[PTA] Nightshade Alley, Episode 1

[Joel P. Shempert]

Ok, it took us two game sessions, for reasons that will be made clear, but Jenni, Nate and I managed to complete Episode 1 of our show, Nightshade Alley. AP of the Pilot can be found here:http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=19502.0

(NOTE: I'm splitting this into two posts for the two sessions.)

Character summary:
Nate=Rodrick, a young monster-hunting hermit with song sense of justice. Issue: distrust of nonhumans. Screen Prenscence this EP: 2
Jenni=Catlyn, a manipulative shopkeeper with a stake in some powerful games. Issue: Self-serving. SP: 1
Me=WIntermere, a half-fae girl on the run. Issue: belonging. SP: 1

After solving last session's issues, we seemed to be on more solid footing for this session. I opened up with a follow-up discussion of the issues, informed by Ron's advice in the last thread that PTA really NEEDS a Producer to push adversity. I addressed this with Nate and Jen, suggesting that I could act as Producer for awhile, as my character is kind of minor right now with a slow buildup (11223), and then possibly rotate producer-ship (probably to Nate) when needed. I expressed reservation about "hogging" the story by controlling both the producer-ship and a protagonist, but N & J assured me that this was no problem, as new roleplayers they'd prefer if I took some leadership, and if I do get too controlling or anything they'll let me know. So off we went.

I set the first scene, pretty much a sinister, foreshadowing bit, some poor woman with a baby stuck out on the streets as the sun set and everyone fearfully hurried indoors and barred up for the night. The woman was accosted by a spindly, wall-walking critter, and the baby's scream split the night. As the cry still echoed scene shift to sunrise over a window in the same square, as Rodric awakes in he and Winter's inn room.

Cue opening credits.

(Opening theme: The Chicken by the Choir)

I don't know if I did wrong in not having a conflict, or in not featuring a PC, but it seemed to me that this is a common opening for many TV shows, and a good springboard for the events of the rest of the episode. Also, we had hinted at, but not really established, our major series premise attribute that there are nasty things, and they hurt people. My only worry with this approach is that it could shift focus (as indeed I had to fight against a bit this episode) to an X-files mystery format instead of the "people with problems" core that we're going for.

It was Jenni's scene next; Rodric arose, dressed and went out while Wintermere slept. (I remember Jen deferring some scene ideas to me, which seems to be a common reflex when she's up to bat, either scene-calling or narration rights.) Out in the square he finds the local constabulary clearing the woman's body, frozen in terror with no visible cause of death, from the alley. The baby is nowhere to be found. Rodrick spots the child's doll and has a hazy flashback to his fiery childhood incident where his family died. Nate and I mostly negotiated the details of the flashback, deciding what to put in and what NOT to put in, to keep that teaser element until his spotlight. Rod is snapped out of his reverie by Catlyn, who engages him in banter as the watch the constables work. We put some effort into making the interaction somewhat amiable, since in the last episode they had been up in each others' grills and we wanted to establish that there was a friendship there. I called for a conflict in the conversation: Cat is in deep with the sinister forces behind this attack; her stake is eliciting Rodrick's sympathy vs. arousing his suspicion. Rodric's stake was. . .well. . .

. . .here's where I made an embarrassing blunder: I let Jenni and Nate choose mutually exclusive stakes for their characters. Rodric's stake was arousing his suspicion of Catlyn, in opposition to Cat's stake of averting suspicion. it would have been REALLY awkward if they had both won; as it was, Cat lost and Rod won. I then realized what I had done, and pointed it out. We could have just let it ride, I guess, but I asked what other stake Rodric could have in the conflict, and Nate chose Rodric finding something useful in tracking down the ghoulish baby-napper. I won narration., so there was a conversation about people being attacked a lot lately, and what could be behind it. . .Cat said something incriminating but vague, causing a sharp look and narrowed eyes from Rod, but nothing definite. And Rod got a lead on hunting down the critter in the process. The scene ended with Rodrick bending down to pick up the doll, Catlyn telling him there's nothing he can do, and he replying that perhaps he can save the child this time.

For Nate's scene, he returned to his cottage outside the city to gear up for critter-huntin'. Coming back toward the city, he happened upon his contact, the bridge troll, and exchanged some words with her about being careful and such, and alluding to Rod's fateful childhood night (She saved Rod's life that night). I honestly couldn't conceive of a conflict for this scene; we had already done a scene in the pilot with Rodrick trying to get info out of her without alienating her, and failing, so it would seem lame to repeat that. So it was a "plot" rather than "character" scene, I guess.

Next was my scene, so I had Wintermere awake and go out into the city herself. I wanted to focus on her alienation (outcast from Faerie, rejected by humans because she's touched by Faerie), so I described her wandering the square, and getting the whole "we don't serve your kind here" vibe. The conflict: can Winter find someone to connect with? Jenni was confused at this point: she had thought that conflicts HAD to be between two player-characters, since that's mostly what we'd run so far. I explained that while PC on PC conflicts rock, it's perfectly OK to have a solo conflict if that's what the scene calls for.

I concieved a kindly old man on a bench who to Winter's astonishment just talks to her as if there was nothing odd or different at all, relating to her as simply a person. Someone suggested he was blind, but I rejected that on the ground that it would make his acceptance hollow. So the conflict: it would be sucky for the kindly geezer to reject her on a fail, so instead I set it up that if Winter lost, the man would be separated from her without getting to connect. So we drew, with Nate setting the budget against me; he set it high, too, wanting to see Winter suffer. Jenni put fanmail toward me, and but I had SP 1 to begin with, plus one trait used and the one FM from Jen--I still lost. But I won Narration, so I relayed a scene where the man speaks kindly to her at first, but just as they begin to bond, thugs approach the man and escort him unwillingly off. So the kindly gentleman turns out to be someone of greater importance than he appeared, and Winter is left (sniff) all alone. . .

Jenni was pretty disappointed that Winter lost the conflict. She wanted the poor lost little Fae girl to catch a break. I sympathized, but I assured her that it was a good thing to give our characters adversity; especially early on, as it'll make the payoff that much sweeter when (or if) she DOES find that belonging she seeks.

We ended up taking a fair chunk of "time out" time to discuss the direction of the game and story. One issue I brought up was the tone of the series; I had originally proposed a kind of modern/victorian mix, and it had drifted more toward the Victorian and even high-fantasy end of the spectrum. I asked if we could bring it back toward the modern a bit, both in style and substance, because I felt it would really help sell the "fucked-up people in a cruel world" angle to have it closer to home. Nate and Jen were on board for that, though there was a bit of a rabbit-trail about weaponry and such, 'cause to Nate modern or not-modern seems to be largely a question of technology. He really likes to fiddle with what gear Rodric is carrying, how it's used in a fight, etc, which I feel for the tone of this show could be rather distracting. So far it's been  fine, just a little Color detour on his part that doesn't hog the spotlight or anything. Anyway, the decision to swing back toward Modern didn't really affect the episode already in motion, but just kind of a consideration for next time.

Our other speedbump was basically a fine-tuning of Catlyn's character; in our previous session Jenni had realized that she wasn't really connected with the character as written and totally rewrote her issue and one edge. This was a Good Thing and really helped drive play in the Pilot, but now that Cat was a cynical schemer we found ourselves wondering just what she's scheming for. We didn't need to know everything, just enough to figure out what would drive her in a given scene. We left her ultimate goal vague, but established that she's complicit in this big sinister plot, though as an outside collaborator, and one with some moral reservations. Rodrick knows that she's a "player," but not how far her tendrils reach (though now he suspects!). It was good to work out, but time-consuming. We're hoping we can proceed more smoothly with the wrinkles smoothed out.

We were starting to run out of time for the evening, so we decided that the next scene would be the last, and the episode incomplete, rather than just making it a short and unsatisfying episode. It was a little disheartening to have an incomplete session yet again, once again delayed through player-negotiation over the game. But we all figure that this was really the last big hurdle in getting the game to work for us, and from here on out it should be smoother sailing with relatively minor wrinkles.

So anyway, Jenni was up again. She set up a scene where Catlyn confronts some mysterious person behind all these goings-on, revealing (to the audience) her own involvement, and chastizing the shadow-figure for needless bloodshed. Leveraging Cat's knowledge of these people's secret plans, Jen set up a Blackmail conflict--win, and Catlyn worms her way into more influence over these machinations; lose, and it backfires and Cat is punished for daring to threaten them. Cat won, and Jen won Narration. She was kind of tired and creatively out of gas, and tried once again to defer narration to me, but I encouraged her to keep trying herself, not to sweat the details too much, and just give us the gist of the scene. She ended up narrating a cool sinister scene with some great dialogue, that I tossed her a fanmail for.

Speaking of fanmail, it flowed better in this ep than the last, though still maybe a bit sluggish. We all got at least a bit or two; I got some from Jen for cool dialogue or scene ideas, and vice versa; I gave Nate one for the cool sketch he made of the wall-clinging bogeyman.

Anyway, that was session one. I'm splittin' it here.

[Joel P. Shempert]

We reconvened two weeks later.

We were ready to roll pretty quickly, since we had left off knowing what scene was next: a stakeout with Rodric to try to catch the baby-snatching nasty. The stake we arrived at was whether Rodric learned something about the purpose behind these snatchings. Rodric won, and Nate won narration.  We brainstormed a lot of cool ideas; Rod took to the rooftops and spied the critter emerging from the window with a baby; he subdued it and saved the child (Actually, if memory serves, the LOSING stake was the child getting killed).  The thing, we had worked out, is compelled to honesty, reinforcing the idea of Faerie abiding by a set of rules, so Rodric was questioning it and bellowing, "You are bound to answer!" He got a bit out if the fiend, but the thing was killed by the enchantments over it designed to KEEP it from spilling the beans. It was a nice, dramatic, and fanmail-worthy scene. (Though personally I was pulling for the child to die, to hammer Rodric with the tension of what he's willing to sacrifice to see "justice." But them's the breaks.)

My scene was next, and I did a scene with Winter back in the inn, alone. I figured it was time to flesh out the "on the run from some onerous Faerie debt" aspect of her background, so I had her magically contacted by someone seeking her. Winning: she manages to gain some self-confidence and banish the seeker; Losing: the seeker finds her; "traces the call" as it were.We came up with some cool color; I think it was Jenni who suggested the face in the mirror, and it became Winter's own reflection, twisted and cruel. So I won both the conflict and the narration, and earned a fanmail with my acted-out taunting, poor lost little girl, no one to turn to, etc etc, and Winter's final defiance. In retrospect it reminded me of the Labyrinth's "You have no power over me" scene. I didn't want Winter TOO triumphant, though, so she slumped over, drained at the end. I'm a little concerned (again, in retrospect) that this was too "big" for a char with SP 1, though it was hardly conclusive or pivotal. . .I dunno, I just don't want to waste all the drama potintial too early in the series.

We were running out of budget at this point, and ended up using one point each for our last two scenes. Catlyn had a scene in her shop, consulting her devious little fairy contact, regarding the goings-on. The fairy taunted her about having moral qualms; I called a conflict: Does Catlyn allow herself to feel remorse at being involved, or does she harden herself, at least outwardly? We were a bit unsure which stake should be the winning one; we ended up deciding it should be the one the character would want, regardless of how healthy it is or whatever. So "Hardening" on a win, "remorse" on a lose. Cat lost, though I threw fanmail in on her side purely to see if it would cycle back into the budget for the final conflict. It didn't. So Catlyn was racked with guilt, and further mocked by the little fae.

For the final scene, we brought Rod and Winter back together in the inn room. Wintermere awoke to see Rodric cleaning and sharpening his weapons. Conflict: Winter wins, she forms a bond, however strained, with Rod; Rod wins, he is rid of the responsibility of caring for Winter. We both won, and I got narration.So Rodric coldly tells Winter she can't stay here indefinitely and he's found her a family to stay with in return for working in their store. Wintermere thanks him for all he's done, he responds brusquely with an allusion to his dislike of her kind. Winter askes why he hates her, and he makes a dark remark about his childhood incident. All this time he continues to face away, running blade on whetstone in a deliberate rhythm. Winter looks down at him with new understanding, pauses, then moves to his side. She simply places a hand on his to stop it, and says "thank you, anyway." Rod does not respond affectionately, but neither shies away, rather taciturnly acknowledging her thans. FInal shot: Pull out from the room open room window, framing winter standing over Rod, the latter hunched down with a haunted look, the former's silver hair billowing out in the wind over his seated frame.

Cue closing credits.

(Closing theme: "Jacob Marley's Chain" by Aimee Mann. This ep's soundtrack: Over the Rhine's Good Dog Bad Dog, Afro Celt Sound System vol. 3, and Sting's Ten Summoner's Tales.)

*                              *                              *

OK, some issues that came up:

Cool things: We had some great scenes that had everyone jazzed. Poor Winter alone in the crowd, lost and hurt. . .and everyone was engaged, mentally, emotionally, game-ally (is that a word?) with the outcome, or I should say possible outcomes. Nate as "deputy producer" really took delight in upping making it touch on Winter by throwing his budget-weight around; Jenni was strongly invested in the other outcome and visibly disappointed when Winter lost. ANd I say that this is a Good Thing, because if people are caring that much, then how can it help but be rewarding in the end? Personally, when we all brought to bear our resources and just frikkin' threw down, when those fateful pasteboards all turned over, I felt it CRACKLE. It was awesome. And yes, I lost my, or rather Winter's, stake. But it was totally rewarding loss: "Wow, you really made it hard on me! This is SOOO cool!"

Other cool scenes: Catlyn's blackmail scene; great atmosphere, snazzy dialogue, and inventive spontaneous plot generation, all from Jenni's tired, I-can't-think-right-now mouth. Told ya you could do it! Also, I'm rather proud of my Winter in the Mirror and Winter-as Rodric's Angel scenes, especially in terms of the imagery and mood. And Rodric's brutal, unyielding personality is highlighted well by Nathan. I can't wait to play more with the tension implicit in his "No child will go through that ever again" and "Let the filthy beggars get jobs" stances.

I really liked the conflict with Winter and the old man, for its "interesting failure" quality. Instead of "you fail, nothing happens," we end up with an interesting new mysterious character with all kinds of future impact on the story.

It also bears mentioning that once again, as with last episode, the atmosphere of cooperation is unique in my roleplaying experience. Nowhere else have I had such a strong feeling that, different visions or communication difficulties aside, we are creating together, and trying to help each other realize this story.

So, some problems or concerns:

Niggling issue first: Are players allowed to apply more than one Edge toward a given conflict? I found the game text vague on this. (Side note: I DID discover that you can put more than one fan mail toward another player's conflict, which I had gotten wrong.)

Now, some meatier stuff: First off, as alluded to in the posts above, we're a little rocky on just what our vision is for the show; I have very specific goals to accomplish with a lot of the stylistic elements, but I'm having difficulty articulating them. I coined the term "Fairypunk" to describe what I was after, but they're not familiar enough with "Cyberpunk", nor with its "Whatever-punk" bastard brood, for this to mean anything. I referenced Neil Gamian's works, but they haven't read them. I'm trying to assemble some artwork with the right mood to show them, see if that helps. What I'm really going for, I think, is a certain element of human anguish, which for me relates more to a modern, urban, homelessness, addiction and dysfunction atmosphere, than to any kind of Dickensian sweatshops and chimney sweeps milieu. I thik I'm discovering this about myself as we delve into the game. Also, I'm trying not to be too controlling; I'm well aware that the whole series concept was my baby, so I don't want to stake too much ownership at the expense of Nate and Jen's input and fun. I'll keep talking it over and puzzling it out and see how things shape up.

I seem to be getting a vibe off of Nate in his decisions for Rodric that imply a certain static nature to his vision for the character. i don't know if this is a problem or not; I don't think I WILL know until I put really nasty pressure on him and his issue. But the maybe-problem seems to be that he doesn't want Rodric to change. This COULD be a dynamic, driving-force tension for conflict-framing, as Rodric resists breaking free of his bitter prison. But so far it just feels kind of flat, like it's making it harder to drive Rodric toward conflict, as an "I don't want to be involved" attitude keeps cropping up. Twice, now, his stake in a conflict has been "I free myself of obligation to Winter." The first time Nate did at least add "for now" as he seemed to realize that Rod and Winter connecting in the story is a large potential part of driving plot. And Rodric knows Winter is his one big clue to the Dark and Sinister PLot, so he's not going too far. ..I dunno, I'm just starting to wonder how many "Rodric keeps on not caring" conflicts we can sustain and still be ingteresting. Jenni has already remarked more than once, Rodric's so MEAN" to Nate (and he's her husband, at that. :) ). I don't think Rodric's mean is a problem, unless it's a static mean. I guess time will tell.

And here's my big question regarding PTA conflicts--you could even call it a Hard Question: is it possible that PTAconflict framing brings with it the possibility of a de-protagonizing effect? I mean, a straight-forwardly external conflict goal (save the girl, outmaneuver my rival, have my revenge) seems unproblematic, but when you cross into internal stakes, it starts to feel like you're taking meaningful personal choices out of the hands of the player. Stakes like "does Catlyn repent of her actions" or "does Rodric warm up to Wintermere?" could be potentially frustrating if the controller of any of those characters wants their character to choose one way and the cards tell them to choose another. Could it be that the balking I think I'm seeing in Nathan (who applied pressure with glee to make me mose MY char's stake, but seems decidedly non-jazzed about HIS char losing his) has to do with his losing the ability to make the though choices for Rodric? Isn't the Narrativist, Story-Now address of premise short-circuited by replacing the answer to, e.g. "What is most important to you?" (answer: "THIS!") with "Well, if I allot my resources and get enough red cards, THIS!"? Wouldn't this be akin to gamist play requiring you to roll to determine what tactic you used?

Now, there are several possible answers to this question:

1) yes, I am entirely correct and PTA has agaping flaw for Narrativist play (just saying, it's one possibility!)

2) I do have a point that it is a danger in the rules as written, but it can be avoided with some care.

3) There's something in that kind of conflict framing that I'm not seeing that makes it work for Narr play,

or

4) I and my group are just framing conflicts wrong.

Or there could be other possibilities, or possibly combinations of the above. These are just the answers I could think of.

I would really like to hear folks' thoughts on this; I'm assuming based on the vast body of evidence, that PTA does work, like a charm, even, for the type of play i'm looking for. But these considerations worry me. They haven't ruined play or anything, but the danger does seem to lurk on the horizion.

Peace,
-Joel

[Joel P. Shempert]

Well, we got together for a session yesterday, started talking about our play issues from last session, and ended up deciding to shelve the impending episode until next time, so we could try to work some of these things out.

I brought up my ponderings over whether setting "internal" conflict stakes effectively deprotagonizes a player character. Nate and Jen picked up quickly on the Forge-concepts I had to explain in the process, and agreed that it sounded problematic. I read from the PTA book on conflicts, particularly the bit that conflicts are about "the rift between what a character has, and what he wants." We discussed simply ruling that we couldn't set up conflicts that were about a protag changing his/her mind; my reservation there is that we won't get interesting conflicts if we shy away from those things. So I guess this issue is still very much up for grabs. I'd very much like to hear some Forge perspectives on it.

We talked about Rodric's conflicts particularly; I brought up how he seemed to be getting the most "change your mind" conflicts so far, and mentioned the resistance I was seeing on Rodric's and possibly Nate's part, to change/growth. Nate said that he had no intention of Rodric being static. Jenni chimed in that Rod's character seemed really inconsistent, his actions being out of place for someone with a "sense of Justice" as a central concept. Nate replied that Rodric simply has a very particular sense of justice. He also suggested that perhaps Rod seems so one-note and stubborn because we really haven't had that much in-story time to see him change and develop; it just SEEMS long because of our slow progress in terms of actual game session time. This made a lot of sense to Jen and me; we pretty much put the inconsistency issue to rest, and I ended the topic with the declaration that I really want to put pressure on that sense of justice, explore just what its parameters are, and hammer Rodric hard regarding what's important to him, and I hope that Nate would work with me on this. Nate agreed. (Oh, and I also stressed that there is no right outcome for Rodric's--or anyone's--character; he doesn't HAVE to soften and develop compassion; he could go the other way and harden. We don't want to presuppose outcomes.)

What really cemented our decision to postpone play, was the issue of what toactually do with this episode. With the SP at Rodric 1, Catlyn 2, Wintermere 1, I thought it would be ideal to start exploring the circles of power that Cat runs in, kind of contrast the high and sinister side of the city with the down, dirty and destitute side that Rodric moves in. Jenni brought up that this is hard for her to do with such a blank slate as far aswhat makes up our "world." She (and I admitted, I as well) is having a terrible time improvising details as she goes along, and so she doesn't really know what to drive Catlyn toward for conflicts. Nate and I agreed that this was a problem, that we really haven't sketched out the environment as far as other characters, so it's just the three protags operating in a vacuum. We decided it would be better to sleep on the episode and come upwith some background info to work with. I cautioned that I didn't want to do too much "world prep," as I wouldn't want that to become the focus of the game, but some would be fine, in fact vital to the story. So we left it at that, and hope to get togetherthis weekend to pick things up.

Another issue that came up, which I forgot to mention: I'm a bit unclear on what scenes for a SP 1 character should look like, in terms of intensity, significance to the char's issue, etc. I felt like Winter's scenes in the last episode were maybe a little "big" for her SP 1 role. Nate and Jen thought they were fine, but still I wonder. True, nothing big was resolved regarding the issue,but the Mirror scene seemed especially "big" in terms of emotional intensity, and she did exhibit a defiance that seems placed maybe a little early in the season. Just a niggling concern in the back of my head.

One thing I realized as we talked, and shared with the group, is that a lot of my scarring experiences from previous RPG play have contributed to my approach to this game. Fed up with overdetailing of every nook and cranny of a gameworld, I eschewed any worldbuilding at all; sick of seeing static "stubborn jerk characters who couldn't grow if you dipped 'em in fertilizer, I got really leery of Nate's "stubborn jerk" responses for Rodric. So maybe if I ease up on the reactionary impulses, things will proceed a bit more smoothly.

Well, that's it. I've got some prep to do, and we'll see how the episode runs this Sunday. Any thoughts that might help us before we reconvene?

Peace,
-Joel

[Mikael]

Hello Joel, and thanks for the account of your play. It sure was an interesting read, if perhaps a bit long - some of the busier people here might not get as far as your actual issues. In the future, I suggest including your main concerns in the beginning of the post, to spark the interest before going into details.

Anyway, an interesting post, especially to someone like me who has bought PTA but has not had a chance to play it yet.

As to your main issue, I recommend* keeping the stakes away from permanent changes to a character´s internal state. Momentary things like being impressed or ashamed are just fine, since they still leave it up to the player to decide what to do about it, shake it off, get angry, start a period of deep introspection, whatever. And leaving the reaction completely out of the scene is cool too, since then it can be suddenly referred back to in a later scene. Shamed/impressed/etc. stakes are surely no more deprotagonizing than hitting someone with a sword in D&D - they are exactly the sort of attacks on your character concept and priorities you should expect, given the nature of the game.

* Based on Dogs play and lots of Forge hang-aroundin´.

[Joel P. Shempert]

Thanks for dropping by, Mikael! Yeah, I know it's long, but I really haven't found a way to streamline info any better than that. I dunno, maybe my editing process will improve with time. And there ARE some pretty lengthy threads around here that get along just fine. . .

Anyway, I appreciate the insight; that distinction helps a lot. And the analogy to a sword attack is very apt, I think. One reason we're struggling with this beast, I think is that we've had relatively little story output to time spent, so it feels like the characters, especially Nate's, are sluggish in their growth. But as Nate pointed out, we've really only seen Rodric develop over very few scenes, thus far.

So maybe this all boils down to more efficient play. :)

Peace,
-Joel

[John Harper]

Hey Joel,

Good question about the internal conflict thing. And I think Mikael is on track about the scope of those kind of conflicts.

Another very important thing: Everyone has to agree to goals before you draw the cards. So, by agreeing to a conflict like "Does Catlyn repent of her actions?" the player of Catlyn is saying, "Yes, I want my protag to be tested in this way and let the chips fall where they may." If the player does NOT want the protag to be tested on that issue, but instead wants to simply decide what Catlyn does, then the payer should NOT agree to the conflict as framed that way. Even a slight tweak like, "Does Catlyn realize her actions are that bad?" might work better. It's all about finding the conflicts that you as players really want to explore. The amount of soul-crushing angst and adversity will be tuned by the group this way.

[Joel P. Shempert]

Thanks for the thoughtful post, John. Let me just say I agree about agreeing to goals. :) That's exactly what we've done in all our sessions, but I think that perhaps without clear guidelines (r without clear understanding; I'm still unsure whether the fault is with the rules or with us) for what kinds of conflicts could or should be framed, our very agreement was tainted, or muddled, or what have you, by our confusion. That is, we all had total freedom to agree or not agree, but without clear boundaries on what we were supposed to agree (or not) on, agreement may not have lined up entirely with what players really wanted or were comfortable with. Does that make sense? I think the fact that when I discussed it with them, Nate and Jen were both quick to agree that we should stop doing those kinds of conflicts, suggests that. Overall, I feel that if I approach them with the new ideas presented here, we can probably reach an arrangement that's fun for everybody.

One thing still bothers me, though. . .Mikael's advice to run momentary internal states but not permanent changes as colflicts rings true with me. But, I worry that this will mean that none of the really meaty parts of the story, i.e. the pivotal choices of the characters, will ever be resulved through mechanical conflict. This seems, especially from people's accounts of PTA really rocking when the rules are adhered to (look at my own disastrous attempt to duck Producer-ship!), like it would have a pretty dampening effect on olay in the long run. From my understanding, PTA really cooks when the Colflic engine is running full speed ahead and driving play. If it drives smaller steps of play, but not the big payoffs, isn't that kind of, well, sucky? I mean from a "game" (not gamist) point of view; sure, we could collaboratively write a story without the cards, but then we wouldn't be playing PTA.

I think back to the moment I described above where we had a really tense conflict where the players differed passionately on the desired outcome. That instant of resolution frikkin' popped.. I got a huge charge out of it. I got a huge charge out of it as a losing party. I don't want to lose that.

it'd be nice to hear what Matt Wilson has to say on this subject, particularly on what the PTA text actually supports. (I guess I'm asking him what his reading is on his own rules. :) ) But I'm not sure how closely he gets to follow the forums. Anyway, further insights from anyone are welcome.

Peace,
-Joel

[John Harper]

Man, you don't need Matt's input or blessing or anything at all. You have it figured out already! Give yourself permission to rock.

This is it right here. You said:

we had a really tense conflict where the players differed passionately on the desired outcome. That instant of resolution frikkin' popped.. I got a huge charge out of it. I got a huge charge out of it as a losing party.

DUDE. Yes. You know exactly what makes PTA pop, so just do it. The issue, it seems to me, is that your players aren't yet 100% comfortable in that space, and that's totally okay. Ease into it. You know them better than we do, and you know best how to get PTA cooking for them without freaking them out. But forget this business about what the text may or may not support or how Matt reads his own rules. You're reading them just fine already.

Rock on.

[Matt Wilson]

John has said pretty much everything I would have said.

[Joel P. Shempert]

Well. . .OK then.

Thanks everybody. I hereby give myself permission. :)

Let you know how next session goes.