrote:
Then I will ask you to return the favor and not insert yourself into a running conversations with others that I have been having, which you have done recently at least once or twice.
My boards, my responsibility. I feel strongly that occasionally making you pause for breath so that other people can get a word in edge-wise is a priority. I don't feel anywhere near as strongly that giving you more room to express yourself on the forum is a priority. Request denied.
On 7/25/2006 at 9:40pm, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
TonyLB wrote:Sindyr wrote:
Then I will ask you to return the favor and not insert yourself into a running conversations with others that I have been having, which you have done recently at least once or twice.
My boards, my responsibility. I feel strongly that occasionally making you pause for breath so that other people can get a word in edge-wise is a priority. I don't feel anywhere near as strongly that giving you more room to express yourself on the forum is a priority. Request denied.
Your boards, your fiat. I was fairly sure you would use this tactic, as it was the only one left. I just wanted to make sure that everyone sees you using your mod powers to insert yourself into my conversations while denying others the right to do the same to you in turn. That what carried the day today wasn't reason, or persuasion, or being right or correct. You get your way in this because you are the mod, regardless of how incorrect (imo) you are.
I will give you praise though in that most mods use their power to shut down those that philosophically oppose them with far more frequency. I think this is the first occasion I can recall where you have felt it necessary to retreat into your "mod power" stance to get what you wanted while preventing me from pursuing a course I felt as justified.
So, while I am happy that this is now a matter of public record - that you will correct others when you feel it necessary without allowing them to correct you when they it is necessary, and the use of the Appeal to Force fallacy that follows - I have to be fair and say this is the first time in the months I have been here when I have seen you use this unfortunate tactic.
Hopefully it will be the last.
I will of course endeavor to follow your directive, as I have no choice, and not "insert" myself into these (private?) conversations.
I will however quote a recent post of yours when someone else did exactly the same thing as I, and wondered if his insertion was innapropriate, you replied:
Nah. If it were a private conversation then we'd be having it in private, right?
Nice ideals, if you can keep to them.
On 7/25/2006 at 9:54pm, TonyLB wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
Sindyr wrote:
I will of course endeavor to follow your directive, as I have no choice, and not "insert" myself into these (private?) conversations.
Dude, of course you have a choice. If I'd been modding you I'd have modded you.
If you're content to say "Well, Tony asked me to give other people a chance to talk, but I don't wanna!" then go right ahead and keep interrupting. I don't think that'd call for moderation on my part. Merciless mocking you would be way more fun and much more effective.
On 7/25/2006 at 10:54pm, LemmingLord wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
Sindyr wrote: Your boards, your fiat. I was fairly sure you would use this tactic, as it was the only one left. I just wanted to make sure that everyone sees you using your mod powers to insert yourself into my conversations while denying others the right to do the same to you in turn. That what carried the day today wasn't reason, or persuasion, or being right or correct. You get your way in this because you are the mod, regardless of how incorrect (imo) you are.
Since you are going off topic to discuss people rather than the issues at hand, I hope you won't mind an additional person butting in to your private conversation held in a public forum..hehehe
It is actually quite appropriate to discuss the power of our moderator; the question: "Does Capes Need a GM?" is very similiar to the question "Does the Capes Forum Need a Moderator?"
I think the answer to the first is, "No."
You play capes with the expectation that everyone you are playing with has a full partnership with what's going on; while I like the idea of electing someone as the rules expert of the group, capes is designed for people to step on one another's toes...Its the focus of the game.
The answer to the second is,"Yes."
You join a forum with the expectation that people stay on topic and the only way to insure that is to give one or more users special authority.
Since Tony is the Mod around here and the designer of the game for which the forum was created, his authority may be prone to a certain amount of abuse.. Just as when you play an RPG with a GM they will be prone to abusing their power... These are the prices you have to pay.
On a similiar note, the price for hearing out everone's good ideas is sometimes to listen to people whine too much. Waa waa waa, the moderator's abusing his powers... This may also happen in capes.. I've had my fellow players do the same thing, waa waa waa, that's not in the rules, my character should have been able to do that, my character could never have been surprised...waa waa waa.
I hope if I play capes with these kinds of players they will not whine so much since they are as empowered to take full responsibility for what occurs.
On 7/26/2006 at 12:52am, joshua neff wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
Sindyr wrote: Your boards, your fiat.
That's exactly right. This is Tony's forum (hosted benevolently by Ron and Clinton). Tony's under no obligation to provide a forum. He's under no obligation to answer people's questions, to respond to people's arguments, or to rise to the bait people dangle before him. Is it good business sense to provide a forum? Well, for most of commercial history, there was no such thing as a public forum where on could have conversations with the "owner" and business didn't seem to suffer from that lack. Of course, from a cluetrain perspective, it makes perfect sense these days to have a public forum in which the owner and/or employees of a business interact with their customers and speak in their normal voice (rather than in stilted, evasive "business-speak"). It seems to me, that's exactly what Tony (and the other mods on the Forge) are doing: holding conversations with their customers and speaking in their real voices.
But yes, this is essentially Tony's house. It runs by his rules. That's the price you pay by coming here.
But this is really off-topic for the thread. So, this should probably be dropped. (But in the end, that's up to Tony.)
On 7/26/2006 at 10:14am, Tuxboy wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
Quote from: Tuxboy on July 24, 2006, 10:34:01 AM
A: You're dead!
B: My body is crushed, but there is still a spark of life in me.
C: I'll wrap him in the Mystic Shroud of Hippocrates and rush him to the hospital!
Also, in truth if the player won a conflict that did indeed result in a death, for B to contest a spark of life remains is still significant retconning, it still negates the outcome that was narrated, and depending on the group, may indeed severely violate the social contract, no matter how clever and interesting it is.
In fact, that is the hope - you know you are retconning and that the other player will be pissed, but you hope the *way* you are retconning gets the other players on your side so that you can overturn the results of the other player's victory without being reprimanded by the social contract.
When you think about it, it feels a little slimey to me - like saying that being popular (for this retcom) means that the implicit social contract rules apply to you differently. There's an inequality there that seems ugly to me.
The second example I gave was tied directly to the asshat resolution of a Conflict, like Goal: Captain Carbunkle tastes defeat, being narrated as "The building falls on the Captain, crushing him and killing him instantly" which is not the resolution of the tabled conflict.
If the popcorn throwing and "Stop being an asshat" comments didn't change the narration to something more acceptable then I would feel the retcon would be acceptable.
Under normal circumstances retcons do not happen with any frequency in the games I have played, and only in extreme circumstances or through particularly fine narration that takes the plot in interesting directions, and usually they are accompanied by a relevant Conflict.
On 7/26/2006 at 10:42am, Tuxboy wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
Well, I see a huge difference between:
1) Nekros kills Captain Alpha dead. Another player then brings Captain Alpha back later, with the explanation, "Yes, I was dead. But I went through a profound mystical journey through the Other Realm and realized my work here wasn't done. Now I've returned, but...changed."
...and...
2) Nekros kills Captain Alpha dead. The next scene, another player says, "I'm playing Captain Alpha." "But I killed him last scene!" "Yeah, whatever! The Capes rules don't say I can't do this, so I'm playing Captain Alpha--as if nothing had ever happened! Eat it, sucker!"
These are excellent examples of what I was saying.
The second is advanced asshattery and should not be tolerated...it may well be legal and valid by the literal interpretation of the rules but is certainly unacceptable in terms of the gaming experience.
The first takes the game in an interesting direction and even more so if played out through Conflicts and could really add hugely to the story and i for one would love to play the obstacles that the good Captain faces on his mystical journey.
Kindergarden "you're dead, no I'm not you are" arguments have no place round any gaming table and IME they rarely if ever happen round a Capes table, and if they do then the players are quite capable of dealing with it and solving the issue.
On 7/26/2006 at 1:02pm, TonyLB wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
Tuxboy wrote:
The second is advanced asshattery and should not be tolerated...it may well be legal and valid by the literal interpretation of the rules but is certainly unacceptable in terms of the gaming experience.
And, see, I feel totally empowered (by the rules and my own creativity) to deal with the second one, so it doesn't bother me. After all, if the Capes rules give this guy the ability to say "Well, that wasn't really me that died," then they similarly give me the ability to say "Well, that isn't really you right in front of us."
"But ... I saw you die! How can this be?" followed by "Goal: Discover that the reborn Captain Alpha is actually a robot doppelganger created by Stagemaster," sounds like a fun way to play things. Oh, the heart-break! We thought we had him back, but now we must grieve him all over again!
If I can draw a distinction: I think that the actual act of having the supposedly dead Captain Alpha walk back into the scene is morally neutral. It's a perfectly workable development, of the type that comic book authors employ all the time.
The attitude of not giving a hoot about the contributions of other people is not real fun to play with. But that attitude may be present, or may be absent, when a retcon occurs. I don't worry about the retcon itself. I worry about the attitude it may indicate.
On 7/26/2006 at 2:05pm, joshua neff wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
TonyLB wrote:Tuxboy wrote:
The second is advanced asshattery and should not be tolerated...it may well be legal and valid by the literal interpretation of the rules but is certainly unacceptable in terms of the gaming experience.
And, see, I feel totally empowered (by the rules and my own creativity) to deal with the second one, so it doesn't bother me. After all, if the Capes rules give this guy the ability to say "Well, that wasn't really me that died," then they similarly give me the ability to say "Well, that isn't really you right in front of us."
"But ... I saw you die! How can this be?" followed by "Goal: Discover that the reborn Captain Alpha is actually a robot doppelganger created by Stagemaster," sounds like a fun way to play things. Oh, the heart-break! We thought we had him back, but now we must grieve him all over again!
Tony, have you been reading old issues of Alpha Flight lately?
At any rate, that's a good point. Sindyr's arguments all seem to stem from "but what if someone I'm playing with is a jerk?" But the actual situation might very well be "what if everyone playing is trying to one-up each other, pushing each other to create a mad narrative?" No RPG needs a GM--that's a design choice (whether it was a conscious choice or an unconscious assumption that RPGs "should be" designed a certain way). Having a GM-player is just one way of distributing responsibility--it doesn't solve any problems in play, and it doesn't patch any perceived holes in the rules.
On 7/26/2006 at 2:10pm, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
TonyLB wrote:Sindyr wrote:
I will of course endeavor to follow your directive, as I have no choice, and not "insert" myself into these (private?) conversations.
Dude, of course you have a choice. If I'd been modding you I'd have modded you.
If you're content to say "Well, Tony asked me to give other people a chance to talk, but I don't wanna!" then go right ahead and keep interrupting. I don't think that'd call for moderation on my part. Merciless mocking you would be way more fun and much more effective.
You are a vicious mocker dude - which is no small disincentive. ;)
OK, I heard what you were saying as "If you insert yourself, I will delete/mod the offending post"
I was wrong.
My apologies.
We have such fundamental and seemingly irreconciliable differences of opinion, approach, etc - but I gotta admit that although I am not sure you could play a Capes game with me without trying to make me suffer and enjoying the domination of the moment, you are not in any way, shape, or form the ordinary alpha male, although sometimes I perceive you that way.
First of all you are about a million times more alpha then they.
But you continually surprise me be being a million times more fair as well.
Kudos to you.
On 7/26/2006 at 2:17pm, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
Tuxboy wrote: quote author=Tuxboy link=topic=20552.msg214286#msg214286 date=1153908877}
Under normal circumstances retcons do not happen with any frequency in the games I have played, and only in extreme circumstances or through particularly fine narration that takes the plot in interesting directions, and usually they are accompanied by a relevant Conflict.
Yes, I think that in most circumstances many people, and therefor, many groups feel that retconning is very against the Social Contract - and therefor, the SC being what it is, will tend to be supressed. This is in my mind the SC adding a vital element that makes Capes playable - more than say what the SC adds to a monopoly game.
In other words, if you play Capes with monopoly's SC, *everyone* would be retconning, and the game would be broken.
If you play monopoly with Capes's SC, it would still work, as both SC's include an element of "follow the rules of the game."
In this way I say Capes needs the SC a lot more than monopoly. After all, monopoly's ruleset does not encourage behaviour that would break the game without the SC, and Capes' does.
This is NOT a criticism, just a truth. Capes is still a great game and I inted to play it weekly. I repeat this for any who read into this that I am putting the game down, far from it. I am embracing it, and to do that I need to see it clearly, warts and all.
On 7/26/2006 at 2:18pm, Hans wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
Tuxboy wrote:
If the popcorn throwing and "Stop being an asshat" comments didn't change the narration to something more acceptable then I would feel the retcon would be acceptable.
Yes....yes....keep using the term "popcorn throwing"...my worldwide fame as the coiner of a RPG term is nearly complete! MWAHAHAHAHAHAH!
On 7/26/2006 at 2:23pm, Gaerik wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
Hans wrote:Tuxboy wrote:
If the popcorn throwing and "Stop being an asshat" comments didn't change the narration to something more acceptable then I would feel the retcon would be acceptable.
Yes....yes....keep using the term "popcorn throwing"...my worldwide fame as the coiner of a RPG term is nearly complete! MWAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Actually, I have a set of over-sized dice that I use for this purpose. They hurt worse than popcorn.
On 7/26/2006 at 2:24pm, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
joshua wrote:
At any rate, that's a good point. Sindyr's arguments all seem to stem from "but what if someone I'm playing with is a jerk?" But the actual situation might very well be "what if everyone playing is trying to one-up each other, pushing each other to create a mad narrative?" No RPG needs a GM--that's a design choice (whether it was a conscious choice or an unconscious assumption that RPGs "should be" designed a certain way). Having a GM-player is just one way of distributing responsibility--it doesn't solve any problems in play, and it doesn't patch any perceived holes in the rules.
I see how that's how my points may appear, but let me reassure you, I am not interested in the players at all in this conversation. I am interested in the theoretical underpinnings of Capes, and what choosing to NOT disallow retcons means, vis-a-vis the meaningfulness of fighting for and earning the right to narrate a conflict, and also in relation to Capes dependence on the Social Contract, which seems to be decidedly more than monopoly.
For me its a fascinating interplay where Capes and the SC intersect, and their interaction actually changes the fundamental gameplay one experiences in a way that isn't true for any other game I have encountered. It's very powerful and, if intended, very clever.
The only downside is that it can result in popularism triumphing over effort in certain circumstances - which can in such occassions completely deny the stronyl implied purpose of Capes itself. Unless the actual purpose of Capes is something altogether different.
On 7/26/2006 at 3:33pm, TonyLB wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
Sindyr wrote:
The only downside is that it can result in popularism triumphing over effort in certain circumstances - which can in such occassions completely deny the stronyl implied purpose of Capes itself. Unless the actual purpose of Capes is something altogether different.
Well, it sounds like you're saying "Sometimes you can try really hard, but people still don't like what you create, and the system doesn't care how hard you tried." Does that sound just about right?
On 7/26/2006 at 4:28pm, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
TonyLB wrote:Sindyr wrote:
The only downside is that it can result in popularism triumphing over effort in certain circumstances - which can in such occassions completely deny the stronyl implied purpose of Capes itself. Unless the actual purpose of Capes is something altogether different.
Well, it sounds like you're saying "Sometimes you can try really hard, but people still don't like what you create, and the system doesn't care how hard you tried." Does that sound just about right?
It sounds completely wrong - as in not what I said.
Sometimes people value the contribution based on how they value the person. The same reason why celebrities endorse prodects.
Why is Sindyr so terse and rude? Read the below topic with my apologies to find out:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=20593.0
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 20593
On 7/26/2006 at 5:17pm, TonyLB wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
Sindyr wrote:There's probably some of that, yeah. But, of course, it's a chicken-and-egg problem (possibly also a misattribution of causation to correlation ... hard to say).
Sometimes people value the contribution based on how they value the person. The same reason why celebrities endorse prodects.
Which is to say: Contributing things to the game that people appreciate is correlated with people liking and respecting you as a player. Totally agreed. That's observed phenomenon. Now ... why does it happen? What does the correlation mean about causation?
Does that mean "If I like and respect Joe as a player then therefore I will appreciate the things he contributes to the game"?
Does it mean "If I appreciate the things Joe contributes to the game then therefore I will like and respect him as a player"?
Does it mean "There is some third, yet-unmeasured, element that causes me to both like Joe's contributions and like him as a player?"
Or is the reality some middle ground, where there is a constant feedback back and forth?
On 7/26/2006 at 5:27pm, Bret Gillan wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
If this were a multiple choice, the answer would be all of the above. I think it'll be an interesting thing for me to pay attention to in actual play - how much does how I reward players seem tied to me liking them vs. how much I like their input into the game, and how much does their input affect my liking them, etc.
In the Dexcon game where it was me, Tony, and Fred, Tony was the only person that I'd ever met before, so that definitely made me cast more of an eye towards creating conflicts that involved and engaged him just because of a comfort thing. Fred, on the other, took my tokens by force and made himself impossible to be ignored and just generated some intense opposition to my Conflicts. And he took way more of my tokens than Tony did. Dave, being both an unknown and a pretty laid-back player, was barely engaged by me at all (which I feel bad about in retrospect).
And now, here's an interesting thing, I came away from the table feeling like I knew Fred better than I did Dave. I'm not saying I'd let him babysit my imaginary kids, but his contributions and opposition or that I liked him better than Dave, but I had a better sense of who he was.
Another thing to note is that, outside of game, my best friends-who-game are also people I click with really well in games. There is a direct correlation there. Is my friendship born out of good gaming experiences? Or does our friendship make us more likely to work well in games where we're gaming together?
Regardless, with respect to gaming I have something called "the beer test," which is simply "don't game with someone you wouldn't have a beer with."
Interesting stuff, thanks guys.
On 7/26/2006 at 5:35pm, Bret Gillan wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
Bret wrote:
In the Dexcon game where it was me, Tony, and Fred,
Poor Dave. I even forgot him when introducing the cast of players. I'm such an ass.
On 7/26/2006 at 5:41pm, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
TonyLB wrote:
Which is to say: Contributing things to the game that people appreciate is correlated with people liking and respecting you as a player. Totally agreed. That's observed phenomenon. Now ... why does it happen? What does the correlation mean about causation?
Does that mean "If I like and respect Joe as a player then therefore I will appreciate the things he contributes to the game"?
Does it mean "If I appreciate the things Joe contributes to the game then therefore I will like and respect him as a player"?
It can mean any of that. The truth is, you may sit down with someone you despise, love something he does in game, and reward him richly even though you do not like him as a person. You may also sit down with someone you like a great deal, and feel drawn to handing you resources over to him, even though objectively he is not doing much besides entertaining chit chat.
Popularity can defintely be a factor. It isn't always. But I would never blind myself to the fact that it happens. Just like beautiful women can get jobs that more qualified yet less attractive women don't.
It's a fact of life. It just has a greater impact in Capes than monopoly.
On 7/26/2006 at 5:43pm, Bret Gillan wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
Sindyr wrote:
It's a fact of life. It just has a greater impact in Capes than monopoly.
NO. Do you think if I'm looking to trade away my railroad Monopoly somehow makes me less likely to cut a deal with the person I like instead of the person I don't?
On 7/26/2006 at 5:51pm, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
Bret wrote:Sindyr wrote:
It's a fact of life. It just has a greater impact in Capes than monopoly.
NO. Do you think if I'm looking to trade away my railroad Monopoly somehow makes me less likely to cut a deal with the person I like instead of the person I don't?
I make no judgements about what you would do, but most people will in almost all cases sell to the person who is willing to pay them the most, unless doing so is tactically wrong, like they have the last one he needs to complete a set.
Capes is entirely more subjective, and therefor suffers more from what I am now going to call "the American Idol" effect.
On 7/26/2006 at 6:02pm, Bret Gillan wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
Sindyr, have you seen this effect in play? I mean, I already know the answer to that, but this is getting ridiculous. I have never seen any sort of "American Idol Effect" in any of the games I've run. Sindyr - I've run a lot of Capes games. I typically run 2-4 sessions at every con I attend as well as one-shots for friends. And I know you haven't seen this effect in play either.
Let me back my observation up with Actual Play. I sat down at a table of four people at Dexcon - Tony, Dave, Fred, and me - and I knew Tony. I like Tony. I didn't know either of them. Fred got nearly all of my tokens because he engaged me and created some great narrative. Using Tony's scoring system Fred won that game, and a lot of his resources came straight from me.
I didn't dislike Fred, but I can say I liked Tony more simply because I know Tony. How did he get all of my resources? How have I never seen someone have an unpleasant time at a table complaining that "the cool kids get all the tokens"? I'm not saying it's not a possible effect, but I think it is one small factor in a pile of factors that determine who gets the resources.
On 7/26/2006 at 6:09pm, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
Bret wrote:
Sindyr, have you seen this effect in play? I mean, I already know the answer to that, but this is getting ridiculous. I have never seen any sort of "American Idol Effect" in any of the games I've run. Sindyr - I've run a lot of Capes games. I typically run 2-4 sessions at every con I attend as well as one-shots for friends. And I know you haven't seen this effect in play either.
Let me back my observation up with Actual Play. I sat down at a table of four people at Dexcon - Tony, Dave, Fred, and me - and I knew Tony. I like Tony. I didn't know either of them. Fred got nearly all of my tokens because he engaged me and created some great narrative. Using Tony's scoring system Fred won that game, and a lot of his resources came straight from me.
I didn't dislike Fred, but I can say I liked Tony more simply because I know Tony. How did he get all of my resources? How have I never seen someone have an unpleasant time at a table complaining that "the cool kids get all the tokens"? I'm not saying it's not a possible effect, but I think it is one small factor in a pile of factors that determine who gets the resources.
It's entirely possible that the player's of Capes are self-selecting - that the people who know about Capes and choose to play it are one's that make an effort to break out of the standard subconscious reactions of the hoi polloi.
It's also possible that the American Idol effect is already occurring, but no one is noticing.
It's also possible that some as yet unmentioned counterforce prevents the above effect.
Finally, it is further possible that I am simply wrong.
I am not rulling out the last, or any other possibility yet.
What I do know if how people are in general. And I do know how Capes mechanically functions. Those two things should generally produce certain patterns. If they seem not to be, there is definately a reason. Just not sure what it is yet.
On 7/26/2006 at 6:16pm, Gaerik wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
Sindyr wrote:
What I do know if how people are in general. And I do know how Capes mechanically functions. Those two things should generally produce certain patterns. If they seem not to be, there is definately a reason. Just not sure what it is yet.
There are two possible reasons for this really.
1.) You don't understand people as well as you think.
2.) You don't understand how Capes functions as well as you think. (This doesn't mean you don't know the rules.)
Go play. Jeez. If you want to know why Capes doesn't produce the effect you think it should, go play. Play a lot. You'll probably figure it out. The reason is likely all the reasons everyone as been throwing at you for the last couple of months. Then again, you might run into someone (or a whole group) who actually exhibits the complete dysfunction that you are afraid of. That'd make an extremely interesting Actual Play post from you. I know I'd love to hear it.
On 7/26/2006 at 6:22pm, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
Andrew wrote:Sindyr wrote:
What I do know if how people are in general. And I do know how Capes mechanically functions. Those two things should generally produce certain patterns. If they seem not to be, there is definately a reason. Just not sure what it is yet.
There are two possible reasons for this really.
1.) You don't understand people as well as you think.
2.) You don't understand how Capes functions as well as you think. (This doesn't mean you don't know the rules.)
Go play. Jeez. If you want to know why Capes doesn't produce the effect you think it should, go play. Play a lot. You'll probably figure it out. The reason is likely all the reasons everyone as been throwing at you for the last couple of months. Then again, you might run into someone (or a whole group) who actually exhibits the complete dysfunction that you are afraid of. That'd make an extremely interesting Actual Play post from you. I know I'd love to hear it.
There are two main problems with your reply.
1) You don't admit that perhaps I am right.
2) You ignore all the effort I have posted about in search to find actual play.
Since the flood seems to have died down a little, let me be more specific:
a) Starting my own weekly local Capes group.
This is in process, just looking for approval from a non-profit to use their space.
b) Looking for VOIP games.
Major issue: me and my SO spend from 9:30PM on together, so any game would have to conclude by then. Otherwise am generally available from 9am to 9pm 7 days per week.
c) Attending Jiffycon, the only Capes con game close enough to me.
Not sure why that is not enough to some.
On 7/26/2006 at 6:30pm, Bret Gillan wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
The reason why that's not enough, Sindyr, is because you have yet to have any actual play experience though I appreciate your attempts to correct that. In the meantime, though, you keep doggedly asserting things that fly in the face of the actual play experiences of basically everyone in this forum, and you tell us that our actual play experiences do not justify our disagreement. What's left for us to do at that point but shrug and be like, "Dude. Play for yourself and get back to us."?
On 7/26/2006 at 6:31pm, Gaerik wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
Sindyr,
I'm not saying that this isn't enough. I'm happy you're doing all that. My point is that maybe you should hold off throwing all this stuff onto the forums until you actually have some experience to back up what you are theorizing. I'm not entertaining the fact that you might be right because in hundreds of reported games of Capes, the problems and issues you think should arise, don't come up. You have very little experience but even what you have doesn't seem to support your posts very much. I've read them all. I don't want you not to post. I don't want to squash your enthusiasm for the game. I just think you should slow down, participate without hijacking the whole forum, and get some play experience. THEN... if you find a problem in play that is consistent, I think all of us here would love to hear about it and comment on it. We'll all certainly give your arguments a whole lot more weight with Actual Play examples backing them up. Until then, all your posts about theoretical problems is just a bunch of mental masterbation, energetic perhaps but ultimately unproductive.
On 7/26/2006 at 6:37pm, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
Bret wrote:
The reason why that's not enough, Sindyr, is because you have yet to have any actual play experience though I appreciate your attempts to correct that. In the meantime, though, you keep doggedly asserting things that fly in the face of the actual play experiences of basically everyone in this forum, and you tell us that our actual play experiences do not justify our disagreement. What's left for us to do at that point but shrug and be like, "Dude. Play for yourself and get back to us."?
You raise a valid point - I do not think there is anything wrong with simply shrugging and saying "Dude, I am not seeing this in my play"
However, I do not find any validity that discussion can not commence or continue in the absence of experience.
One does not always need to experience physically beating someone or being beaten by someone to be fully convinced that the act in general is wrong. Once can deduce things indirectly - if we weren't permitted to, science would know far less about the universe than we really do, through indirect deduction.
On 7/26/2006 at 6:39pm, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
Andrew wrote:
Sindyr,
I'm not saying that this isn't enough. I'm happy you're doing all that. My point is that maybe you should hold off throwing all this stuff onto the forums until you actually have some experience to back up what you are theorizing. I'm not entertaining the fact that you might be right because in hundreds of reported games of Capes, the problems and issues you think should arise, don't come up. You have very little experience but even what you have doesn't seem to support your posts very much. I've read them all. I don't want you not to post. I don't want to squash your enthusiasm for the game. I just think you should slow down, participate without hijacking the whole forum, and get some play experience. THEN... if you find a problem in play that is consistent, I think all of us here would love to hear about it and comment on it. We'll all certainly give your arguments a whole lot more weight with Actual Play examples backing them up. Until then, all your posts about theoretical problems is just a bunch of mental masterbation, energetic perhaps but ultimately unproductive.
My intent in posting is not to spend the rest of my day defending what I posted, but I am frquently nevertheless pushed into that position.
If people did not attack, then I would not feel obliged to defend.
And for the record, I think it is I who has been hijecked here, my time and energy. It certainly feels that way.
On 7/26/2006 at 6:41pm, xeperi wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
Sindyr wrote:Andrew wrote:
Then again, you might run into someone (or a whole group) who actually exhibits the complete dysfunction that you are afraid of. That'd make an extremely interesting Actual Play post from you. I know I'd love to hear it.
1) You don't admit that perhaps I am right.
He doesn't? I don't think he was being sarcastic. Maybe he feels it is unlikely that you will experience the extreme play you have postulated, but I think he's genuinely open to the possibility. I could be wrong.
Also, Sindyr - you are right that discussion can commence in the absence of experience as you say, but you seem to not be aware that the current Forge paradigm is to anchor all theory discussion in Actual Play. Ron, the founder of the Forge, actually closed down the pure theory forums in favor of Actual Play posts. So this is part of what you are hearing from people. On the whole the Forge has moved away from theory sans AP. My impression from other areas of the site is that you would have been modded long before now without AP posting to back up your theories, but Tony chooses to let things run differently in his neck of the woods. Again, just my impression.
Jason
On 7/26/2006 at 6:44pm, Bret Gillan wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
Sindyr wrote:
My intent in posting is not to spend the rest of my day defending what I posted, but I am frquently nevertheless pushed into that position.
If people did not attack, then I would not feel obliged to defend.
And for the record, I think it is I who has been hijecked here, my time and energy. It certainly feels that way.
Sindyr... we're not forcing you to post here. You are not being victimized by a forum full of meanies. You can walk away from the computer. You can choose not to post to threads anymore. I know it's hard, and I don't say that patronizingly, I've been pulled into many internet discussions, but you really can turn off your monitor and go outside and play with a puppy. Implying that we've "hijacked" you is putting us on the train to WACKYTOWN. ;)
On 7/26/2006 at 6:58pm, LemmingLord wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
Bret wrote:
Sindyr... we're not forcing you to post here. You are not being victimized by a forum full of meanies. You can walk away from the computer. You can choose not to post to threads anymore. I know it's hard, and I don't say that patronizingly, I've been pulled into many internet discussions, but you really can turn off your monitor and go outside and play with a puppy. Implying that we've "hijacked" you is putting us on the train to WACKYTOWN. ;)
Bret...I live in WACKYTOWN; you gotta problem with that?? ;)
Besides, I am foring Sindyr to post here using my MIND CONTROL of 4. I rolled a six; what can I say.
On 7/26/2006 at 7:00pm, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
R. wrote:
Also, Sindyr - you are right that discussion can commence in the absence of experience as you say, but you seem to not be aware that the current Forge paradigm is to anchor all theory discussion in Actual Play. Ron, the founder of the Forge, actually closed down the pure theory forums in favor of Actual Play posts. So this is part of what you are hearing from people. On the whole the Forge has moved away from theory sans AP. My impression from other areas of the site is that you would have been modded long before now without AP posting to back up your theories, but Tony chooses to let things run differently in his neck of the woods. Again, just my impression.
Jason
It is my strong opinion that preventing posts that do not refer to AP is downright wrong. It's just another way to shutdown and gag an argument, used by people who would rather not have to address theory. Instead, they gag the discussion.
Removing theoretical discussions is a BAD thing. But in line with the red state times.
If that horror some to this forum, then it too will kill much fruitful discussion and thinking.
Did I say it was BAD. Maybe I should have said STUPID.
Just my opinion of that philosophy. Require AP in EVERY discussion for conversation to be permitted is sick. It's like the famous quote about the library of alexanrdia:
According to legend, when the caliph Umar conquered Alexandria in the seventh century, he had the famous and vast library destroyed, saying that if the writings contained within were in agreement with the Koran, then they were redundant and therefore useless; if they disagree with the holy book of the Moslems, then they are blasphemous and must be burned. It turns out that this apocryphal story was not invented by critics of Islam but rather was created by Moslems of the twelfth century to justify the burning of other heretical texts.
Not the same act, but much the same spirit.
On 7/26/2006 at 7:01pm, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
Bret wrote:Sindyr wrote:
My intent in posting is not to spend the rest of my day defending what I posted, but I am frquently nevertheless pushed into that position.
If people did not attack, then I would not feel obliged to defend.
And for the record, I think it is I who has been hijecked here, my time and energy. It certainly feels that way.
Sindyr... we're not forcing you to post here. You are not being victimized by a forum full of meanies. You can walk away from the computer. You can choose not to post to threads anymore. I know it's hard, and I don't say that patronizingly, I've been pulled into many internet discussions, but you really can turn off your monitor and go outside and play with a puppy. Implying that we've "hijacked" you is putting us on the train to WACKYTOWN. ;)
I like to think that ideas and information has a certain life to them - and from time to time they need to be defended, not left out all alone.
On 7/26/2006 at 7:13pm, xeperi wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
Calling moderation of a private forum "wrong, bad, sick, stupid" and bringing some vague political allusion into it is questionable enough (especially given that at no time have you actually been moderated here), but comparing such moderation to the destruction of the Library of Alexandria is offensive to me. You are painting yourself as some sort of Capes martyr and I wash my hands of it. I will not contribute further to your "flood." Just hard to post around here without you thread-jumping and then telling us all how justified you were in doing so. Know that you have a chilling effect on discourse as I am discouraged from posting at all by this sort of thing and am likely not alone in my feeling.
I'm out for now.
Jason
On 7/26/2006 at 7:37pm, TonyLB wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
Sindyr wrote:
It is my strong opinion that preventing posts that do not refer to AP is downright wrong. It's just another way to shutdown and gag an argument, used by people who would rather not have to address theory. Instead, they gag the discussion.
Yeah, it is a gag.
Now, for the most part, it is intended to keep people from making arguments that have no substance, and thereafter getting the rhetorical shit kicked out of them by folks who have much better arguments. It is not a cage meant to keep the fearless lion from the broad savannah ... it's the kitty-gate that keeps your declawed house-cat from running away and getting gutted in a back alley somewhere.
That rule is in place on the main forum because Ron and Clinton are nice people, and want to protect posters from securing enough rope to hang themselves. And that's why you won't find that rule in this forum, because I'm not a nice person. I find the suffering people bring upon themselves to be good, solid entertainment.
On 7/26/2006 at 7:41pm, Gaerik wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
I like you Tony... in a very You Scare Me A Lot kind of way.
On 7/26/2006 at 7:43pm, TonyLB wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
R. wrote:
Just hard to post around here without you thread-jumping and then telling us all how justified you were in doing so. Know that you have a chilling effect on discourse as I am discouraged from posting at all by this sort of thing and am likely not alone in my feeling.
Y'know, if you just ignore Sindyr's posts it's generally pretty easy to have a useful conversation around them. When the volume of his irrelevancies spikes beyond a certain amount I step in, but he usually doesn't do that.
What usually happens, in fact, is that he says something and then people respond to him. For which, y'know, he's not solely to blame. Takes two to tango.
I hope that you'll post some topics of your own, and that we can all have a good conversation about them.
On 7/26/2006 at 7:55pm, xeperi wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
Of course you are correct, Tony, and I appreciate your comments. I'm still adjusting my sensitivities and filters here. I'm not going anywhere and do intend to continue posting. I'm setting up a time for a few of us here locally to do Capes Lite and I expect them to be riled to play the real deal afterwards, so I'll post AP on that.
Thanks,
Jason
On 7/26/2006 at 7:56pm, TonyLB wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
Rockin'!
(I will admit that, having watched a lot of Kim Possible, I am constantly tempted to substitute the phrase "Spankin'!" for "Rockin'!" If I ever do that by accident, just know that it doesn't ... y'know ... mean that you should ... that I wanted you to ... uh ... nevermind)
On 7/26/2006 at 7:57pm, Gaerik wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
Where are you located, Jason? I doubt it's close enough to me to actually join in but weirder things have happened.
On 7/26/2006 at 8:04pm, xeperi wrote:
RE: Re: Does Capes need a GM?
I'm near Philadelphia but in southern NJ. Most of the FLGS close at hand have closed but I have some long-time gaming buddies around here and my GF has gotten into gaming as well over the last couple of years. She's very into playing Capes with me and whoever I can scavenge.
I haven't been on the Foundry for a while, but internet gaming always has left me kinda cold for whatever reason anyway. I just like to chat on there once in a blue moon. Face to face RPGaming is where it's at when I can hack it.
Veering off-toping here though, drop me a PM if my location is feasible.
Jason
Spankin'?