Topic: Gloatable conflicts and appearances
Started by: Hans
Started on: 7/26/2006
Board: Muse of Fire Games
On 7/26/2006 at 2:42pm, Hans wrote:
Gloatable conflicts and appearances
Jason posted this little gem in another thread, and it dripped so much with coolness, I thought it worthy of separate discussion...my additions are in italics.
R. wrote:
Comics Code: "Captain America is a patriot and would never say anything to discount the nation, the flag or its founders."
Goal: Captain America appears in all his Aryan glory at an American National Socialist rally as a keynote speaker.
Comics Code: "Captain America gained his superpowers by taking the superserum."
Goal: Captain America was created using stolen German Technology from the Ubermensch Projekt.
Comics Code: "Captain America was frozen in ice in 1945 and aokwened without aging forty years later."
Goal: Captain America was captured, brainwashed and used as a top Red Agent during the Cold War, but hidden in the ice block after the USA nearly discovered his situation.
Oh, baby! Jason, every single one of these things blows my hair back. There is just one problem. Since they are conflicts, they end up getting resolved before the end of a scene and all of them could really be the plot line of a whole nights play.
Maybe they could be broken down in smaller, non-gloatable chunks that lead up to the big finish gloatable conflict. For example:
Event: A photograph that APPEARS to show Captain America at an American National Socialist rally is found.
Goal: The Red Skull CONVINCES Captain America he developed the superserum.
Event: The Crimson Dynamo tells Captain America a STORY about a mission they performed together in Irkutsk.
Note that none of these necessarily violate the Comics Code. They are all about appearances, impressions, and recollections, not what actually happened. As players we all know that the photograph is a fraud, the Red Skull is lying through his grinning gumless teeth and the Crimson Dynamo went on missions with a clone of Steve Rogers, and that before too long the truth will out.
It seems there is a lot of fertile ground here, even with more typical Comics Code restrictions:
CC: Good people are never responsible for anyone's death, even by omission.
Goal: Lex Luthor convinces the citizens of Metropolis that Superman killed a child with a thrown car.
CC: The Secret Identity of the hero will not be exposed
Event: The Daily Bugle has the headline "Spiderman's identity--revealed!"
What do you all think? In your own games, given the comics Code snippets Jason mentions, would the conflicts I listed above be gloatable? To me, they aren't, since they aren't establishing "facts" (whatever that means) in the game, but rather are establishing a characters INCORRECT perceptions about reality.
On 7/26/2006 at 2:53pm, Vaxalon wrote:
Re: Gloatable conflicts and appearances
1> yes, the conflicts COULD be the focus of a whole night's play, but if someone plays them clearly they don't WANT them to be the focus of a whole night's play, they want to get them in and out quickly.
2> yes, they COULD be broken down, but there's no way to force a player to do that aside from social-level methods like cajoling, begging, bargaining, threats or torture.
3> Personally, I find that comics code related gloats are best played when they're unambiguous. No, I don't think the conflicts you posit are gloatable, but wishy-washy conflicts like those don't hold much interest for me.
On 7/26/2006 at 2:59pm, Gaerik wrote:
RE: Re: Gloatable conflicts and appearances
Hans wrote:
Goal: The Red Skull CONVINCES Captain America he developed the superserum.
Event: The Crimson Dynamo tells Captain America a STORY about a mission they performed together in Irkutsk.
Goal: Lex Luthor convinces the citizens of Metropolis that Superman killed a child with a thrown car.
Event: The Daily Bugle has the headline "Spiderman's identity--revealed!"
Yeah, these are probably a little weak and may not even be gloatable. I'd think to get maximum effect from them they'd need to be rewritten as such...
Goal: The Red Skull develops the superserum.
Event: The Crimson Dynamo and Captain America perform a mission together in Irkutsk.
Goal: Superman kills a child with a thrown car.
Event: Spiderman's identity--revealed!
Now they are definately gloatable.
On 7/26/2006 at 3:02pm, Hans wrote:
RE: Re: Gloatable conflicts and appearances
Vaxalon wrote:
3> Personally, I find that comics code related gloats are best played when they're unambiguous. No, I don't think the conflicts you posit are gloatable, but wishy-washy conflicts like those don't hold much interest for me.
Wishy-washy...thats strong language, Fred. They seem very evocative to me, especially the "Lex Luthor convinces metropolis Superman is a killer one". Am I the odd man out, here? My track record on guessing what conflicts will build interest in Capes isn't fantastic, so I could be barking up the wrong tree.
As to breaking them down...I wouldn't try to force someone else to play them; as you say, that is impossible. It would be more the A Plot, B Plot type action Tony describes in Chapter 8.
On 7/26/2006 at 3:04pm, Hans wrote:
RE: Re: Gloatable conflicts and appearances
Andrew wrote:
Yeah, these are probably a little weak and may not even be gloatable. I'd think to get maximum effect from them they'd need to be rewritten as such...Now they are definately gloatable.
Ah, but that is missing my basic idea, Andrew, which is, to put it succinctly, construct a Plot thread (per Chapter 8) that SETS UP a big gloatable conflict later one. The idea is that these conflicts are NOT gloatable, but suggest, tease, and encourage the placing of a gloatable conflict later. The idea might suck, but it was the original idea.
On 7/26/2006 at 3:14pm, Gaerik wrote:
RE: Re: Gloatable conflicts and appearances
Ah... I see. I thought you meant for those goals to be gloatable in and of themselves. Ignore my post then. I misunderstood.
On 7/26/2006 at 3:36pm, TonyLB wrote:
RE: Re: Gloatable conflicts and appearances
Strat-wise: Small inspirations (from, oh say, past such conflicts) rock on toast for Multi-Gloat.
"I've gloated down five dice. It's now 5 to your 4. I spend the five two point inspirations I've accumulated over the past hour of hints and teasers. Now it's 10 to your 4, and at the end of the page I can gloat for another five story tokens. Oh yes, and on a completely different subject, I will also be taking my action!"
On 7/26/2006 at 3:37pm, Gaerik wrote:
RE: Re: Gloatable conflicts and appearances
You're an evil, evil man, Tony.
On 7/26/2006 at 3:48pm, TonyLB wrote:
RE: Re: Gloatable conflicts and appearances
Hey, I'm just pointing out that Hans's strategy is advanced, whether he realizes it or not. The soft lead-in to garned conflict-specific inspirations is high-end shit.
On 7/26/2006 at 4:17pm, Hans wrote:
RE: Re: Gloatable conflicts and appearances
TonyLB wrote:
"I've gloated down five dice. It's now 5 to your 4. I spend the five two point inspirations I've accumulated over the past hour of hints and teasers. Now it's 10 to your 4, and at the end of the page I can gloat for another five story tokens. Oh yes, and on a completely different subject, I will also be taking my action!"
This was lurking in the back of my head, poorly formed and out of focus. Putting it there in concrete example makes it pop off the page.
To build on it a bit; lets say those earlier lead-ins don't really generate a lot of interest. Witness Fred's wishy-washiness assertion earlier. Is it still worth pushing on with the plot thread? I can still get some inspirations, if I'm not challenged, but the equation will be:
a 1-5 pt inspiration for two actions (lay conflict, roll die) and a claim
This equation seems suboptimal, unless the final payoff is truly as big as the one described in your example. Moreover, from a fun perspective, it seems a bit narcissitic. "You guys go ahead and do your thing over there, while I just play over here on my own."
On 7/26/2006 at 5:09pm, TonyLB wrote:
RE: Re: Gloatable conflicts and appearances
Hans wrote:
a 1-5 pt inspiration for two actions (lay conflict, roll die) and a claim
Well, technically "N 1-5 point inspirations for some number of actions" where N is the number of debt tokens you stake on your side.
On 7/26/2006 at 8:22pm, Hans wrote:
RE: Re: Gloatable conflicts and appearances
TonyLB wrote:
Well, technically "N 1-5 point inspirations for some number of actions" where N is the number of debt tokens you stake on your side.
I guess my assumption was that no debt staking would be necessary...no one is opposing you. As long as you roll higher than a 1 on your action, you win. However, staking debt is a good way to tempt people to come oppose you, of course.
On 7/26/2006 at 8:24pm, TonyLB wrote:
RE: Re: Gloatable conflicts and appearances
Well ... if your goal is to get many small inspirations, rather than one large one (so as to convert them back to story tokens by using them to turn dice up from 1 and then gloat those dice back down to 1) then staking the debt lets you get (say) two level 2 inspirations instead of one level 4.
On 7/26/2006 at 8:32pm, Hans wrote:
RE: Re: Gloatable conflicts and appearances
TonyLB wrote:
Well ... if your goal is to get many small inspirations, rather than one large one (so as to convert them back to story tokens by using them to turn dice up from 1 and then gloat those dice back down to 1) then staking the debt lets you get (say) two level 2 inspirations instead of one level 4.
DOH! Of course. More inspirations is pretty much a requirement for the tactic, not bigger inspirations. I can, eventually, be led to water and made to drink it.