TheRPGSite

Yeah, that got you reading. :D

The rather fatuous title will become clear in due time. Meanwhile:

I played Capes with some friends the other night. It was my first time using the full rules (I played once before with the free demo rules), and there were some hiccups and hurdles (heh, that should be a game title), but overall it went well and was fun.

Our group was:

April, who I'd met and gamed with once before
Gabe, ditto
Joel (yes, another one), a friend and former coworker who I've discussed RPGs with but never gamed with.
Mark, who I'd never met but corresponded with a bit online,
and me.

I passed out the Click 'n Lock modules (http://www.museoffire.com/Games/Downloads/ClickSheets.pdf) that you make characters out of, and while folks persused them we talked about what kind of story we wanted to tell. Mark said he'd prefer to play more gritty, street-level game without cosmic or godlike characters. Everyone was pretty cool with that, except that Gabe had already put together a "Godling Outsider." :p But we tooled things so they were pretty down to earth while still accommodating the Godling.

Once everyone had made a main character (3 heroes, 1 ambiguous, 1 "villain with a righteous cause"), we talked about supporting casts and their relations to the issues the heroes struggle with. We expanded our character stable to about 9 characters and were ready to play.


OK, it's by no means certain around here that everyone is familiar with Capes rules, so lemme give a brief overview: the game's GMless, everyone plays a character, with procedural restrictions on your authority over "what happens." You lay out goals, like "stop the robbery" or "kidnap Aunt May", then the PCs use abilities to sway the conflict in their favor. You name a power or personality trait on your sheet, narrate how the character is using it and their related actions/dialogue, and roll a die on the appropriate side of the conflict. The only narrative constraint is that you can't narrate anything that resolves a conflict until it's actually time to resolve a conflict (there's a phase for declaring which conflicts will resolve that turn). So you can web up, say, a robber, but not stop the whole robbery until it's time.

The game's overarching theme is, "Do you deserve your power?" so as you use your powers, you accumulate Debt. Too much and you're crippled with doubts, penalizing your side of the conflicts each turn. but you can stake your debt on a conflict, gambling that you can win it--win and it's gone, but lose and it comes back double. Nothing is completely good or bad in this game though, since staked Debt can be used to get your side up higher, and even if you lose the conflict, the winner's staked Debt becomes Story Tokens that you can spend on extra actions and stuff. It's a whole, neat little economy.

So that said, on to play!


We had worked out that both April and Mark's heroes had gained powers from an accident at a hi-tech lab, involving a rock from outer space. Gabe's Godling is a powerful but infant being born of the alien material, who is trying to observe and understand humanity, possibly to judge it. For the first scene, April and Mark played their heroes in civilian guise. April's is the Vanisher, a lab scientist who gained Teleportation, and Mark's was a construction worker named Reggie (AKA the Spoiler) brought in for cleanup and exposed to the alien material to become a shape-shifter. I played the maverick crusading populist Senator Nelson, touring the plant to get to the bottom of Blastech's poor worker safety and heedless environmental waste, and bring the truth to the people. Gabe played Mr Bishop, the CEO of Blastech, also visiting to get to the bottom of the accident, but keep the truth from the public. Joel G. took up scientist Trudy Troy, the love interest of his own hero, who knows more than she's telling about the accident.

I threw down the goal "Senator Nelson uncovers hard evidence" and we fought over that a bit. When the Senator discovered Reggie covered in glowing dust and complaining that he "don't feel so good" in his best Brooklyn accent, he knew he was on to something. ;) Once all the chars were at the cleanup site arguing, Gabe added "escort the Senator off the premises" for Mr. Bishop, and Mark played "humiliate Mr. Bishop" for Reggie. Gabe rolled a lot of 1s (seriously, a lot), and Mr. Bishop lost on all counts.

This scene, though fun on its own merits, was a slow starter because there wasn't a lot of power use, so folks didn't generate much debt and the "economy" didn't kick start. The two heroes were keeping their abilities on the downlow; Jennifer (the Vanisher) conveniently teleported a piece of evidence in the Senator Nelson's path, and Reggie subtly stretched his leg to trip Mr. Bishop into the glowing gunk, but that was it. Not a lot of ammunition (resource-wise, plot-wise there was plenty) for next scene, but oh well.

After Mr. Bishop stormed out covered in space-dust, he phoned in the elevator and called a hit out on both Jennifer and Reggie.

For the Second scene, April and Mark stuck with Jen and Reg. I switched to my villian, the Bengal--a hunter of the Urban Jungle, crusader against the decadence modern society and technology; a kind of Kraven cum Ra's Al Ghul. Joel G. switched to his hero, Mr. Swiss Army, a young and impulsive gadgeteer who's sweet on Trudy. And Gabe took up his Godling, called the Watcher as he hovers over the city, observing (that makes three PCs that share names with Marvel chars, including the Bengal :D).

This scene was a bit more punch. We were playing the assassination attempt on Jennifer. We hit a snag 'cause nobody was playing the assassin--not necessarily a problem, we could just all narrate in the assassin's actions, only it meant that there was NO character with a vested interest in rolling against the "stop the assassination" goal. Crap. We backed up and reconsidered. . .I had figured the Bengal could't be the assassin since he's no corporate hitman, until April made the sensible suggestion that he could be duped into it. Duh! So a little retconning and away we went. The Bengal accosts Jen, the Watcher swoops down at super-speed and grabs him (creating a sonic boom that blows out the block's windows), demanding to know why he accosts the weak and defenseless. The bengal spouts his "corrupt-scientists-destroying-the world" jive while Jen claims she's a victim of the evil science. This is played as "Event: the Watcher passes Judgment on the Bengal." I was pushing for simply "The Watcher Renders Judgment," so that the winer of the conflict could determine who or what gets judged. But After a bit of debate I let it go so as to let Gabe decide his own action and not be too controlling.

Reggie is in action with the goal "protect innocents from harm," as a car with its windshield shattered is skidding toward a helpless kid. He makes his body big and tough and shoulders the car; meanwhile the Vanisher teleports the kid to safety. By the time Mr. Swiss Army, originally intending to stop the Bengal, charges into the action, it's looking like the Watcher is the dangerous one, so he whips out an energy drain gizmo and snares the Watcher in it.

I won control of "the Watcher Judges," April of "stop assassination," Joel G. of "Impress girlfriend," and Mark of "protect the innocent." The kid was pretty much saved, so Mark just narrated the aftermath dialogue. For my conflict, I got to have the Bengal turn the tables on the Watcher, showing how he's the one who acts without thinking and brings innocents to harm. The saddened bewildered Watcher said he had "much to think about," escaped his energy snare, and departed. For Stop Assassination, the Bengal realized through the Vanisher's words and actions that he had misjudged her, and wished to learn more of the true forces behind it all. And trudy was duly impressed by Mr. SA's genius and took him more into her confidence about her secret projects.


Reactions and feedback were pretty positive all around. Mark had said in email that he wasn't sure how a GMless game could work, but he seemed to take to it quite easily. Joel G. said he liked that there was both humor and serious themes, and the two intermingled well and didn't hamper each other. April commented that there was a bit of a learning curve on some mechanics, but once she got the concepts it was smooth sailing. (I didn't help with that, since a couple times in Scene 1 I forgot a key rule and had to go back and fix it.) Everyone said that they liked the resolution system and how it faciliitates cool story while allowing a lot of freedom. Mark particularly was excited about the resolution and the creative freedom it allowed, contrasting it favorably with the Burning Wheel demo he'd just played in, which he found disappointing and full of "determinstic" systems. (Hence the title of the thread. Yeah, that's all there is too it. :p) We were a bit sad to have to quit actually, just when the story was getting interesting, and plan to get together soon and continue our little saga.

issues with play: to start with, there was the problem I already mentioned that the "Dept economy didn't really get revved up, since we were playing mostly non-powered characters, or people not using their powers. I think we were just hitting stride on that when we had to quit, actually.

Also, the idea that for GMless play people can just take up bit parts when needed works great, but the whole balance issue of "Everyone gets one character by which to influence the outcome of conflicts" (unless they spend tokens to play more) clashed with the "bit parts played by whoever" Specifically, Mark tended to grab up incidental parts and act them out, which was fine, but then he also wanted those bit parts to roll on conflicts. I had to put my foot down a bit and explain diplomatically that you need to pay in story tokens for the right to have multiple characters and thus more influence over the story. (This was during our "Oh shit, nobody's playuing the assassin!" moment, before we decided, "wait. . .the Bengal IS the assassin!") It all smoothed over OK. Mark didn't mean any harm, he was just being enthusiastic. :)

Another thing--I felt kinda bad for Gabe. He really tried his damnedest on all his conflicts, but the Dice Gods were simoply not with him. He lost everything he was involved in. He did reap some story tokens for his efforts (only a couple, since we didn't get the Debt flying until late), but it'd be nice for the guy to catch a break. He was a good sport about it though, and said he had fun.

All in all, it was a pretty fun "comic," a la Marvel Team-up. Can't wait for the next issue!

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: MelinglorYeah, that got you reading. :D

Yeah and I was sorely disappointed. I was hoping to hear about the long overdue grudge match. :( My money's on Tony. It'd only be a matter of time before Luke would do something like grab a steel folding chair from ringside and end up getting disqualified.

If I was a betting man, I'd be betting on Tony too. Luke tends to get a bit hot under the collar, but Tony keeps his cool.

-clash

Yeah, he should just keep to writing games. Tony on the other hand should try to sign on to a lucha libre contract. :) I heard that's why he wrote Capes, as an excuse to wear spandex suits in public.

Quote from: blakkieYeah, he should just keep to writing games. Tony on the other hand should try to sign on to a lucha libre contract. :)

Luke or Tony?  Luke's a dick, and I don't care to read any of his games.  

I'd buy Tony's games, however.

Quote from: joewolzLuke or Tony?  Luke's a dick, and I don't care to read any of his games.

That be your opinion. *shrug*  You must also have a really short list of books that you read. Sadly, from a friend that used to work a bookstore that had a lot of authors in for signings, a despressingly large number of them are "dicks" or far, far worse. Scattered through literary history are widely read authors who you likely wouldn't want to hang out with personally for any extended period of time.

Thanks for the spam, Joel.

Hmmm. Tony's trained in martial arts, IIRC (he constantly trains, IIRC, which counts for something in my book).  Luke's wiry and scrawny, but I've seen him ferociously wrestle down muscle-bound dudes to get the Jungle Speed Totem from them, like outta a Conan novel or something.  I'd say they're even.

Quote from: joewolzLuke's a dick, and I don't care to read any of his games.  

What, is that going back to that thread kerfluffle where y'all shat in his mouth about his boastful con thread, because a bunch of dicks thought they could "gangrape style" badmouth the Forgie of the Week behind their back; and when he finally showed up to defend himself by slinging the same filth back at you, y'all turned tail and screamed "OMG!  What a dick! How unprofessional!!!"?  

Cause that thread really sucked balls. Everyone ate a big bowl of dick on that thread (including me: Although, I did get a chance to talk about the GenCon Corpulent Masturbator Incident of 1995). At least Jeff apologized for bringing it up afterwards; he was the only one, as usual, with his wits about him.

However, back to the point of the thread, I was curous about this: Can you explain what he meant here?

QuoteMark particularly was excited about the resolution and the creative freedom it allowed, contrasting it favorably with the Burning Wheel demo he'd just played in, which he found disappointing and full of "determinstic" systems.

And by "please explain", I mean "I'm not sure what he meant by deterministic" (dice?), not "set up your points so I can knock them down with an axe". I'm just not sure what the deterministic system thing means.


-Andy

Joel:  I'm really glad that you and your group enjoyed the system.  Experience (both mine and that of others) indicates that the few minutes you spent talking as a group in advance about what you wanted the tenor of the game to be, and how everyone's characters would fit into it, is a crucial element of that success.  I'm constantly amazed at how much fuel a group stockpiles in just those few minutes, to keep them humming along together for the session ahead.  

I really wish that I'd been more conscious of it when writing the rules, because I would have pushed it way more forcefully in the advice.

Quote from: blakkieTony on the other hand should try to sign on to a lucha libre contract. :) I heard that's why he wrote Capes, as an excuse to wear spandex suits in public.

Why on earth would I need an excuse? :confused:

Quote from: TonyLBWhy on earth would I need an excuse? :confused:

Touche.

My only question (beyond the "that's it?" when the title source was revealed) came half way through when I thought "shouldn't this be in Actual Play?"

Quote from: James J SkachMy only question (beyond the "that's it?" when the title source was revealed) came half way through when I thought "shouldn't this be in Actual Play?"

Now now, James. No one reads the AP forum, as you are well aware, and that doesn't support Mel's obvious need to proseltyze and defend his style of gaming.  If no one reads it, how can it promulgate?

:what:

I'm still stunned by the phrase  "GM-less game play" or something similiar.
 What madness is this ?
 I have to re-read that original post again.

 no GM?


 That actually happens?

- Ed  C.
 (...but I LIKE being a GM)

Quote from: Andy KWhat, is that going back to that thread kerfluffle where y'all shat in his mouth about his boastful con thread, because a bunch of dicks thought they could "gangrape style" badmouth the Forgie of the Week behind their back; and when he finally showed up to defend himself by slinging the same filth back at you, y'all turned tail and screamed "OMG!  What a dick! How unprofessional!!!"?

I don't know.  I remember reading a bunch of his forum entries here and at other places on the net, and I found him rude and insulting.  If that was the thread where I posted (and I believe you're right) it was a culmination of circumstances and not based on his comments on that thread alone.

I'm sorry that everyone thought my labelling Luke as a "dick" was not specific enough, I just didn't want to type "rude and insulting."

If an author is rude and insulting enough, you're damn right I won't buy his or her books.

Quote from: joewolzIf an author is rude and insulting enough, you're damn right I won't buy his or her books.

Fair enough.

Andy: Luke said I was retarded for not following his sacred gametext. In a totally friendly thread. That about sealed it for me.

For a funnier spin:

Tony actually wins!
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Tony+LB&word2=Luke+Crane

I find it funny that the most offensive people are usually the most sensitive on the internet.  Good times.

Quote from: GunslingerI find it funny that the most offensive people are usually the most sensitive on the internet.  Good times.

So is it Luke, Andy, or folks like Joe and Sett that you don't quite have the balls to take a shot at in the open here? Just fucking say it.

Sett: You call people pathetic and morally weak for not using random monster encounters (as suggested by a game text...hmmmm....). You have no leg to stand on here.

Andy: What Swine ambush bullshit is this? I've seen nothing from you for days that I can recall, but here you are to wave the solidarity flag for Luke all the sudden.

Luke, if you're reading this: Seriously, dude, you're a cock. In fairness, however, BW is tight while Capes grabs its dice and runs screaming into "not a damn RPG anymore" territory, so you know...at least your game's got a GM.


Really, man, you can say that shit here. Give it a try.

Quote from: Christmas ApeSo is it Luke, Andy, or folks like Joe and Sett that you don't quite have the balls to take a shot at in the open here? Just fucking say it.

Yes.  I'll take you one at at a time.  I'll start with you.  Take this.

:verkill:

I'm sorry, I just find it funny that people can get so carried away on the internet.  Even me.  I actually find the people I argue with the most I respect more because they are helping to broaden my perspective.  I may not agree with you but venom with no contact is rather pointless.

QuoteSett: You call people pathetic and morally weak for not using random monster encounters (as suggested by a game text...hmmmm....). You have no leg to stand on here.

Luke, if you're reading this: Seriously, dude, you're a cock. In fairness, however, BW is tight while Capes grabs its dice and runs screaming into "not a damn RPG anymore" territory, so you know...at least your game's got a GM.

You, I´m the bad judgemental guy. And who says that YOU, BY JUDGING ME!
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rollbarf:

Quote from: Andy KWhat, is that going back to that thread kerfluffle where y'all shat in his mouth about his boastful con thread, because a bunch of dicks thought they could "gangrape style" badmouth the Forgie of the Week behind their back; and when he finally showed up to defend himself by slinging the same filth back at you, y'all turned tail and screamed "OMG!  What a dick! How unprofessional!!!"?

That was one of the funniest threads here, mate. Comedy Gold. I'd give it a Hypocrisy Rating of 9/10, and I agree with other fellow posters: people should be to receive it as well they dish it out. It was clearly patent that that's not the case with some posters here.

I do indeed, Prussian! I stand in judgement over your judgement of Luke being judgemental regarding your use of your judgement about Burning Empires .

You may have to excuse me, I've been posting with the aid of my good friend gin.

Quotedo indeed, Prussian! I stand in judgement over your judgement of Luke being judgemental regarding your use of your judgement about Burning Empires .

As long as you are judging me and others, and attack my judgement, then we have discussion.
The moment you or anybody denounces judgement as a whole, we have stupidity.

So, you are saying: Settembrini´s judgement is wrong, because of X.

That´s all good ground for discussion.

Quote from: Koltarno GM?

That actually happens?

Yep.  And it's fun too!  But I agree that the specific "This is how it was fun this particular time" does probably belong in Actual Play.  Maybe I should dig up one of my old Capes AP threads (where I've already done the work of writing it up ... 'cuz I'm lazy! :D ) and post it in the right place.

Interesting AP thread< thanks for posting it.  I'll probably have some questions when I have more time to digest it.

Not sure I see it as spam by the way, it's in the wrong forum but that's hardly a capital offence.

Great thread title, love that.

Quote from: Christmas ApeAndy: What Swine ambush bullshit is this? I've seen nothing from you for days that I can recall, but here you are to wave the solidarity flag for Luke all the sudden.

It's not like we all receive radio transmissions, then form phalanxes on the internet to defend each other. ;)  Luke's just a friend, that's all. No swine agenda, no Forgie revolution, just a buddy I like to meet every now and then for curry or tacos, to talk about life and Aqua Teen Hunger Force. :)

---

But still, going back to the original point and all, what was the "deterministic thing"?  I was kinda rolling that around last night, and the only thing *I* could think of was this:

If you max out on social skills, if you get into a Duel of Wits, even though there's all those manuvers and stuff, the higher skilled person will tend to still win a lot, even without playing up those manuvers.  Save can be said of combat skills and combat scripting to a degree.  

Much less so than, say, The Riddle of Steel, where you need a lot of in-player experience with the combat system (like chess), but manipulating it successfully, and a little luck of the dice, a bad swordsman making good tactical decisions can overrun an excellent swordsman making bad tactical decisions.

Is that what was meant by "deterministic"?  Or something else? (the way the game falls into scenes/etc?).  I'd really like to hear from the OP.

-Andy

QuoteIt's not like we all receive radio transmissions, then form phalanxes on the internet to defend each other.

Oh, I thougt "Storygames" did that for you.

Y'know what, if we had a separate forum for people to:

• Talk about how other people post, and how it's not cool
• Accuse people of lying about their reasons for posting
• Discuss the conspiracies and alliances that prompt people to post
• Defend their posts and the posts of others
• Etc....

... then maybe this sort of stuff wouldn't infect posts about playing RPGs.  Seems to me that the whole "Who posts what about whom and why?" discussions are a separate hobby that just happens to intertwine with (and sometimes strangle) substantive discussion.

EDIT:  Just to make clear ... a hobby that I whole-heartedly engage in, on many occasions!  Fun, fun, hobby ... but not the same as discussing RPGs.

Hah, well said.  Yeah... now I feel weird about my Luke bit.  

But still, the question remains, "What's the deterministic/bad thing about Burning Empires?(Burning Wheel?)"

A Two Men Enter, One Man Leave forum would rock.

-Andy

Okay, Tony, you are right with this one, I´ll leave you folks alone in this one as an example.
Be productive!
I´ll be lurking.

Quote from: Andy KBut still, the question remains, "What's the deterministic/bad thing about Burning Empires?(Burning Wheel?)"

From the context it sounds like a wierd use/misuse of the word "deterministic". The bad thing would be, if I'm reading into it correctly, that there are a wide range of the structured dice mechanics for determining the outcome in different kinds of situtations?

Quote from: SettembriniFor a funnier spin:

Tony actually wins!
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Tony+LB&word2=Luke+Crane

Only in a fair fight!

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Capes+RPG&word2=Burning+Wheel+RPG

Quote from: jenskotOnly in a fair fight!

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Capes+RPG&word2=Burning+Wheel+RPG

I unbanned you, the anti-spam software got ya.

I was sure when i first saw this thread that it said "licks Luke...." The front page doesn't show the rest, so i thought huh? Then on second look, all became clear.

EDIT: It does now. Wierd.

Hi, guys! Sorry I've been incommunicado--my internet usage was interfered with yesterday to a terminal degree. Multnomah County Library: 1, Joel: 0.

Also, apologiez* for the choice of forum. I honestly forgot that this site has a separate forum for AP. You got me on one count, though, Spike: I did want people to actually read the thread. I'm such a fiend.

On GMless play: this was one quality of the game that I especially thought bore examination. In my description I've tried to highlight aspects of play that particularly hinge on GM-less-ness, and how it worked out in actual practice. For instance, there are no "NPCs". Well, there are bystanders and bit parts and such, BUT: if a character is to have any significant impact on the story, they have to be run by a player. Hence, who takes up what role in a given scene is fluid, and discussion vital.

On that note:

Quote from: TonyLBJoel:Experience (both mine and that of others) indicates that the few minutes you spent talking as a group in advance about what you wanted the tenor of the game to be, and how everyone's characters would fit into it, is a crucial element of that success.  I'm constantly amazed at how much fuel a group stockpiles in just those few minutes, to keep them humming along together for the session ahead.

I wholeheartedly agree. It kinda felt like we were slow getting started, but once we got through it that prep made a rock-solid foundation for the rest of play. (Incidentally, I know you designed the Click-N-Locks, etc for "grab 'n go" play, but have you factored in the delay factor caused by two or more participants with encyclopedic Marvel and DC knowledge? ;) )

I think the most serious issue with GMlessness may be the downside of "everyone takes up parts of characters as necessary." Which is, that who can be centrally involved in the story at any time is limited by the number of players. For instance, if we had played a "Super-team," what would we do if the whole team was on hand for a battle? Sure, you can spend tokens to play two characters, but wouldn't it be a little. . .wierd for the whole group to play both the heroes and their opposition?

The closest we came to this difficulty was our little "No one's playing the assassin" snag. Which we solved, sure. I'm not saying it's an insurmountable difficulty, but it is there. Any thoughts, Tony?

And as for everyone else, it sounds like the GM;ess concept has got a few folks scratching their heads. I've tried to lay out how it works in practice (for this game, anyway) and what makes it fun, but if anyone has any specific questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Or Tony can, since he's got, y'know, a bit of expreience with this.



About BW and "Deterimistic"-ness: I thought it was an odd word to use, myself. I mainly included the remark about BW to highlight how one player, in particular a skeptic, liked Capes in favor of another system. Anyway, I asked him what he meant and he said something like, in BW there's a little system for everything (like DoW, I guess), that gives you very narrowly defined A or B outcomes. Bear in mind that I'm really not familiar with BW at all, but the contrast he seemed to draw was that Capes gives you a lot of interpretive leeway on describing an outcome, that BW specifically doesn't. I have know idea if that's true of BW, myself.

Whew! Better late then never. I better warn everyone that I'll be leaving for the weekend, so barring possibly getting online again later tonight, further replies will have to wait until Monday.

Peace,
-Joel


*WAY too awesome a typo to correct.

Quote from: MelinglorAnyway, I asked him what he meant and he said something like, in BW there's a little system for everything (like DoW, I guess), that gives you very narrowly defined A or B outcomes. Bear in mind that I'm really not familiar with BW at all, but the contrast he seemed to draw was that Capes gives you a lot of interpretive leeway on describing an outcome, that BW specifically doesn't.

The real deal breaker for me where BW was concerned wasn't that the sub-systems lock you into particular courses of action (i.e., they don't), but that there are so many of them (e.g., DoW has several sub-systems in and of itself, as does Fight!) that actual resolution often gets drawn out to unreasonable degrees.

Mechanically speaking, it's low on the efficiency end of things, which I think makes it suffer for use as anything other than a deliberate exercise in rule application. Granted, some professed roleplayers consider rule-jockeying to be the only form of roleplay and, for them, BW should be a hoot.

For anybody who digs story or drama during actual play, on the other hand, BW is about as far from transparent as RPG mechanics come.

How did I get involved in this? WHY drag me into this? You liked playing Capes, that's great! That has nothing to do with me. Unless, of course, you're asking me to demonstrate what you already know -- I'm a dick's dick.

Quote from: lukeHow did I get involved in this? WHY drag me into this? You liked playing Capes, that's great! That has nothing to do with me. Unless, of course, you're asking me to demonstrate what you already know -- I'm a dick's dick.

Well, then you belong here, judging by the present company... :D

-clash

Sorry, Luke, I didn't mean to "involve" you in any serious way. It was just a throwaway line which, once it had occurred to me, I couldn't resist using. It gave some people who really hate his guts an excuse to sound off. That's all.

Well, it also engendered a bit of discussion on how Burning Wheel works, based on my fellow-player's comment. Which I don't mind, I guess, as long as it doesn't crowd out whatever Capes-discussion we manage to get going. In any case, I think I'll send out word to my fellow-players about this thread, and maybe the guy who commented on BW can explain himself directly.

Peace,
-Joel

EDIT: On contemplation, if what Mark described isn't actually the way BW works, it may be that his impression was colored by the way it was demoed.

Quote from: MelinglorThe closest we came to this difficulty was our little "No one's playing the assassin" snag. Which we solved, sure. I'm not saying it's an insurmountable difficulty, but it is there. Any thoughts, Tony?

I generally do things like super-hero teams (or, for another instance, Nick Fury and his Howling Commandoes) by narrating them the same way I would narrate gadgets from Batman's utility belt.  They're part of the narration, and may even be the biggest part of the narration, but somewhere in there is some factor of the 'primary' character that is driving the story.

So:  "Sweeping from the shadows, Batman pulls his special Anti-Vermin-Ultrasonic-Batarang from his belt ... 'This will put a stop to your rodent plague, Piper!' " is a perfectly legitimate use of "Jump out of the shadows."

Likewise:  "Nick chews on his cigar ... 'Take him down, Dum Dum,' he says.  Dum Dum Dugan steps forward, cocking his bowler hat at a jaunty angle.  'With pleasure, Nick,' he says," is a fine narration for "Cigar" or "Leadership" or any number of other traits on Nick Fury.

If one player is particularly keen to bring in a whole team, there are ways to build a character that make it particularly easy to narrate such stuff (leadership-centered personality traits, and sometimes even group-effecting superpowers like the ever-popular "Patriotic Slogans" (Cap) or "Bitchier than humanly possible" (Jenny Sparks)), but even with a character not optimized for that stuff, it's totally possible to narrate it.

My mnemonic is this:  You're in the series that follows the characters who are mechanically represented.  Yeah, the Avengers can (and do) show up in the Fantastic Four comic book ... but every action the Avengers take begins and ends with something that the Fantastic Four do to motivate them.  The story's not about the Avengers the same way it is about the FF.

Likewise, the Justice League acts differently when they appear in Superman's book than when Superman is appearing in the Justice League mag.

Quote from: lukeHow did I get involved in this? WHY drag me into this? You liked playing Capes, that's great! That has nothing to do with me. Unless, of course, you're asking me to demonstrate what you already know -- I'm a dick's dick.

Bizarrely, and quite against your will, you seem to have become something of a local celebrity, albeit not a popular one I grant you.

Use of your name encourages readership, hell, I intend to use it now in all future thread titles (for example, "I want a new horror rpg, what would you and/or Luke Crane recommend?).  It guarantees attention to the thread in question.

Quote from: BalbinusBizarrely, and quite against your will, you seem to have become something of a local celebrity, albeit not a popular one I grant you.

Popular, unpopular. It's all the same to me! But it is a little creepy, I admit.

I hope people start using thread titles like "Luke Crane! Viagra! Penis Enlargement! Satisfy Yourself Tonight!"

But now, back to discussing Capes!

Flame ON!

Since my name has been invoked by Joel, I suppose I ought to respond to his comment about my comparison between "Capes" and "BW."

First, I did enjoy "Capes" immensely. I liked the conflict resolution system, the uses of the debt tokens, and the introduction of initial story elements. I would play the game again for all of these reasons.

That being said, the game does not address the issue of The Opposition, for lack of a better term. Because the game is GM-less, there is no individual responsible for defining and portraying the Opposition. The game virtually assumes that the players must engage in conflict with each other in order for the system to work. However, in true super-hero fashion, heroes fight *villains,* and if no one in the group is willing to play a villain, the entire story comes to a crashing halt. That is why I stepped into the breach to play the parts that *needed* to be played. I recognized that in order for the story to work, someone *had* to fulfill these roles (like the toadying assistant). It wasn't a question of enthusiasm; it was my recognition that this was a necessary and lacking element of the game mechanic. I proposed, later, that we distribute these roles to each of the players as seemed appropriate, but if one player does not claim "ownership" of these NPCs, you could find their personalities swinging wildly. So group ownership of NPCs doesn't make sense from a storytelling/narrative point of view.

Traditionally, it's the GM's role to "round out" the world, describing all the other characters and circumstances around the players. There was no one fulfilling this role in "Capes" and that was its greatest weakness. It seemed to get off to a good start with all the players contributing to setting the scene, adding to the mythology, etc. But once the scene was actually underway, there was no easy way to add in the "bit players," to add complications to the scene, etc. I understand that this would have been the role of the Story Tokens if we'd had an opportunity to use them. But since so few actions were actually opposed, there were few Story Tokens generated. And the one person who had a Story Token couldn't think of a use for it.

Now, as to my impression of "Burning Wheel." I've participated in two demos, and the second only reinforced my impression from the first. The system is *too crunchy.* The character sheet is a monstrosity, putting d20 to shame in its complexity. I liked the "Beliefs" and "Instincts" conceptually, but didn't see these as affecting play in a significant way, certainly no more than a clearly defined character concept and competent roleplaying would do in any other game.

And that's the crux of the issue. "BW" tries to substitute "systems" for roleplaying; to codify all the soft, squishy bits of character development that rightly belong within the province of the imagination of the players. The "Duel  of Wits" mechanics were absurd; laborious, tedious, pointless. They exclude for extended periods of time any characters that are not involved in the "Duel." In my day, these kinds of conflicts would be *roleplayed," not "scripted." If characters are incapable of resolving their interpersonal conflicts, then usually characters begin to take *actions* to assert their will, just like in the real world. The idea of cross-referencing verbal tactics on a rubrik to determine outcomes is just that - deterministic. It robs the players of choice.

I was willing to be more forgiving of the same system as applied to combat, but it still smacked too much of wargamer mentality, where orders must be written in advance. In actual combat, fighters are capable of adjusting to changing conditions; they are rarely "locked in" to a course of three actions at a time.

In summary, "Burning Wheel" did not provide the rich roleplaying experience that its adherents claim. It substituted systems, scripts, and determined outcomes for actual roleplaying. The character creation system, while interesting, takes too long without adding much dimensionally, and certainly nothing that competent players and GMs couldn't do on their own. The entire BW system seems to be a crutch for folks who can't manage these tasks on their own.

I have zero interest in playing "Burning Wheel" again. If "BW" is supposedly "da bomb," then it's definitely a dud!

Cheers,
Mark

Quote from: MrFantasticBut since so few actions were actually opposed, there were few Story Tokens generated. And the one person who had a Story Token couldn't think of a use for it.

Whuh?  Now I'm confused.  You had judgment, secrecy, all that stuff ... why weren't you guys opposing each other?  Your group, as a whole, generated only one story token?  More details, please!

Quote from: Melinglor, Spike: I did want people to actually read the thread. I'm such a fiend.

:D

Shine on you crazy diamond you....

:D

Quote from: MrFantasticThey exclude for extended periods of time any characters that are not involved in the "Duel."

I'm curious, how long were these DoW running? Maybe it was longer because of being a demo/learning, but they should be fairly quick. Usually 2 and sometimes 3 scriptings wrap it up.  That's easily 5 minutes or less.

The reason I ask is I've heard this kind of comment before. But it isn't really longer, and usually much shorter, than the "hashing it out" between players that you get in games without social mechanisms like this. But with the later sometimes we become so used to it we seem to tune it out. But going back and watching really closely for the time spent I've found it in truth much faster and generally speaking much more happens. And when I pointed that out to persons that made the comment I've had agreement. *shrug*

P.S.  BW is "crunchy" though, no doubt about that. But if it wasn't crunch that moved fast I know I'd hate it because I have a deep-seated paperwork phobia.

Quote from: TonyLBI generally do things like super-hero teams (or, for another instance, Nick Fury and his Howling Commandoes) by narrating them the same way I would narrate gadgets from Batman's utility belt.  They're part of the narration, and may even be the biggest part of the narration, but somewhere in there is some factor of the 'primary' character that is driving the story.

So:  "Sweeping from the shadows, Batman pulls his special Anti-Vermin-Ultrasonic-Batarang from his belt ... 'This will put a stop to your rodent plague, Piper!' " is a perfectly legitimate use of "Jump out of the shadows."

Likewise:  "Nick chews on his cigar ... 'Take him down, Dum Dum,' he says.  Dum Dum Dugan steps forward, cocking his bowler hat at a jaunty angle.  'With pleasure, Nick,' he says," is a fine narration for "Cigar" or "Leadership" or any number of other traits on Nick Fury.

[SNIP]

My mnemonic is this:  You're in the series that follows the characters who are mechanically represented.  Yeah, the Avengers can (and do) show up in the Fantastic Four comic book ... but every action the Avengers take begins and ends with something that the Fantastic Four do to motivate them.  The story's not about the Avengers the same way it is about the FF.

Likewise, the Justice League acts differently when they appear in Superman's book than when Superman is appearing in the Justice League mag.

OK, that makes amazing sense to me. It's an insight that seems counterintuitive from the standpoint of how most RPGs work, but I think Capes clears away just enough of the usual operating procedure and trappings for the proposition to be viable. The degree, and more importantly the kind of abstraction at work makes it only logical to treat only narratively important characters as mechanically important.

Quote from: TonyLBWhuh?  Now I'm confused.  You had judgment, secrecy, all that stuff ... why weren't you guys opposing each other?  Your group, as a whole, generated only one story token?  More details, please!

Well, I say we had plenty opposition; nearly all of the Conflicts I named in the report were fiercely contested by the players, and on purely in-character grounds. We didn't quite have a "nefarious villain" type character at first, since the two players who made "non-heroes," Gabe and myself, created an ambiguously-motivated Beyonder-type character, and a "dark vigilante"-style borderline villain, respectively. But Mr. Bishop, created entirely on the spot for scene needs by Gabe, turned out to be quite a compelling, if mundane, bad guy, and seems to be shaping up to be an honest-to-God supervillain, It's interesting to note that both he and the Senator were exposed to the glowing dust at the lab. . .:hehe:

The dearth of Story Tokens had more to do with difficulty getting the Debt flowing. We actually had 3 STs in play by the end of the night, but at the outset of scene 2 there was only one, as Mark says. As I noted in the original account, we had a lot of non-dept-generating characters in play, and the couple of Powered individuals in the scene weren't using their powers much.

The session WAS a little flat for this reason, but not because the conflicts weren't memorable and engaging; rather because after the smoke cleared there weren't a lot of rewards to be racked up. I fugure when we reconvene we'll just have to start off with a rousing battle scene to get the juices flowing.

Quote from: MrFantasticThat being said, the game does not address the issue of The Opposition, for lack of a better term. Because the game is GM-less, there is no individual responsible for defining and portraying the Opposition. The game virtually assumes that the players must engage in conflict with each other in order for the system to work. However, in true super-hero fashion, heroes fight *villains,* and if no one in the group is willing to play a villain, the entire story comes to a crashing halt. That is why I stepped into the breach to play the parts that *needed* to be played. I recognized that in order for the story to work, someone *had* to fulfill these roles (like the toadying assistant). It wasn't a question of enthusiasm; it was my recognition that this was a necessary and lacking element of the game mechanic.

[SNIP]

Traditionally, it's the GM's role to "round out" the world, describing all the other characters and circumstances around the players. There was no one fulfilling this role in "Capes" and that was its greatest weakness. It seemed to get off to a good start with all the players contributing to setting the scene, adding to the mythology, etc. But once the scene was actually underway, there was no easy way to add in the "bit players," to add complications to the scene, etc. I understand that this would have been the role of the Story Tokens if we'd had an opportunity to use them. But since so few actions were actually opposed, there were few Story Tokens generated. And the one person who had a Story Token couldn't think of a use for it.

Mark, first let me say that I'm glad you could enjoy the game so much even if we disagree on some key issues surrounding it. I look forward to our next session.

Now, as I just told Tony, I don't think we were lacking for opposition. True, it took a bit (but LESS than a scene, at that) for the "master villain" role to emerge, but emerge it did. I look forward to Mr. Bishop's further machinations. You are absolutely right about the game falling apart if no one takes up the right roles, for instance villains. But I'd say that's true for any roleplaying experience; it just takes different forms. If nobody wants to play D&D characters that are fit for the "Party," then that style of play breaks down, for instance. That's why I think our group discussions, even when we had to interrupt and rewind a bit to make it work, were vital to the game coming out as fun and exciting as it did.

I think the key issue here is that not every character in Capes has to be represented by mechanics. Tony already laid it out extremely well above, so no need to repeat that. But just because the mechanical "engine" of a character isn't in play for everyone present in a scene, doesn't mean that they don't exist. There was no mechanical model for the playing child, or the driver of the out of control car careening toward him. We just narrated those things as a natural outcome of the actions of the mechanical characters in the scene. That's all there is to it. It takes some getting used to, but has a lot of potential for fun.

My issue isn't with you taking up "bit" roles and acting them out; it's with giving those roles particular mechanical weight when in Capes, you buy that extra mechanical influence with hard-earned "cash." That's why I stepped in when you were getting ready to play an extra character for free. Your heart was in the right place, but there was a different solution, which we happily found.

You're quite right that "rounding out the world is traditionally a GM role. The idea behind GMless play is that all the duties that a GM is usually charged with, can be handed around to the group if that serves the particular way you want to play. SO it's not that nobody is rounding out the world, it's that everyone is. WHich may or may not suit the preferences of an individual roleplayer, but it's hardly unworkable. For all our hiccups and learning curve issues, I think we did just fine.

Quote from: MrFantasticI proposed, later, that we distribute these roles to each of the players as seemed appropriate, but if one player does not claim "ownership" of these NPCs, you could find their personalities swinging wildly. So group ownership of NPCs doesn't make sense from a storytelling/narrative point of view.

I separated this out because I think it bears addressing separately. This concern that passing around the portrayal of a character can hurt character consistency is probably the number one criticism of this kind of play. And it's a real concern. People have different preferences and comfort zones, and some folks like to feel that a character is "theirs" in a way that passing it around can't provide. And that's fine. There are several ways to address this. One is, of course, "don't play Capes." :D But assuming that we're past the point of making that choice, there are ways within Capes of negotiating with the group on issues like "I feel like this character is especially 'mine,' and I'd really like it if nobody else plays her." In fact, I was planning on bringing that up at our next session.

To some degree, though, the solution to maintaining character consistency in this kind of setup is to trust your players. If everyone is committed to maintaining the shared, emerging vision, then consistency glitches for most characters should be relatively minor. Plus you can talk things over either between sessions or on the spot and smooth things over.

I do hope that we can continue to have some fun play with this game. Thank you so much for coming by and taking the time to share your thoughts. Meanwhile, anyone else have any questions?

Peace,
-Joel

QuoteMeanwhile, anyone else have any questions?

What´s the point playing it?

Quote from: SettembriniWhat´s the point playing it?

Memorable dialogue in your dungeon crawls.

Quote from: SettembriniWhat´s the point playing it?

We all had fun. Even the guy who thought there was a serious flaw in the game's design. Isn't that point enough?

Peace,
-Joel

Maybe Settembrini wants to know what your creative agenda is.

Quote from: droogMaybe Settembrini wants to know what your creative agenda is.

Well played sir, well played.

Made me laugh.

Well, Mark's too busy to follow the forum, but he did write me this reply in private e-mail, which he gave me permission to post:

Quote from: MarkI don't wish to prolong the discussion, since all the important points have been made. I think my concerns are valid, but not insurmountable. Your explanations were fine, as far as they went, but the "problems" I raised are more intrinsic to the format, and hence not really solvable. One can try to accept them as necessary conditions (your approach) or try to work around them (my approach).

    One thing I would have you recognize is that if Gabe had not been willing to play Bishop rather than the Hero that he created (i.e. "his" character), then there would have been no conflict in the first scene. If you had not changed the nature of The Bengal in the second scene, again the conflict potential would have been very limited, since it was only the Bengal's attack on Trudy that caused "The Other" to act. You *chose* to change the Bengal in order to generate conflict, but there was nothing compelling you to do so, no external force acting upon you, forcing you to react, and due to the limitations of the format, within the circumstances we had described, there never would be.

    I understand that the point of GM-less play is greater group consensus and "ownership" of the story. I think that those are both worthwhile goals. I also understand that not every character that appears in the story is worthy of full-fledged development. As a GM, however, one of my chiefest joys is the opportunity to portray those bit actors, bring them to life, and by doing so, to give the players a richer, more immersive game environment. If it appears that the entire world consists merely of the characters represented by the players at the table, then that's a very small world indeed. Or to put in another way, every JLA needs its Snapper Carr and every Fantastic Four needs its Willie Lumpkin. There's not much glory in playing those parts, but their presence brings a sense of cohesion and continuity to the game that, in my opinion, is essential to great roleplaying experiences.

    Once again, I don't want you to take my comments as a lack of enthusiasm for the game. I found many of its aspects intriguing. I certainly had a good time, and look forward to playing again.  I would ask that we discuss, at the outset of the next meeting, how we intend to handle the issues that I've raised.

Regards,
Mark

I'll post my response to that as well.

Here's my reply, pasted from E-mail:

Hi, Mark!

Thanks for writing back. I'm glad you're willing to work through the issues
of this game to continue having fun with it.

First, I agree that there are "problems" inherent in the system, in the sense that there are certain things (such as a strong "GM vision" under the purview of a single participant") that Capes just won't give you, since it's designed to do something else. It's only a bad thing, though, if it kills your fun. And it certainly would, in a game that was predicated on incompatible player expectations. I wouldn't want all my RPGs to suddenly go GMless. But if you gather together as we did, with the understanding that the game we're playing will be Y instead of X, and everyone's cool with that, then there's no difficulty.

Quote from: MarkOne thing I would have you recognize is that if Gabe had not been willing to play Bishop rather than the Hero that he created (i.e. "his" character), then there would have been no conflict in the first scene. If you had not changed the nature of The Bengal in the second scene, again the conflict potential would have been very limited, since it was only the Bengal's attack on Trudy that caused "The Other" to act. You *chose* to change the Bengal in order to generate conflict, but there was nothing compelling you to do so, no external force acting upon you, forcing you to react, and due to the limitations of the format, within the circumstances we had described, there never would be.

I absolutely do recognize that, but i don't see it as a problem. I mean, for one thing, Gabe did play Mr. Bishop, and I did switch around the Bengal's role, so there was no actual deficiency in play even if there was a potential one. But on a deeper level, this is exactly what you're supposed to do to solve the problem of fit opposition and conflict-laden scenes. In other words, discussing and negotiating who-plays-what-when is EXACTLY Capes' built-in solution to this potential hangup, not something we desperately tacked on to avoid it. Also, note that I didn't change who the Bengal is or what he's about; I just changed the situation a little so he was duped into attacking the wrong person. I was never considering changing anything fundamental (though I if no other solution presenting itself I suppose I might have). Thankfully, we made it all work with the characters as they were, which is testament to our excellent group prep, I'd say.

There's nothing wrong with a game hinging on the players being willing to cooperate. If we are all interested in having fun as a group, then great; if some people are unwilling to work with others' ideas then it's not really a healthy play group in the first place. It's not always necessary to have systems in place to "compel" players to work with each other. In fact, our situation is in many respects no different from forming a D&D party: if one guy is set on the upright paladin, and another insists on a religion-hating psycho-killer, and yet a third won't give up on her "cold and efficient monster-hunter who always works alone" concept, then the group's ideas do not mesh with the vision of "party of adventurers and solve problems together." And there's no force save pure social coercion that can make anyone "get in line."

Looking at it from the other side of the GM divide, there's nothing inherent in vesting all the opposition-providing duties in one person that makes that job immune to failure. A GM in charge of this can still break the game by: providing too weak or too few combats, failing to provide challenges that touch on anything the players/characters care about, providing situations that are trite or cliche or just dead boring, or whatever else. Actually, come to think of it I've been playing in a D&D game where the DM exhibits ALL of these problems, so I'm not just spinning hypotheticals here! GM-as-conflict-provider can be immensely useful since (for one thing) he can be thinking about thayt one job all the time and mustering all his effort toward it, whereas if it's spread through the group then everyone has to think about situations from all angles to make sure there's plenty of opposing forces. But As we proved the other night, it's definitely possible to make it work. :)

Quote from: MarkI understand that the point of GM-less play is greater group consensus and "ownership" of the story. I think that those are both worthwhile goals. I also understand that not every character that appears in the story is worthy of full-fledged development. As a GM, however, one of my chiefest joys is the opportunity to portray those bit actors, bring them to life, and by doing so, to give the players a richer, more immersive game environment. If it appears that the entire world consists merely of the characters represented by the players at the table, then that's a very small world indeed.

Oh, TOTALLY--the world does need to be fleshed out and defined. The bit characters and little details and nuances are essential--and I sumbit that we did not lack in that department. A lot of this was due to your effort--you obviously enjoyed diving into the roles of the supporting cast, and I'm grateful for your contribution. You did it entertainingly and memorably, and it enriched the whole session. Awesome! As you hinted, this is exactly what you would do as a GM, and in Capes you get to keep right on doing it. The difference is that everyone else gets to take a crack at it too--as much or as little as they want to.

Just to make sure we understand each other, let me reiterate that it was NOT your playing those roles that concerned me--just the prospect of giving them mechanical weight for free, which is against the rules. I'd suggest you review Tony's words on how to handle "non-mechanical" characters in a scene, even other superheroes. The only thing that mechanics represent in Capes is a designation: "This story, right now, is about thesecharacters." Like in any ensemble comic or TV show, that spotlight can move around, but no story in this format throws all the protagonists' themes and issues into the
forefront all at once.

Quote from: MarkOnce again, I don't want you to take my comments as a lack of enthusiasm for the game. I found many of its aspects intriguing. I certainly had a good time, and look forward to playing again.

Indeed, I'm very glad you can argue a viewpoint so different from mine and still be excited to play! That's so cool. I think it sets a great example for the ideal that folks can have spirited disagreement and still enjoy each other's company andtheir gaming.

Peace,
-Joel

FWIW, this very topic is in fact why I asked about Story Tokens.  Story Tokens are the game's answer to "Why would somebody choose to play the opposition if everyone else in the scene is on the same side?"  It's because they earn beaucoup Story Tokens by doing so ... especially when people have the traditional sensibility that their conflicts will be super-hero vs. super-villain.

True, true. I'm hoping we can step it up for next session.