Non-Action Issues

[IMAGinES]

Hi, folks,

As some of you have probably seen from this thread, I'm working on a Primetime Adventures show that myself, my wife and two friends will be playing online. We've come up with what seems a pretty natty concept - you can find a breakdown of it here. I'm hoping you can help me with something. Now, I have the horrid feeling that I'm over-thinking the problem, but let me lay it out to you anyway (I'd do so with my players, but they're not available just at the moment):

It's Game Night tonight, and I've spent the day trying to come up with a Problem that the three main cast of Stars On The Move can spend a pilot episode of TV solving. As it's the pilot (none of us have played/Produced PtA before), everyone's Screen Presence will be 2, so I can't centre the problem around any particular character's Issue.

I made some notes, came up with some ideas (the high-ups want to replace all the PCs with AI-driven hologram actors, good fodder for at least a season's worth of problems) and then went back to the text (I own the first edition of PtA) to get some further inspiration and guidelines. That was when I ran into the brick wall. See, the text on pages 53 to 54 reminded me of something I'd been taking for granted, and as a result hadn't been emphasising to my players: that Primetime Adventures is best at creating a blended action/character drama (although I thought the sample shows I listed would have made the point) and that the PCs are expected to be Protagonists, not just roles.

Looking at the PCs again, I can't help but feel that, although my players have created good, interesting, realistic "professional actor" characters as actors (some with sidelines in ship systems), I can't see anything that would plausibly make them be adventurous on a regular basis (i.e. every week of an episode). I dunno. I've been looking at Moose in the City and Jesus, Drugs and Rock & Roll, non-action-adventure shows both, to try and figure out how they did it. The thing in those cases is, of course, that the groups in each example chose to play one particular character's SP 3 episode, whereas I want to take it from the beginning rather than dazzling my players with this confusing "Jump in at the middle!" stuff. (I mean, I kinda get it, but none of the others own the book, and my wife can feel out of her depth with all these rules and crazy ideas).

The text says, "Something needs to happen that the protagonists (and their players) can't resist or ignore." What sort of problems of this kind could be resolved by actors in an hour's worth of TV, that they wouldn't just hand over to agents/security guys/police/union reps, or - if it's a big thing like a murderer on the loose aboard ship - why wouldn't they just lock themselves in their cabins? And more than that, what would keep their characters coming back after that first terrifying taste of danger?

So yeah, I'm stuck, and later my players will be firing up their PCs and logging onto the Ventrilo server with the expectation that I will have game for them, not "Er, I think we've made a huge, rethink-everything-type mistake." Any suggestions? Anything obvious I'm missing?

[Alan]

Suggestion? Yeah, ask your players.  PTA is a collaborative game; the Producer doesn't carry the weight.

Back to asking the players.  If you're not clear on why or how the protagonist's are going to be involved in the show premise, make that the point of an opening discussion for the pilot.  Suggest that this is one thing players should address in the pilot.  One of the roles of Producer in PTA is to stay aware of the bigger picture and the potential the show's premise, and remind the players of them.

Don't sweat preparation of a plot.  Producer preparation for a PTA episode is maybe 100 words--a sentence or two about an idea for the overall storyline that fits your show's premise, a list of a few character names and what they might do, then a few possible ways to challenge each protagonist issue.  Even if everyone is at a 2, their Issues still must show up.

So what you've got--"The producers want to replace the protagonist's with holograms"--is fine.  Make a few notes about things the antagonists might do.  Make a few more notes about how Issues might appear.  All these notes are a bandoleer of ammunition you can use, but which you should not view as _required_ or preset events.

[IMAGinES]

Suggestion? Yeah, ask your players.  PTA is a collaborative game; the Producer doesn't carry the weight.

Absolutely, Alan. Unfortunately, as said, the players weren't exactly available to me at the time, and as it turned out, one of them couldn't make it anyway (technical problems with his Internet connection).

Back to asking the players.  If you're not clear on why or how the protagonist's are going to be involved in the show premise, make that the point of an opening discussion for the pilot.

I think the problem was, I really couldn't see any inherent adventure, or source of meaningful Problems, in the premise itself. In my eyes, there's no inherent conflict in:

• Actors working for a TV studio-in-a-spaceship, travelling from galaxy to galaxy and recording before a different live audience each season.

And even though I came up with an idea for a conflict, I couldn't see any way that three actors would be able to address it in a meaningful sense:

• If the problem is a threat to your careers, you pass it to your union reps and they handle it.
• If it's a threat to your lives, you tell security and they handle it.
• If it's a problem with the script or the show, you let your agent or the producers or the writers know and they handle it.
• If it's a fault with engineering or hydroponics, then Sidonia or Hank fixes it and determines the cause;


• if it's sabotage, see above comment re: security;
• if it's some other non-technical problem, you notify the captain (for crew discipline) or the quartermaster (for more parts).

I dunno. It reads like I'm assuming that the players will just sit back and do nada, which is unlikely, but I just don't see how any Problem I could come up with would engage their characters such that they'd take on the inherent risk involved in solving it. The premise doesn't seem... well, it just soesn't seem particularly Protagonising, if you see what I mean.

Still, an idea did come out of all this pissing and moaning I've been doing - that the actors actually form a union of their own. But the thing there is, at the moment it's my idea, and it's sort of okay with maybe one or two of my players (due to the abovementioned technical difficulties we couldn't tell the third about it). Incorporating wit would fundamentally change the Premise - they're not just travelling actors, they're actors plus union reps, and the Probelms would be a little different by default. Because the Protagonists are effectively the founders of the union, there's no-one else the Protagonists can hand union-related Problems off to; they've got to roll up their sleeves and do the dirty work themselves (which is the point of any PtA series).

In that light, everything else we've come up with so far might change, and every player needs to be in on shaping that change. So, sometime soon we'll do what you suggested in the first place: Get together and hash it all out! :-D

[Jonas Ferry]

And even though I came up with an idea for a conflict, I couldn't see any way that three actors would be able to address it in a meaningful sense:

<cut><cut><cut>

I dunno. It reads like I'm assuming that the players will just sit back and do nada, which is unlikely, but I just don't see how any Problem I could come up with would engage their characters such that they'd take on the inherent risk involved in solving it. The premise doesn't seem... well, it just soesn't seem particularly Protagonising, if you see what I mean.

Don't forget it's a TV-series you're creating. It only has to be as meaningful as you guys want it to be. A lot of shows would break down totally if the characters applied an ounce of logic when solving problems. Usually they don't do things the easy way because of their issues or because otherwise you wouldn't have a show. They don't pass there problems to someone else, because the show's about *them*.

Look at threats to their careers, for example. You have one character with the issue "Proving Himself". If his career is threatened, won't he jump at the chance to prove his dedication to the other actors by throwing himself into trouble? You have another character with "Keeping Her Name in the Lights", and who's better to look after her than herself if her career is threatened? Will she trust some union rep with her career?

I would say that you can throw almost anything at them, and then you can find a reason for them to not avoid it together with the players. If a player feels like the thing to do for his character would be to pass on the problem to some supporting character, you either play a scene where the others convince his character not to, or you discuss stuff before the scene and then agree that his character won't try to hide.

I think it sounds like your premise is great, and I'll have to read up a bit on that thread and the wiki!

[Alan]

Some questions:

Did the players, including you, come up with the premise together?  Did you discuss at that time how conflict would arise weekly?  How personal issues would be challenged?  Do you feel like your series is ready to go?

If it isn't, everybody has to get together and finish the series creation.

If the show premise as it stands doesn't work for you, tell the other players and work with them until everyone is satisfied.  Maybe you need an outside force that produces an overall conflict: an oppressive regime, a competing more powerful company, an alien invasion, etc. etc.

[IMAGinES]

Don't forget it's a TV-series you're creating. It only has to be as meaningful as you guys want it to be. A lot of shows would break down totally if the characters applied an ounce of logic when solving problems. Usually they don't do things the easy way because of their issues or because otherwise you wouldn't have a show. They don't pass there problems to someone else, because the show's about *them*.

Good point.

Look at threats to their careers, for example. You have one character with the issue "Proving Himself". If his career is threatened, won't he jump at the chance to prove his dedication to the other actors by throwing himself into trouble?

... if, say, he was forced to make a choice between being late for an important rehearsal and fixing an urgent problem with the ship?

Aha...

You have another character with "Keeping Her Name in the Lights", and who's better to look after her than herself if her career is threatened? Will she trust some union rep with her career?

"We'll have a look at your case and see if we can get a lawyer out to you, but the hypergates are pretty much booked up for the next six weeks..." Damn good point.

I would say that you can throw almost anything at them, and then you can find a reason for them to not avoid it together with the players. If a player feels like the thing to do for his character would be to pass on the problem to some supporting character, you either play a scene where the others convince his character not to, or you discuss stuff before the scene and then agree that his character won't try to hide.

I think it sounds like your premise is great, and I'll have to read up a bit on that thread and the wiki!

Thanks for the props, Jonas! It just didn't feel so good after reading the main book again. Maybe I ought to just throw the damned thing out when I'm trying to come up with Problems for this show!

[IMAGinES]

Did the players, including you, come up with the premise together?

Yep.

Did you discuss at that time how conflict would arise weekly?  How personal issues would be challenged?

Er... well, not specifically, no, I don't think so.

Do you feel like your series is ready to go?

After Jonas's response I'm feeling a bit more confident in setting a Problem for the pilot, but I'll get back to you on that after I've had a few more tilts at the windmill. Still, the Crisis Point (i.e. the Pilot Session) has been pushed back a couple of weeks due to technical problems.

If the show premise as it stands doesn't work for you, tell the other players and work with them until everyone is satisfied.  Maybe you need an outside force that produces an overall conflict: an oppressive regime, a competing more powerful company, an alien invasion, etc. etc.

Got an idea on the whole outside force thing. I wrote this yesterday:

The Network wants to replace the entire cast with robots and AI actors. The general reasoning is that the actors' holo-rigs (which normally totally disguise them anyway) could be set up on android chassis and the actual acting provided by a company-owned AI (the savings in salary or union fees would allow the company to recoup the hefty development costs and come out ahead after a season or two). Swapping the actors with robots would bring in additional savings on life support.

The two minds behind this measure are Lady Rantoulla Hawker-Bridge, the Network Executive for Original Programming, and Felix Feldman, its Director.

• The network is starting to cut costs on their "expensive" drama shows, and Lady Hawker-Bridge reckons that the audience only wants real people in realty shows. Agent 66, with its action-suspense premise and travelling set, is one of the larger expenses, and only the show's large market share and audience loyalty – which has been slowly declining over the last couple of financial quarters – are maintaining the status quo.
• The Director's motives are a little more personal. His experiences with Sidonia (one of the Protagonists) have convinced him that all actors are prima donnas (and that this whole "acting" business is highly overrated anyway). He wants to see Sidonia's career wrecked, and he doesn't care who else goes down with her. By co-operating with Lady Hawker-Bridge, he figures (incorrectly) that his career's secure.

I just had difficulty translating that into individual episodic Problems, which is what caused yesterday's Panic/Meltdown.

[Alan]

Well, if I were watching this show, I'd be looking for a bigger story.  Your genre is SF, which looks at the effects of technological or social innovation on humans.  I'd be expecting a bigger issue than just the network's or the director's ulterior motives. 

Your cast is threatened by replacement with AIs.  What if everything that makes humans special was threatened with replacement?  The series would start with just hints and move on to big conspiracy/secrets episodes--like the X-files or Firefly.  If you like an idea like that, you'll have to pitch it to the group, so they can be onboard with it as play develops.

That's the first example that came to mind.  Your group might come up with something it likes.

[Chris Goodwin]

That was when I ran into the brick wall. See, the text on pages 53 to 54 reminded me of something I'd been taking for granted, and as a result hadn't been emphasising to my players: that Primetime Adventures is best at creating a blended action/character drama (although I thought the sample shows I listed would have made the point) and that the PCs are expected to be Protagonists, not just roles.

Are you reading "action" as in, the kicking of the butt?  Because I'm not getting it that way.  I'm getting it as what the show thinks it's about.  Example:  To pick a show at random, say, The Andy Griffith Show.  In this case, action is the folks in Mayberry doing what they do, Barney forgetting his one bullet for his police revolver and the like.  It's Situation, in Forge terms.  It's shit happening.  It's plot. 

Does that make sense?

If you say, "We're playing a show about the behind the scenes of a travelling TV show crew in space," then action is about them flying to the planet of the week, and shit happening.  Cameras break, talent gets sick or refuses to perform, on-stage emotions carry over to the off-stage environment (anger and lust are two great ones), Will The Show Be Cancelled?, it's sweeps week and everyone is on edge...  the ship breaks down, runs out of fuel, flies into an anomaly, pilot gets sick, etc.  People are still people; this stuff all makes tempers fray and suddenly the ship is too small for everyone.  And then there's their issues.  People do stuff because of their issues, and other people react to that.  That's as much action as the other shit.

[hix]

Plus, you've got the planets that the cast are going to every week. Surely they're gunna meet people from those worlds who'll tweak their issues all the time. I mean "Proving himself," "Escaping her past", "Keeping her name in lights." These are not issues your leads can just hand off to some red-shirts to deal with.

You might find problems are easier to throw in the Cast's face than you thought.

[ashmoo]

I wouldn't worry about it too much. If you watch a TV show and analyse what is actually happening, the basic plot is normally quite simple. There's normally only a few ideas, most of the goodness comes by adding depth and having the characters investing and affected by those ideas. Cleverness is generally boring.

In our PTA game, The Z (the pilot is written up in Actual Play), I think there was only 1 act of violence in which a Protag was involved. Most of the conflict revolved around doing their jobs successfully, having boss' not catch them disobeying rules and 'office politics'.

Making the conflicts directly related to the characters Issues gets a lot of mileage to. One thing I did was to put the Protag's Traits & Issue in direct conflict, so there is no one perfect resolution. Looking at Aaron from your show,  I can see a number of possible issues:

Proving himself  + Ships engineer = The ship is having lots of technical difficulties, so the executives decide to get Aaron's character written out of the plot for the next episode so he has time to work on the Trans-phase Inductor. What does he do?

Apprentice actor + Maximillian skye = It turns out the producer of the show is an ex-lover of Max. Aaron overhears some of the staff questioning whether that's why Aaron got the role.

Travis Donaldson + Proving himself  = Travis gets a guest role on the show. Then a Emmy-winning speech written for Aaron gets rewritten for Travis' character. Do he make a fuss?

Lastly, as the Producer, don't worry about how these things might be resolved. Just throw them in and see what happens. The good ones will be extended as long as they are entertaining, the mediocre ones will be quickly resolved and passed over.

Good luck.
Ashley Moore

[IMAGinES]

Hi, everyone. Thank you very much for helping me through my panic attack, and especially for your suggestions!

I'm going to do one big reply to sections of posts, but I have read all of them and taken their entire texts on board.

Your genre is SF, which looks at the effects of technological or social innovation on humans.  I'd be expecting a bigger issue than just the network's or the director's ulterior motives... Your group might come up with something it likes.

I see your point, Alan. Rather than try and come up with a Big Concept myself, though, I'll throw the basic seeds out there and see how the players want to approach them. The way I figure it, the basic idea has the potential to develop into the sort of bigger issue you'd like to see, but the players might just want a light-hearted romp.

That said, based on some of the Pitch discussions I think Salidar might pick up any deep issues and run with them. We'll see. Thank you, though.

Are you reading "action" as in, the kicking of the butt?

Eeeeeyyeah, Chris, but also, sort of nah. I mean, one of the ideas I had was that the players actually unionise, which puts them in a position where they have to deal with problems that come their way. It's more like "action" in terms of "someone who acts".

Based on that, though, I think I might've been a bit more comfortable with a more action-based premise, yeah. At least, that was my thinking after reading the text again for inspiration/assistance. Still, going this way looks like a more interesting challenge.

Plus, you've got the planets that the cast are going to every week. Surely they're gunna meet people from those worlds who'll tweak their issues all the time. I mean "Proving himself," "Escaping her past", "Keeping her name in lights." These are not issues your leads can just hand off to some red-shirts to deal with.

You might find problems are easier to throw in the Cast's face than you thought.

Yeah. Yeah, I think I am getting this. Basically, I'm thinking that a good way to engage my characters' Issue is threaten what the characters believe they need. On a group basis, that's the show itself - Hank needs the show to prove he's really gort the skills despite his error rate, Sidonia needs it to keep herself in the A-list, and Roryn needs it to show that there's more to him than just a washed up child-actor.

Does that read about right?

So, I'm thinking, a good Problem for the pilot is to threaten the show, or at least their jobs on it, and as the palyers' issues are a little mroe socially oriented, I'll make that threat a person who comes aboard ship, like a network executive known for aggressive downsizing; I was thinking introducing Lady Rantoulla Hawker-Bridge herself, set her up as the Big Recurring Villain at the start.

Interestingly enough, the week after I thought of the Hawker-Bridge character, they introduced Chi McBride as Edward Vogler on House M.D. Yes, that's where Australia is up to - tomorrow's episode is the one where Vogler has cancer, Wilson is fired and Cameron quits, but according to the ads one of those is House dreaming.

NOBODY SAY ANYTHING! I wanna watch it!

One thing I did was to put the Protag's Traits & Issue in direct conflict, so there is no one perfect resolution. Looking at Aaron from your show,  I can see a number of possible issues:

Damn, Ashley, I am using those! Thanks!

Anyway, the Pilot is due to go ahead on Saturday the 15th, so we'll see how things go, and based on the above, I think they'll go well. Once again, thank you all!