I went to the Capes FAQ page looking for this, and did not find it.

Here's what I can come up with off the top of my head.  Can anyone confirm or deny, or add things I have not mentioned?

-Taking an extra action for one character you are playing.  Can be done only after each character has had their normal turns, near page's end.
-Bringing in a new character to play alongside your existing one.  Can be done at any time(?)  However many characters you have, each one gets one action, on your turn, in any order.
-Taking an extra Claim - can only be done during the Claiming phase.
-(?) Getting another reaction roll?
-(?) Using a used up Ability? (A power you have already used this page, a non-powered ability you have used this scene)

The above two aren't canon, but the text does say:

One of the resources a player can acquire in the game is a pile of Story Tokens. These allow the player to take more control of the turn order. In most situations where each player gets to do something once (i.e. gets a turn) a Story Token can be spent to do it again. In this way, Story Tokens give increased authorship.

Sindyr wrote:
-Taking an extra action for one character you are playing.  Can be done only after each character has had their normal turns, near page's end.
-Bringing in a new character to play alongside your existing one.  Can be done at any time(?)  However many characters you have, each one gets one action, on your turn, in any order.
-Taking an extra Claim - can only be done during the Claiming phase.
-(?) Getting another reaction roll?
-(?) Using a used up Ability? (A power you have already used this page, a non-powered ability you have used this scene)

...Should this list be added to the FAQ?

OK, sounds good.  My one point of concern is that I was pretty sure that I saw somewhere (probably on this forum) that you can bring in an extra character with a story token *at any time*, not just at the beginning of the scene.

Anyone else have a similar memory?

By the way, slightly off topic - has anyone used story token in a way that makes them more powerful - or at least, more dependable?  I was struck by the fact that a fellow player used 2 story tokens for 2 extra turns, spent debt, rolled horribly, and got nothing really for his debt and lost story tokens.

Has anyone every considered giving story tokens some kind of absolute use, in addition? Something like: spend a story token and:
-raise one die by 2 (1?) - up to six (five?)
-lower an opponents die by the same amount
-raise one die to a 4 (or 5?)
-lower one die to a 3 (or 2?)
-other ideas?

Sindyr wrote:
OK, sounds good.  My one point of concern is that I was pretty sure that I saw somewhere (probably on this forum) that you can bring in an extra character with a story token *at any time*, not just at the beginning of the scene.

Anyone else have a similar memory?

Hmm, that changes things a great deal - and to my mind, not for the better.

I thought be able to threaten to bring in a new character spontaneously, off the cuff, was making for good, exciting gameplay - also, if that isn't allowed, than that is de facto disallowing characters to join running scenes - something that may be narratively desired.

For example, having Lucky Charm appear in the scene on page 5, instead of page 1, is potentially more ineteresting that having a rule that all characters must be in place from page 1 on.

Furthermore, I imagine that characters join the scene in mid-scene all the time in comic books. Why not in Capes?

Okay, I dunno where I got this, but for some reason I was under the impression that you could spend a story token to bring in other characters at the beginning of a page.

Here are some posts I found:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=19102.0
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=21266.0
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=14385.0

Looks like the from-the-mouth-of-Tony way is to allow new characters to be brought in at the start of each page.

Still not sure if my group *may* haouse rule being able to bring in a new character *anytime* - or not.

Found in the erratta:
Jump right in, the water's fine (credit to Jay Loomis):
p. 22: "A player may spend a Story Token at this time to add a new Conflict" should read "A player may spend
a Story Token at this time to add a new Conflict or character".

<the time so referenced is immediately before or after the Claiming phase at the beginning of the page, before anyone has taken their actions.>

TonyLB wrote:
Cool!  Something else for the errata!

You can bring them in at the beginning of any Page.  Not, however, in the middle of a page.  There are some strategies that got used doing that in play-testing that disrupt the flow of play pretty brutally, so it got removed as an option.

I think it would make buying additional actions with Story Tokens unnecessary, since bringing in another character would always benefit the player more (the character, and his additional action, stay on the table in the following pages). This in turn would probably increase the general number of characters in the scenes, possibly up to a point when managing them would become unwieldy, and important individual characters would get less spotlight time in relation to others. What's more, it would be possible to bring fresh, debtless character with all non-powered abilities unchecked at any time, so effectively players would be able to re-roll fives at the expense of a Story Token, without concerning themselves with resources left to individual characters. Also, there would be some initiative issues with bringing new characters after the starting phase of a page.

-raise one die by 2 (1?) - up to six (five?)

Sindyr wrote:
Found in the erratta:
Jump right in, the water's fine (credit to Jay Loomis):
p. 22: "A player may spend a Story Token at this time to add a new Conflict" should read "A player may spend
a Story Token at this time to add a new Conflict or character".

Sindyr wrote:
Tony - could you be more specific.  I am thinking about asking the group I game with to houserule that a token can be used to bring in a character any time, so long as it's not in the middle of someone's action.  What are the disruptive downsides to this that are not present when you let them only bring in characters at the start of the page?

Yeah, pretty much.

There is also an allure to the idea that bringing in a new character to save your bacon can't be completely reactive if you can only do it at the start of the page.  So at the start of each page ya gotta ask yourself - with what I see happening, should I bring in another char?

The only downside is I am wondering if tactically this will encourage people to do this *more* - since for *one* story token you get an extra action for all the remaining scenes - instead of spending a story token for an extra action at the end of the turn.

I mean, I would say about half of the scenes I have participated in wound up with me wanting more actions, and spending story tokens.  If I simply spend the token at the start of the scene, I will have an extra action every page for the whole scene.

Hmmm.  Seems a very obvious strategy, only ameliorated by the idea that everyone will probably do it once one person does.  And since you can bring in an existing character, with debt pre-set and spendable; or a brand new on the spot created chaarater with no debt and lots of space.

Plus with two characters, you could have as much as 6-10 dice on one side of a conflict.

Sounds fun to explore.

hey, I just had an idea for a fun (I hope) mod! How 'bout if you could spend a token to bring in a new char at the beginning of a page after the first. . .but ONLY if you had not brought any characters in on the scene already and ONLY once per scene? Or, perhaps even better: You could pay a story token at the beginning of a scene. . .but hold the character in reserve until the page where you're ready for his/her entrance. Sure, you wouldn't get the actions you could've from the previous page, but you WOULD get greater narrative flexibility in introing the character, and you'd have a fresh, un-debted and un-checked character to use.

But I haven't gotten to play the game yet, so there may be a dozen reasons this isn't a good idea. Might be worth a thought though.

Peace,
-Joel

Hans wrote:
* Making extra conflicts at the beginning of a page.  Page 18, grey box about pages. (This one is subtle, and I missed it the first 100 times or so I read the box).

Sindyr wrote:
-(?) Getting another reaction roll?
-(?) Using a used up Ability? (A power you have already used this page, a non-powered ability you have used this scene)

Sindyr wrote:
-(?) Getting another reaction roll?
-(?) Using a used up Ability? (A power you have already used this page, a non-powered ability you have used this scene)

Sindyr wrote:
Tony, can I get confirmation? A story token can be used to create a conflict before anyone takes their turn that page?  I am only asking because it seems an odd rule.

OK, thanks for the confirmation.

Quote from: Sindyr on September 29, 2006, 01:45:15 PM
-(?) Getting another reaction roll?
-(?) Using a used up Ability? (A power you have already used this page, a non-powered ability you have used this scene)

Thinking about it some more, unless anyone disagrees, my gut is telling me that allowing the two above uses for story tokens is consonant with the base idea behind story tokens, and while not supported in black and white in the text; would probably make for a good house mod.  I will recommend it to my group(s).

I appreciate the feedback, and think I pretty much agree - let's assume that spending a ST to use a used-up resource again is out.

I *am* tempted, though, to permit the other use - an extra reaction - because to my gut that does not seem horribly unbalanced.  Any thoughts?

There is a downside to spending a ST for an extra action:  everybody else has a free shot at reacting. 

If you allow spending a ST for an extra reaction, though, other players also have to spend STs to react to it.  I think this again increases the power on Story Tokens.

Also, in a practical, around-the-table way the rule about buying reactions directly will shut other players out for longer periods of time.  Right now, if two folks get into an ST-war over a conflict, I get to occasionally stick my input in edge-wise as a reaction to their actions.  If that same war goes to pure reactions then I just get to sit back and spectate until they're done.

That might mean that you get something done in five minutes rather than ten, and that would be good.  But it would be five minutes I'm completely shut out of, instead of ten where I get a chance for input every minute or so, and that's something to consider.

Hmm.

Let me look at the two methods for combatting a good roll by an opponent:

1) An extra action
-occurs at the end of turn, giving people no chance to use their free action to deal with your extra action's consequences
-gives you up to 2 chances to roll on the dice, gives each other player up to one chance to roll on it (if you are rolling up, you get two chances to get a six)
-has immense flexibility as you can spend that action on any action you like
-makes a another whole turn happen
-gives up the option for using debt - staking, splitting, schisming, etc.
-significant potential downside. Example: four players, three are united to try to see you not succeed in a conflict.  You spend a ST for an extra action.  You roll up your die, keep the result.  one person rolls down your die.  You try to roll it back up, and suceed.  Two more people try to roll it down.  You got 2 chances to roll it up versus their 3 to roll it down.  Therefor, spending the ST was quite probably a thing that hurt you more than helped.  I don't like this.

2) An extra reaction
-occurs before the next person's turn/action
-gives you one chance to roll a die not selected by you but by another player
-gives one no other abilities or options or flexibility, unlike an extra action would.
-potentially speeds up story token wars
-potential downside of giving one person more "play" opportunity, without giving anyone else anymore.  In my game reactions however go very fast - probably only 30-45 seconds each.  So we are only talking about 30-45 seconds per token spent thusly.
-potential upside of faster play.  A full play turn seems to take much more - say 3-5 minutes, making that from 5 to 10 times as much time.
-potential upside of spending a token gets you and only you something tactical.  With an extra action, your opponents gain a benefit, potentially (as illustrated above) greater than yours.  With an extra reaction, you gain someting and your oppoents gain nothing.
-potential upside of remaining more true to the description of story tokens in the text: In most situations where each player gets to do something once (i.e. gets a turn) a Story Token can be spent to do it again. (page 17)

One other note.  My group handles actions and reactions thusly:
The person who's turn it is takes an action. If he rolls his dice and keeps it, the chance for first reaction goes to the person on his left. He can either pass or choose to react.  Whether or not that person reacts, the person to their left gets the next chance for reaction. This continues around the table.

When it comes back to the person who made the original action, they then get a reaction chance.  And then the opportunity for reaction to *their* roll passes to the left again.  Each person gets only one reaction, but they can "save" their reaction to react later in the cycle. However, once you get X passes in a row, where X is the number of players, even if people have saved reactions (have previosuly passed their reaction oppourtunity) the time for reactions is over.

Example: (leaving out the narrative text, debt spending, and character descriptions for clarity)
Adam, Bob, Charlie, and Debra are playing.  It's is Adam's turn.

Adam: I am rolling up this die (points at a die showing a 1 on a conflict he has claimed)  - woot! A 4! I keep it.
Bob: I pass my reaction. We are tied on this conflict, and I don't mind it going another page, as that will let Debra claim the side you are claiming now - and I can tell she wants to!  I don't mind her winning - but I don't think I am going to like what you would narrate - so I leave the tie in place.
Charlie: I pass as well.
Debra: Well, I actually kinda wanted to steal your claim next page - or let Bob win - so I *will* react down on that... lol, a five again.
Adam: I am still winning, so... pass.
Bob: Sigh - I react - a four!
Charlie: Pass
Debra: I have already used my reaction, so I must pass.
Adam: Hmm - if I pass, Bob will have to pass - and that will be four passes in a row and end this action.  So I will react to my own dice - a three! Grrr.... I keep the four.
Bob: Pass - since I have no reactions left...
Charlie: I till have an unused reaction - I could mess with you all. ;)  But, pass.
Debra: I too must pass since I have no unused reactions.
Adam: Grrr... same, that's four passes, ending both the action and the page.

That's how we handle the structure of reactions - each person has one chance to react beginning with the person to the left of the original action.  Once everyone passes in a row, the reactions are done.

Here's how the above example could be different if Adam had some story tokens and used them token for an extra reaction:

Adam: Hmm - if I pass, Bob will have to pass - and that will be four passes in a row and end this action.  So I will react to my own dice - a three! Grrr.... I keep the four.
Bob: Pass - since I have no reactions left...
Charlie: I till have an unused reaction - I could mess with you all. ;)  But, pass.
Debra: I too must pass since I have no unused reactions.
Adam: I have no more free reactions so I pass - which would normally end the reactions phase, *but* I am spending a story token for another reaction! Bang zowie - a five!
Bob: Damnit - no tokens here, and no freereactions left, so pass.
Charlie - hmm - I still have a free reaction - and now it's payback time for what you did to me last page!  Rolling that die down - a two!
Debra: Wow!  Thanks! No tokens here. Pass.
Adam: You rotten fink - I knew you would make good on your revenge! heh heh. Ah well.  Pass.
Bob: Pass - still no tokens here.
Charlie: Pass.
Debra: That's four passes - are we done?
Adam: Nope - Spending *another* story token (grrr) - tha two is now a...  four! (sigh) - well, I am out of tokens, so that's that.
Bob: Pass, of course,
Charlie: Pass.
Debra: Pass
Adam: .. and pass, turn over!

This seems highly workable to me.  Especially since if someone uses a token to get another reaction, you can still use your free reaction after, assuming that you haven't already used it up.

Sound good?

Your reaction procedure has the acting player giving an opportunity to react after all the other players, where the book has the acting player getting first chance at a reaction (pg 40).  Did you do that purposefully to give the acting player a chance at having the "last word," so to speak?

As you pointed out, spending a ST for an extra action has a significant potential downside, though whether or not people choose to react to your action depends on a lot of factors (limited usage of Abilities, accrued Debt, narrative concerns about this particular goal's effect on the story, strategic concerns about this particular goal's effect on resources, things like that) so I submit that the actual downside is probably less than it might seem, especially as the page number gets higher and blockable abilities get used up. 

Extra Action:  With each subsequent ST spent, you get your action and reaction, where other players each get a reaction.  I'm fine with this.  If you really want to win, you're going to have to fight for it and accrue Debt for it.  Either the other players will eventually decide the cost (in Debt) is too high to keep fighting you, or you'll decide the cost is too high and give up, or you'll run out of Story Tokens.  I also like that this preserves the established Action + Reactions procedure set up in the rules-as-written and is inclusive to every player (as I think Tony mentioned earlier).

Extra Reaction:  With each subsequent ST spent, you get your reaction, where other players get nothing.  In order to effectively fight the spending player, you have to dump Story Tokens.  I think this exaggerates the value of STs too much, throwing the ST/Debt/Inspiration economy out of whack.  At the same time, I don't like the way it elongates the Action + Reactions cycle.  I think this has the potential to significantly change the way the game plays. 

I understand that this may appeal to somebody who wants to move from this (with four players):
Nearing the end of the page...
ST Action + 4 Reactions
ST Action + 4 Reactions
ST Action + 4 Reactions
ST Action + 4 Reactions

To this:
Nearing the end of the page...
ST Action + 4 Reactions + 4 ST Reactions from player A + 4 ST Reactions from player B

I really don't like what that does to the value of Story Tokens, though.  And inflating the value of STs could lead to more gloatfests.  Who wants that?  :D

Oh, and I almost forgot.  In your example, you suggest four players, with three of them ganging up against the fourth.  Man, in that case, just take your Story Tokens and lie down.  If all the other players are that strongly against whatever you're proposing, rewriting the rules so you can more easily fight them is a losing proposition, even if you do win the conflict.

Matthew wrote:
Your reaction procedure has the acting player giving an opportunity to react after all the other players, where the book has the acting player getting first chance at a reaction (pg 40).  Did you do that purposefully to give the acting player a chance at having the "last word," so to speak?

Extra Reaction:  With each subsequent ST spent, you get your reaction, where other players get nothing.  In order to effectively fight the spending player, you have to dump Story Tokens.  I think this exaggerates the value of STs too much, throwing the ST/Debt/Inspiration economy out of whack.  At the same time, I don't like the way it elongates the Action + Reactions cycle.  I think this has the potential to significantly change the way the game plays. 

I understand that this may appeal to somebody who wants to move from this (with four players):
Nearing the end of the page...
ST Action + 4 Reactions
ST Action + 4 Reactions
ST Action + 4 Reactions
ST Action + 4 Reactions

To this:
Nearing the end of the page...
ST Action + 4 Reactions + 4 ST Reactions from player A + 4 ST Reactions from player B

I really don't like what that does to the value of Story Tokens, though.  And inflating the value of STs could lead to more gloatfests.  Who wants that?  :D

Oh, and I almost forgot.  In your example, you suggest four players, with three of them ganging up against the fourth.  Man, in that case, just take your Story Tokens and lie down.  If all the other players are that strongly against whatever you're proposing, rewriting the rules so you can more easily fight them is a losing proposition, even if you do win the conflict.

OK, here is the integrated list, as far as I can see:

[hr]Exhaustive list of all official uses for Story Tokens:

• Taking an extra action for one character you are playing.  Can be done only after each character has had their normal turns, near page's end.
• Bringing in a new character to play alongside your existing one.  Can be at the start of any page.  However many characters you have, each one gets one action, on your turn, in any order.However, it's still just one reaction per player.
• Taking an extra Claim - can only be done during the Claiming phase.
• Creating a new Conflict any time at the beginning of a page, before everyone's turn. (before, during, or after Claiming.)

[hr]
To the above list, our group will probably add one more thing via a house rule:

• Taking an exra reaction when you have already used your one free reaction.