The Forge Archives

So, I had an increasinglg familiar experience in our first Capes session last night, and would like advice about how to make it more familiar still.

Everyone was agreed that Fistfire (player super-hero) and Doc. Kettridge (our super-medic) should develop a relationship of respect.  My villainess, Vanessa Faust, introduced a conflict "Undermine burgeoning respect between Fistfire and Kettridge".

We spoke briefly and cogently about whether a villain victory would violate the relationship that has already been built into the rules, and decide that it would not (technically "Does that stop Kettridge from being Fistfire's Exemplar?  No.  They'll still have issues, just maybe different ones.")  Then we set out to play the Conflict.  And this is where it gets fun.  I thought I would lose it, because Sydney (playing Kettridge) would go crazy to stop me.  He doesn't, so I go crazy instead, and win the conflict by a massive margin.  Partly because that gets me another sort of resource (Inspirations) which I am sorely lacking.  But partly because I can, and it makes my character look really cool and evil, and I like that an awful lot.

In many game groups I have played in my life, my actions would have been disruptive behavior of the worst possible sort.  Everyone was on the same page, creatively, and I stepped in and threw a monkey-wrench into the works out of capricious greed and spite.  In this game group it felt like the notion was immediately integrated and appreciated.  Like, "Yes, I see... it's just as good if Fistfire and Kettridge have a rocky start.  Different, but just as valid.  And we'll see where it goes from there."

Now what I find really interesting is that just three days earlier I had the same subjective experience running Dogs in the Vineyard.  As recounted right here, the Dogs offered Stakes that I really wanted to prevent (Sybrina, spilling her guts too early), so I went ahead and stopped them, and it was accepted without a murmur.

So, I have some theories about what those things have in common, but I don't want to pattern the discussion, because I really easily could be wrong.  But generally, if I can get this sort of assent in the future I want it.  I got to forcefully advocate for a creative vision, without dominating the game.  That's addictive.

Is this serendipity?  A break-through in my personal GMing?  Or a question of the systems I've started playing with?  Or are those last two one and the same?

In my opinion, it's a matter of your own personal growth and learning.

This sounds like a byproduct of thegames. In my personal experience as a player, it isn't the fact that the GM wants to push something into the game that has ever been a source of contention, it's that I have no recourse as a player.

Let me give an example similar to your Capes experience to illustrate. I was playing in a Legend of the Five Rings game and my character formed a romantic attachment with (awkwardly) the woman who became head of his clan. There was tension there. It became clear that a goal for me was that the two eventually end up together, and the other players were on board. When the climax of the campaign came around, the GM did his own thing, stomping over my goal for the story. This pissed me off, along with another of the players who was hoping for the payof of the romance to happen during play.

The deal was, I had no recourse as a player to make my goal happen. I was at the mercy of the GM. He knew what I wanted to happen, and chose to thwart it.

Now the difference with Capes is that the players all had the means to fight for their own vision. They weren't being manipulated by arbitrary whim from a GM in the devine role of storyteller--they were being challenged by an equal, another player. That changes the whole dynamic. And along with that dynamic comes the knowledge that they, in their own time, can wield the same control for themselves.

At least that's the way I see it.

Small clarification, as it doesn't seem extra clear in rereading my post:

I think most folks have the desire to forcefully advocate for a creative vision in RPGs (some folks don't realize it, I think). The thing is that in the traditional "GM as god" RPG style, the only person with that power is the GM. That leads to resentment on the part of the players who can only hope that the GM listens to them and makes their visions come true in the SIS.

So I don't think your GM-ing has changed so much as the landscape around it.

But, Coxcomb, you DID have the opportunity to fight for your vision.

You could have said to the GM, "Wait, why did you do that?  I'd really like for my character to be able to have a chance to fulfill this piece of drama."

The only difference is that you'd be modifying the social contract of your group to do so.

Quote from: coxcombI think most folks have the desire to forcefully advocate for a creative vision in RPGs (some folks don't realize it, I think).

I'd disagree with this.  Most people at the Forge, perhaps, but most RPGers have no problem with being led around by the nose.

I can't understand how someone can have a desire, but not realize it...

Vaxalon:  Fair to say, however, that coxcomb probably had limited (perhaps non-existent) opportunities to fight for that vision within the context of the rules?

That's fair to say, certainly.

I guess I've never felt that trying to steer the game from the player's chair was a problem.

With some GM's, I had to be a little sneaky... "Oh, man... don't tell me John is going to fall in love with Marsha...  I mean, with the war on and all, you KNOW that the wedding would get attacked by ninjas."  When this is said in front of some GM's, they get a twinkle in their eye.  Some other player then says, "SHh!  Dammit Fred, what do we keep telling you about saying that kind of stuff out loud!?!"

Quote from: VaxalonI guess I've never felt that trying to steer the game from the player's chair was a problem.

With some GM's, I had to be a little sneaky... "Oh, man... don't tell me John is going to fall in love with Marsha...  I mean, with the war on and all, you KNOW that the wedding would get attacked by ninjas."  When this is said in front of some GM's, they get a twinkle in their eye.  Some other player then says, "SHh!  Dammit Fred, what do we keep telling you about saying that kind of stuff out loud!?!"

Exactly, and this is a social contract method of guiding the game, not a rules-supported method (for most games). You express interest, and the GM knows where to steer the game. The issue is the authority granted by the rules: the GM can choose not to steer the game that direction, and in the example above, didn't. The player was dissatisfied because he had no input in the decision, even though he had made his intentions clear to the GM earlier.

For want of better words, what Vaxalon is describing is influence, rather than power.

Having only influence over things essential to your happiness can be poisonous to both the person without power and the person with it.  It makes the empowered person (in this case the GM) responsible for the happiness or sadness of the disempowered (in this case the players).

Actually, Coxcomb didn't say that he had ever expressed a desire for that piece of drama to be used, aside from playing it.

Now for me, playing it SHOULD be enough, but not all GM's are so perspicacious.

Dr. Kettridge here...

"System does matter" -- here, in three ways.

Most obviously, Capes has no GM. But that's a bit of a red herring, because in the absence of other mechanics (system), there's nothing to stop one dominant personality, GM or not, from riding roughshod over other players' idea for the story.

Most importantly, traditional RPGs have lots of mechanics for Doing Stuff (especially combat & magic), but none for shaping the overall story; in Capes (and other games like Universalis and With Great Power... that I know less well) the mechanics are all about the shape of the story. Having rules and resources that you can use to make things you care about actually happen is a lot easier than "just roleplaying it" and hoping the GM takes the hint. (N.B. Anyone notice I'm not a fan of pure Drama resolution?)

Most innovatively, and most peculiar to Capes (although Trollbabe's "loser narrates outcome" rule does this in a looser way), in this game it pays to lose. If your opponent invests game resources (Debt) making something they care about happen, and you're willing to lose, then their investment is handed to you, the loser, as a resource (Story Tokens).

In this particular situation, by investing moderately in an earlier conflict, "Kettridge impresses Fistfire," I'd already established the two things I most cared about for my character, Dr. Kettridge: (1) He's damn cool (I explicitly said he's played in the movie version by Lawrence Fishburne); (2) Fistfire has an emotional connection to Kettridge.

So when Tony thought he was threatening me by attempting to "undermine trust," I was perfectly fine with it: Goal (1), "be cool," isn't affected at all; and Goal (2), form a connection, is enhanced, because now it's an ambivalent relationship: Not only is that more interesting dramatically (I'd already been coming up with my own ways to complicate the connection), it's a source of future conflicts in-game -- which means more opportunities to lose.

Bottom line:
Short term: Tony wins conflict "undermine trust." I get Story Tokens. It's a windfall!
Long term: Tony has sown seeds of future conflicts about trust. I can lose those conflicts and get more Story Tokens, again and again. It's an income stream!

(No, I'm not so clever as to have done this on purpose. I only figured out the long-term income stream aspect of this just now).

Conversely, I picked some Story Tokens up from Tony by setting up a conflict between Kettridge and his character, the sorceror-scientist supergenius Vanessa Faust, about "who's the better scientist?" And the most rewarding single moment of the game for me was the look on Tony's face when he saw that conflict come out: a mixture of surprise, delight, and greed. Because -- and I said this out loud at the table -- it's not essential to the character of Kettridge to be the best scientist, but it is essential to the character of Faust. So I gave Tony a golden opportunity to establish something about his character, namely her staggering genius; in return, he gave me Story Tokens.

Capitalism at its finest.

{EDIT: To revise an old cliche, in Capes, if you smack a man upside the head with a fish, you've fed him for a day; if you throw him into a pool full of sharks with lasers on their heads, you've fed him for a lifetime.}

Quote from: Sydney FreedbergCapitalism at its finest.

This is one of the most interesting things about Capes. Tony has taken the axiom "reward activities you feel are important to your game" and pretty much turned all rules to serve that one premise. There is an extremely complex give-and-take in Capes, where you pay for story options you are interested in promoting, and are rewarded by other players by allowing them to further their own agenda. The more I look at this game the more impressed I get.

Quote from: VaxalonActually, Coxcomb didn't say that he had ever expressed a desire for that piece of drama to be used, aside from playing it.

Now for me, playing it SHOULD be enough, but not all GM's are so perspicacious.

I never expressed my desire it in so many words *during the game*. I did make it pretty darned clear by my in-game actions and in discussion outside of the play. This particular GM would not function under a social contract where questioning his rulings during play was an OK thing to do. He pretty much embodies the Impossible Thing Before Breakfast.

My point is that the system of L5R (d20 in this case) does not allow for the player to assert their story desires that affect the actions of NPCs. That is, by the rules the GM has total authority over what the NPCs do. Players can suggest and plead and prod all they want, but at the end of the day the decision is the GM's to make.

Many folks (myself included) are unwilling in such a game to assert too much power for fear of taking away from the players' contributions. My feeling is that a system like Capes suddenly makes having an agenda not only OK, but essentially required. And I think that is the freedom that Tony is feeling and enjoying. If the players really don't like it, they won't sulk and get pissed--they have recourse in the confines of the system to try to stop it.

Do you think that particular GM would ever participate in a game of Capes?