Yeah, that got you reading.

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 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." 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 ).

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. ) 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.

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.