The Forge Archives

In [Capes] Takes some getting used to, Andrew raised the following solid general question:

Quote from: GaerikOkay, I've been following this Capes thing very closely because I'm interested in the game.  I'm going to ask a question below that might be a stupid question and could very easily be taken as snide.  I'm prefacing the question by saying that snideness is not my intent.  I'm genuinely interested in getting "inside" Tony's head as a designer and understanding the "whys and wherefores" of his design decisions.  Now that this little disclaimer is out of the way...

If anyone can narrate the effects of a Conflict away with no effort whatsoever, why does Capes have Conflicts at all?  Why isn't the whole System simply freeform?  What is there in the System that makes me want to engage in a Conflict?  I understand about Story Tokens and some of the "rewards" for winning Conflicts but do these rewards actually have some sort of lasting effect that makes it worth my while to get them?  I'm just not understanding why there is a Conflict system at all if Free Narration is so powerful in the game and would really like to hear the reasoning behind it.

Actually, there's a little confusion building up between Free Narration and just plain Narration.  So let me clear that up, first:

[*]Free Narration:  The period between the end a Claims at the start of a Page, and the first Action.  During this period, players may narrate out of turn.
[*]Narration:  In Free Narration, using an Ability (to Act or React), spending an Inspiration, creating a Conflict or due to the "And Then" rule, players are called upon to Narrate.  The only limits the rules place on that narration are those of the Not Yet rule and Ability-inclusion.  This is narration with great freedom, but not (technically) Free Narration.[/list:u]I think that the power you're referring to is about Narration, rather than Free Narration specifically.  Is that right?

Tony,

Yes.  As I've only read the Playtest rules and followed the threads here, my terminology-fu is probably very weak.  Still, I believe you have parsed my meaning correctly.  I'm referencing the same Narration that others have been concerned about being disruptive to the SIS.

See, I thought the issue there was over abuse of free narration (outside the conflict system.) Never got a clarification.

Larry:  It seemed like Ralph's question to answer.  I'm still not sure which element he's actually concerned about.  But now at least I know what to address in this thread.


Okay.  This gets a little involved, so I hope you'll bear with me if I dispense it in small chunks, and ask for feedback at each stage, to make sure I'm not miscommunicating.

Because of the huge amounts of narrative power, getting the chance to do the first narration isn't that big a deal.  Yeah, yeah, you can blow up the world, but the next guy can just put it back.  What really makes a difference is who gets to do the last narration, because it can incorporate, twist and override everything that came before it.

When you have control of a Conflict, you get the following advantages:

[*]Nobody but you gets final word on narration about that Conflict.[*]Every time somebody tries to take it over and fails, you get another chance to Narrate that final word ("And Then" rule).[*]Nobody can do something that would make it implausible in the SiS for you to have the final word on the subject ("Not Yet" rule).[/list:u]Actually Resolving that conflict is just the last in a long sequence of those Final Words, and the only one which (itself) isn't subject to the "Not Yet" rule.

So the ability to resolve a Conflict is of comparatively small value.  Yes, you get to narrate what happens, but (as you've rightly pointed out) once the Conflict is gone there's nothing directly stopping someone from jumping in to narrate yet another Final Word.  Indirectly?  I'll discuss that in a bit.

What is hugely valuable is the state of controlling a Conflict.  Because that makes you the gate-keeper of what stays important in the SiS and what goes in but immediately gets twisted, supplanted or otherwise turned from the purpose of the player who introduced it.

Holler if that doesn't make sense, because everything that follows depends upon it.

So it would seem that the maximum advantage would be gained by controlling one side of a conflict but never resolving it, because as soon as it is resolved, the advantage of controlling it disappears.

Ah....   I think I see.  So resolving the Conflict is not where the power lies.  It's in controlling the Conflict while it is still on the table because while it is there you can invoke the Not Yet rule (I think that's the one) that keeps people from doing things to it with Narration and not paying for it.

That's interesting.  I'm going to have to think about that for a while.

Not just "Not Yet" but also "And Then..." because the "And Then..." rule specifically gives you the power to use your narration to immediately nullify whatever it is that the actor or reactor has done.

Okay, it looks like people understand the benefit of outstanding Conflicts (though I'm always open to follow-up questions).  I'm going to move on to Inspirations.

Inspirations have a direct benefit upon control of a Conflict.  When you resolve a Conflict you get the ability to better control later Conflicts without investing your limited Actions.

If Player A resolves a Conflict, narrates her Final Word, and Player B immediately narrates a post-script that undercuts what she was trying to achieve then they are back to needing a Conflict again.  That Conflict is an obvious candidate for the Inspirations Player A won on the previous Conflict.  If they are spent then Player B ends up in as bad a position as he was before the conflict was resolved.

But that situation is, in fact, a rarity.  Why?  Because if Player B really wants to be narrating exactly that Conflict, he doesn't want to do it in unrestricted narration.  He wants to be able to enforce his own Final Word on what is happening.  So it's ever so much more efficient to take Control of the Conflict himself, rather than to let you resolve it and then go futzing around in narration for the short time it will take you to slap an identical Conflict on him.

What happens far more often is that Player B realizes that the Conflict-as-stated isn't exactly what he's actually worried about.  Fictional example:

Quote from: Fiction!Bulk is fighting Chrome Surfer.  They are working on a Conflict "Who wins the fight?"  Bulk keeps going hand-to-hand, because... he's Bulk.  Chrome Surfer flies around on his surf-board, and blasts Bulk with cosmic rays.

Somewhere along the line, Bulk's player realizes that he doesn't really care who wins the battle.  What matters to him is that this battle is showing which of them is physically stronger, and he really wants Bulk to be the strongest thing in the game.

So he creates "Who is stronger?" as a Conflict.  Then he stops working toward winning "Who wins the fight," and redirects his energies.

Now the fascinating bit occurs when Chrome Surfer resolves "Who wins the fight."  Because now he's got an Inspiration from having beaten Bulk.  Does he spend it on "Who is stronger?"  Or does he keep it to spend on something else later?  Well, that is largely a matter of whether he feels strongly that Chrome Surfer should be stronger than Bulk.  If not, he probably saves the Inspiration for something he does care about.  

But if Chrome's player does care about the issue of strength, he probably spends the Inspiration, and then the balance of power has simply migrated from one Conflict to the next.  Bulk has not gained any advantage by shifting the discussion, and that is right and proper, because it turns out that the "Who wins the fight" thing was all about strength in the first place, only nobody realized it at the time.


Does that explain when you would want to resolve a conflict as clearly as my previous post explained when you would want not to?

No, it doesn't; because after the inspirations are spent and the conflicts are won, nothing has changed.  Let's say Bulk wins the conflict that states "Bulk is stronger than Chrome."  He narrates the outcome, and "Proves" he's stronger.  Let's say he gets an inspiration out of it.

Later on, he spends that inspiration on a conflict, "Bulk is stronger than Beetleman."  Makes sense, right?  Let's say for the moment that things go badly for Bulk, and he loses that conflict, and doesn't get any inspiration out of it.

Later on, Bulk is being played by a new player, with no story tokens.  Bulk and Chrome meet again.   They are back on even terms, now.  The "bulk is stronger than chrome" goal is long forgotten, and it is as if nothing has happened between them.  

Unless Chrome's player takes the initiative to honor the earlier accomplished goal, totally outside the rules system, and treat Bulk as if he's stronger than Chrome, then the entire conflict has proven nothing.  Bulk spent resources and turns to prove that he's stronger than Chrome, but he's not.  They're back to square one.

That is probably the main issue I have with Capes. Not because it is divorced from causality - all kinds of reasons for Chrome now being stronger than Bulk can be invented. My problem is that the resources spent in that initial conflict to determine who was stronger were completely wasted.

Actually, wasted is the wrong term because the resources were never really worth much to begin with in terms of effecting the future course of play. All you can effect in Capes is the present and the past history of play. The future is an open void where all past effort evaporates into whisps of nothing.

Inspirations provide, as in Fred's example, only a minor particle of effect upon that vast void.

Not to say that my preference for having an effect on future actions makes Capes broken, only that it can be incredibly infuriating if that's not a style of play that you enjoy.

-Chris

Tony,

I see what you are saying but I also see what Chris and Frank (?) are saying too and I agree with their observations.  From what you've said thus far, it seems to me that it is always better to leave the Conflict open if you control it as it provides you control over the SIS in that area.

In the Bulk vs the Surfer example, if Bulk resolves the Conflict and takes his Inspiration, all Surfer has to do is wait a couple of turns until Bulk spends that Inspiration to reopen the Conflict on a even footing again.  Whereas, if Bulk simply keeps the Conflict open while he controls it, he's effectively "stronger" than the Surfer.

As an aside...
Are you going to be at GenCon and are you planning on running a game of Capes.  I'd love to play just to see how it all works.

Quote from: VaxalonNo, it doesn't; because after the inspirations are spent and the conflicts are won, nothing has changed.

What an odd concern.  Why should anything change?  I'm not being rhetorical or anything here... Fred and Chris, you both think it's important, and you're smart fellows.  So I'd like to know what you know.

If the Hulk trounces the Thing in episode #76, and the writers decide to have them start from square one and duke it out again in episode #82... well, if everyone cares about the conflict and enjoys playing it out, is there a problem?

It's not a problem if people like that style of play... but there are comic book fans who would HOWL in protest if a battle that was won last week is lost this week, without a good reason being presented.

In "Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering" he identifies seven styles of play.  An individual player can engage in all of them in his career, but he usually has a few favorites.

One of mine is "powergamer".  I like being able to take little bits and pieces and add them to my character sheet, and feel that he is growing, at least in some small way, as a result of play.  Capes is completely unsupportive of this style of play.  Any benefits that accrue, whether to the character (inspirations) or to the player (story tokens) are entirely ephemeral.

That's why I came up with the "goal in, goal out" house rule.  I'm still refining that, but I think it will add a significant level of play for players like me.

Quote from: GaerikAre you going to be at GenCon and are you planning on running a game of Capes.  I'd love to play just to see how it all works.

I'll be running (and demoing!  Yay demoes!) at DexCon and GenCon.

Quote from: VaxalonIt's not a problem if people like that style of play... but there are comic book fans who would HOWL in protest if a battle that was won last week is lost this week, without a good reason being presented.

Are there?  Who knew....  They must go through a lot of throat lozenges, because that sort of thing happens absolutely all the time.

Anyway, on powergaming:  What are these "bits and pieces" doing for you?  I mean... obviously... they've got to be something more than just scribbles on paper, right?  You can scribble on paper in your spare time.

Are they giving you authority to shape future events?  Making you... I don't know... official gate-keeper over that particular "bit and/or piece"?