[WillyPete]

Originally Posted by joshua neff

1) Is that any actual rule of Mutants & Masterminds? "The GM has the power because s/he does all of the prep work and catches all of the flack is the game doesn't go well"? So...the other players do no prep at all? None? Making PCs isn't prep work? And if the game doesn't go well, it's really all the fault of the GM? The other players have absolutely no responsiblity for the game going well?



2) Um...so? I mean, seriously, why is that important?

And is that even true? Feats, for example, are all "in character"?



3) Is there any rule in M&M that says that a player has to do something (or can't do something) a certain way because the one player--the GM--says so? Say, for example, that one player--the GM--introduces Jenny Chalice, Ace Reporter, and another player, playing Dr. Twilight, says, "Hey, I've just decided, she's Doc's girlfriend. Totally in love with him." Can the GM veto this, exerting narrative control, or does it have to stand?



4) Have you read the free "Capes Light" download? Have you tried playing it yet?

5) Having played what are generally considered "traditional" superhero RPGs (Champions, Villains & Vigilantes, Marvel Super-Hero Role-Playing) and having played Capes, it seems to me that Capes is very different from the way most RPGs play--and yet, it really isn't different at all.

In Champions, V&V, M&M, and so on, each player has one character, except the GM, who plays everyone else. And the GM is decreed to have the ultimate authority over how the rules are adjudicated and how the flow of the story goes. That's not, however, the only way for RPGs to be played. It's the default only by tradition, not by any sort of logic or natural law. There are plenty of other ways for RPGs to be played, and Capes is another way.

But, I don't think a character having superpowers or not, or how powerful a character's stats are, is really what any superhero--or any RPG--is really, really about in terms of rules. Not at the most basic level. The fundamental rule of RPGs is this: who gets to say what and when, and who has the authority to make it stick.

So, if in one game, the basic rule is: any player can say what happens, whenever, but one player--the GM--has final authority over whether it happens or not...well, that's one way to do it. It's not necessarily the best way or the worst way, but it's one way. (Personally, I'm not overly fond of that way, but everyone has different tastes, and that's cool.) If the basic rule is: each player has ultimate authority, but it depends on whose turn it is as to who has the authority when...that's another way. (You may not dig that way, which is fine. It doesn't seem any weirder to me than the "GM way.")



6) I dunno. Maybe Capes just isn't your thing. No biggie. Or maybe if you tried the Light version, you might like it. But if you think it can't work the way it does, reality says otherwise. Real people have played this game and had fun doing it. It works. It may work differently than Mutants & Masterminds, but it works. In my opinion, it works at least as well. (Actually, in my opinion, it works better, because Capes feels more like playing superheroes when I was 8 years old than Champions, V&V, Marvel or any other "traditional" superhero RPG.)

1) No, it's not a 'rule' in M&M, and, in fact, you don't have to play it that way...
but, in any traditional RPG, it's the GM who's planning the scenario, coming up with all the NPCs, and doing the bulk of the work, and accepting the bulk of the responsibility. Yes, the players have to come up with their characters, but that's mostly a one-time investment of energy {plus a bit of maintenance work, when XP are awarded...}, while the GM usually has to come up with several new characters every week! Yes, the Player Characters can, and often do, render all that work irrelevant, with trivial ease... but it's the GM's responsiblity to make it work, anyways!
{Yes, the GM can moan about the Players all he wants...
but, like the Pitcher in a game of baseball, it's going to show up on HIS "Won-Loss" record, not theirs!}

2) You better believe it's important! If my character beats up your character, in a game, there's usually nothing personal about it...
If I, as a Player, deliberately seize control of the Narrative of a game of Capes, because I don't like what you do with the Narrative when you have it, it can get very personal, and very nasty, indeed!
If that's never happened to you, great! But, I've had similar experiences happen in far more traditional games, and it's broken up gaming groups, and sometimes destroyed friendships...
And, whatever gives you the idea that a 'Feat' is somehow out of character?
A 'Feat' (in both d20, and in M&M) is just another character attribute, as is an Advantage, a Skill, or a Power!

3) To my knowledge, no such rule exists, in M&M. TORG had such a rule, involving card play, but TORG was an odd kind of game...
The GM could veto such a subplot, but I see no reason to. Now, the reverse, where the Hero suddenly decides that the Reporter has fallen for him, and will do anything he requests... THAT, he should have the right to veto!
As I understand Capes, though...
I could decide that the Ace Reporter should fall in love with Captain Amazing when I've got control of the Narrative, but then find out, when someone else takes control, that she's actually a die-hard Lesbian who's willing to disfigure herself with Acid, just to get "that filthy, Macho, Male Supremacist Pig" out of her life!
{Please, DO correct me if I'm wrong, on that!}
Yes, I suppose it's accurate for 'simulating' what happens in today's comics, when one creative team takes over from another, and decides to completely re-write continuity...
But, I hate that in the Comics, and I really don't want it happening in my RPGs!

4) No, and no. Sorry, I'm trying to get enough from this review, and the subsequent discussion, to find out if it's even worth my time to download the free version. I don't see the point in doing so, just to save the people who are defending it from having to explain how it works....
Especially not when it seems the style of play is too 'alien' for me to enjoy!
If you think I'm making a mistake, try convincing me of this, rather than trying to 'prove me wrong'...

5) Granted, and I've even seen a very few "Rules Lite" games that interest me, after a fashion...
But, the 'traditonal' RPG is the way it is for a reason!
It's familiar, it works, and it can be a lot of fun...
So far, Capes loses on the first part, and I have some serious questions on the other two...

6) I never said that Capes *could* not work... Only that I do not see *how* it could work! I've seen numerous attempts to explain it, all of which dig the hole a little deeper, and reinforce my initial impression.
More importantly, the question is not *Can* it work, but "What does it do better than the games I already own?"...
Everything I've seen from it's defenders either convinces me that it's actually worse than everything else I own (and I still have my copy of Task Force's "Super Villains"!), or amounts to someone saying, "But if you just tried it, you'd like it!"

Now, I remember playing the demo version of Marvel's SAGA system at a convention, and thinking it was a lot of fun, with the GM they provided running it, and using prefab characters...
It wasn't exactly what I'd call 'traditional', but it seemed like a cool game!
THEN...
I bought the furshlugginer thing, and read it, and I realized just how awful it really was!
Not every flaw with a game system shows up in a single trial game, especially if the scenario is tailored to cover the game's flaws!

So, I tend to be a little leery of enthusiastic reports of how great a game is, based on one or two sessions...
If you're having fun with it, fine!
Go ahead, and enjoy...
but when it comes to winning converts, you're going about it the wrong way...