A PTA Session is Born, Shudders, and Dies

[Per Fischer]

Hi,

I have met quite a few gamers that think PtA is just exhausting and draining to play. And it is. Depending on how hard you jump into stakes and conflict in scenes. Many gamers I know actually relax when "just playing their character".

I think being in character and just jamming along in a scene, talking IC and doing IC stuff and making "cool scenes", is actually rather easy. Setting up conflicts and stakes is hard. Setting up conflict that addresses the Protagonists issues is even harder. IMHO that's exactly what makes PtA such an enjoyable game, but you do feel like having run a marathon after playing a session ;)

It was just GETTING those Stakes that the players found sort of tiresome.

P.S.: My opinion about conflict stakes and tying them to issues: Don't get all fuzzy about that. It's not like there's a penalty for not playing PtA narrativist or something. Just pick stakes that make for a cool scene whichever way the conflict turns out. That's enough.

I would be very, very fuzzy about tying issues to conflicts/stakes, so I have to disagree with you there, Frank, no offense :) PtA really pays off when you do IMO.

Bret, did you discuss the game with the players afterwards, or was that not quite appropiate?

Per

[Bret Gillan]

Frank,

You're statement that "It's like, every single player has to put up an effort equal to the effort of a classic GM improvizing," really clicked, and I think in the future it may be very beneficial for me to say something to the players to the effect of, "Forget being a player in this, you're a GM more than anything else." That might be helpful in getting the players to grok the game.

Per,

Well, the game basically ended as a result of a discussion over Stakes-setting and the lack of "roleplaying" erupting in the middle of setting Stakes for the third scene.

But yeah, fatigue and the unexpected amount of effort required to play PTA was probably one of the biggest causes of the game's abortion. I *have* to try running this again, but I'm going to have to do it earlier in the day, and on a day in which we haven't already done five hours of roleplaying and spent two-and-a-half hours on the road.

[Tim Alexander]

Hey Bret,

Just as a point of reference, setting good stakes is a skill that does take some time in and of itself to develop, regardless of the system. It's a really cool technique but, especially for entrenched gamers, it can take a while to get facile with it. I've been playing these sorts of games for a while now, and there are still plenty of times that I fall into some bit of task oriented thinking. PTA is a game built heavily around the assumption that you're setting good stakes. Rest assured though that with some additional practice I think you and your group will find the conflict setups a bit less onerous. It's also useful to point out that PTA seems to me to have the same quality that Sorcerer does; the first session or so is a settling in period while everyone figures out the lay of the land. Once you all start to get a better feel for the other characters and especially how their issues are going to be addressed I think you'll find that things start to fall into place.

-Tim

[John Harper]

Hi Jeremiah,

Welcome to the Forge! And thanks for posting about your experience with the game.

I think your concerns are valid. A lot of players (myself included) like a little "warm-up" time with a character, to get under their skin and learn how to play the part. For something as challenging (drama-wise) as PTA, getting to know your character is key, however you like to do it.

Even though PTA is all about driving towards conflict, that doesn't mean that you can't spend some time in a scene acting out your parts and speaking in character and all that. Matt talks about this in the book. This acting time is often very good for creating conflict material that you never knew was there, just based on some off-the-cuff character remark or mannerism. The tricky bit is not getting stuck in "just talking" as the main point of the game, but trying to always steer your play (actor stance or author stance) toward conflict and therefore, drama. But that comes with practice, and you may already be good at it anyway.

Anyway, communication about this (like you guys are doing here) is key. When a scene is moving along too fast for you, speak up. Just ask if the scene can play out a bit more before the conflict is resolved. I bet everyone will be flexible and allow for that. You can also ask to have a character scene with NO specific conflict, just as a little screen time to show who the character is. Most PTA scenes should have conflict, but it's okay if a few don't.

[Landon Darkwood]

Something else to think about that helped some of my PTA games out:

It's okay to keep playing the scene after the roll. I had a couple of people I tried PTA out with get weird about the jarringly direct transition from building up the conflict to rolling to having one dude say what happens.

It doesn't have to work like that at all. It's not always the case in RPG play that the GM simply describes what happens after the roll with no input from anyone else. You've seen it - you're in heavy dialogue with an NPC and the GM breaks for a second to say, "Roll your Persuasion." You do, she checks the roll, and then continues the dialog now that she knows which way the NPC is going to bend. The fun of determining how you get there is still left to pure roleplay - all you know is the final outcome.

There is absolutely no reason why PTA play can't work like that. As has been previously mentioned, the 'narrator' authority is much better described, IMO, as the normal GM's 'this is where the buck stops' power over the way things actually go down. The only thing that's far out about that concept is the fact that said authority gets passed around.

So the Sheriff is trying to fend off the zombie hordes in order to keep the people from rioting, say. He fails. Someone gets narration. Keep roleplaying. Show the decline of the townsfolk into a disorderly mob. Show the Sheriff's determined, vain efforts to stop it all. Pile on the angst. Act. Be. Do it like you've always done it.

Just like finding the "sweet spot" for rolling dice in a conflict, the degree to which you do the above is an issue of local preferences and tastes, not just for PTA, but for any roleplaying game, period. Nothing in the rules says that you have to step way outside of your character in order to resolve a scene after your stakes and whatnot are in place. You can resolve PTA conflicts just like any other Fortune-in-the-Middle design, apart from the authority passing mentioned earlier, and you lose nothing for doing so. In this sense, PTA doesn't have to be that different from other games. I've observed that people can easily psych themselves into this "oh, I have to do everything different!" kind of mode when they first get into PTA, because a lot of attention gets paid to how different it is.

The more I play it, the more I discover the same basic activities you do in all roleplaying games, except mixed up a little with some snazzy (and admittedly badass) rules for the sake of achieving specific creative goals. That's not to belittle it at all -- the game is a fine achievement and now a near-absolute favorite of mine. I'm just trying to point out that there are parts of your gamer comfort zone that PTA doesn't absolutely demand you get rid of, even as it's hacking away at some other parts.


-Landon Darkwood

[Jeremiah Lahnum]

John,

Thanks,  for the welcome, I've heard alot about this place.

I appreciate hearing that other people have felt the same way I do about the game and the potential for the pacing to be too fast.  I think that our newness to the game kind of hindered us in trying to adjust the pacing, and in the future I'll be sure to speak up if I'd like a little more time to feel out the characters and their interactions.

I think one of the things I wasn't really thinking about was that even though Bret was the producer, that doesn't mean he is the sole arbitrator of the flow of play.  The other players at the table can speak up and ask for play to slow down or speed up if they feel there's a need for it.

I think also spending a little more time with our characters might've helped us understand what the stakes in an individual scene might be a bit more clearly.  Although I understood that stakes were supposed to be tied to the issues of the character, I had a hard time making that connection at some points. 

You've all certainly given me some things to think about, and encouraged me to want to try this game again.  Thanks.

[Frank T]

On Stakes and Issues, maybe a little example from this week's actual play. The show is Diamonds & Desasters, it's a modern day show about master thieves operating from Bangkok. My protagonist is Espen, played by Ryan Philippe, a spoiled little brat from South Africa. His Issue is (ir)responsibility. For his Spotlight, a black girl he left behind pregnant shows up with her three year old son. What Espen doesn't know: She is being used as bait by a mean bountyhunter set on Espen's trail by his own father.

In the first half of the episode, Espen has done everything to piss the poor girl (Laura) off. Eventually, he returns from a job and finds her and the boy gone. There is a self-reflective scene, and he decides despite himself to go looking for them. So the producer frames a scene with Espen wandering the streets of Bangkok, calling people on his cell phone, as a big limousine drives by and he recognizes Laura at the window. I describe Espen grabbing the next best motor-rikcha-whatever, knocking off the driver and giving chase (two middle-aged french tourist women still in the back). We say Conflict, I propose the Stakes: "Does Espen find out about the bountyhunter?" Everybody says cool. We roll, I win, I narrate the hot chase with the french ladies cheering me and how the limousine pulls up in front of the Hilton and they are greeted by the bountyhunter.

Later, there is a climatic scene in the Hilton with the bountyhunter putting a gun to Espen's son's head and one of Espens team mates crashing through the window. Now Espen's Stakes are: Does Laura get killed? His team mate, whose Issue is risking too much for thrill, has the stakes: Does she risk too much, therefore causing trouble? (It's agreed that if we both lose, Laura's death will be her fault.) I lose, she wins. I narrate the whole fight and Laura taking a bullet for Espen, telling him, dying, that she didn't do it for him, but for the boy, and that she hopes it was the right choice.

Now, the first described scene was smooth. The stakes were easily found, the narration was a laugh. There was just me and Situation, and off it went. It was fun. The second scene was hard. There was the producer and us two players, a Next Week On, two Issues and their Story Arcs in that room, along with a tricky Situation and a two-way-conflict. It took us quite some time and struggle to figure out the right stakes, and the narration of the outcome was repeatedly interrupted and rephrased.

I freely admit that the first scene was more fun to me, though the second scene was certainly much more important for my protagonist's development.

- Frank