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

Shine on you crazy diamond you....

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." 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.