confused about the scene process

[stefoid]

Hi.  I whipped out the PTA book while my HeroQuest group was waiting for a late player to turn up so we could start.  I explained a bit about it and hoped they would get enthused and want to give it a try, and someone actually did say, well lets do some scenes now for practice to see what its like.

but they kind of fell flat because I wasnt sure exactly how to proceed.

our test scene was a detectives office, with an impoverished detective hard up for cash and desperate for a job.

a fat man in a rich-looking suit knocks on the door and comes in.  his house has been burgled and his butler horibbly butchered at the scene.

We came up wit the scenario that it would be a call of Cthulu type adventure.  The guy had 'antiques from the orient'  in his house, some of which were stolen.

it was the player who was playing the detective who set the agenda of 'plot' and set of 'his office'

now heres where we had trouble.

1) Im the producer.  I set the scene and I pay the fat man, but Im unsure as to how much Im supposed to say.   When do we do the conflict cards thing?  right at the start before any naration takes place?  basically, we were unsure as to how to proceed at all, really.

2) we decided just to make a conflict for the scene and start from there, without any introductory play at all (since we didnt know how/who to proceed with that anyway).  But we came unstuck a bit there too.  What the detectve wanted was obvious.  a case!  some cash to aid his failing business...  but waht about the fat man?  obviously he wanted a detective to solve his case, so he isnt really in opposition there.

we came up with some stuff:

a)  fat man is hiding some information abut thte case.  he has a secret.  so maybe his want is for the detective to solve the case without finding out his secret?  But is that really in opposition to the detective at this point in time?
b) the fat man is unsure of whether the detective is the right man for the job.  how can we put this want into a conflict situation that is at odds with the detectives want?

so we did the cards, and the detective won the stakes and narration rights.  again - what do we do now?  we sort of just did a bit of banter between us, with me playing the fat man, and the other player playing the detective.  it fell a bit flat...

fat man: so I have a recomendation that your a good detective.
detective: I can asure you that I am, youve come to the right place, can you tell me a bit about the case... 
fat man: hosue burgled, butler butchered, etc...
<chat chat>
detective gets the job.

could anyone walk me through how this type of sitaution should have played out, in terms of who and how does the scene get set before any conflict arises, and waht is a good way to frame and narrate the ensuing conflict?

thanks!

[Matt Wilson]

Hey:

Thanks for trying the game out. What was the detective's issue?

[stefoid]

Hi Matt.  Well, we didnt have one for him, as we were just trying out the process and we picked plot as the focus of this practice scene.

But if it is important even though we are looking at plot, then his issue can be the classic living in the shadow of his brother syndrome.

[Valamir]

There are 3 keys to remember.

Key #1) Actually do the scene framing and expect the other players at the table to hold you to doing it right when its your turn to frame a scene.  Its too easy to go into a scene and just start playing, but in my experience those scenes always wound up either flat or rambling pointlessly.  Identify where the scene is, who is there, whether its plot or character focused, and what the agenda is.  The agenda is the hardest one...its basically the answer to "why are we having this scene again?"

So for purposes of your sample scene you've got the detectives office, you've got the detective, and the fat man present, and you've said plot development was the focus.  So what was the agenda?  Well clearly this is the kickoff scene for the detectives involvement so "the agenda for this scene is to show how the detective gets involved in the case".  You don't know that the detective accepts being hired...that would be playing before you play.  But you know that somehow the detective has to get entangled up in whatever the events were...because this is TV and that's how TV works.  So the purpose of the scene then is to establish that.


Key #2) is to remember that not all scenes involve or require conflicts.  If your scene involves something as simple as fat man offers to hire the detective / detective accepts the case / initial details are shared...there's really no conflict.  Play out the scene, convey the necessary information to the audience and move on to something more interesting.


Key #3) is to remember that often times the best conflicts aren't about what happens but about the price that is paid along the way (Paka's Law of PTA).  For instance it would be horrible to set stakes like "If the fat man wins the detective takes the case.  If he loses, the detective doesn't".  That's makes one outcome interesting and the other boring.  Likewise "if the detective wins the Fat Man increases his fee, if he loses the fee is discounted"...because that's boring.  Perhaps in a character development scene highlighting the detectives focus on money would be useful development but as plot advancement, a yawn. 

So what would make for a good conflict?  When in doubt, bring in the issues.  The majority of your conflicts in a game should reflect as part of the set up, resolution, or stakes the issues of the characters in the scene...particularly the character with the spotlight.  If you don't know what the issues are for the detective going into the scene, its not surprising that you flailed a bit coming up with a suitable conflict.  So lets go with "living in the shadow of his brother" and assuming this is at least a 2 if not a 3 on the screen presence meter, so we're going be shining the light on that issue to some degree throughout the show...here's a great opportunity.

So as producer you have the Fat Man engage the player of the detective in dialog...you go through the usual run of "hi I want to hire you, blah blah blah" stuff.  At some point you drop the hammer.

Perhaps the player is playing the detective as suspicious and reluctant to commit.  You then come back with "Of, course, I should have realized.  Your brother could have handled this case, but clearly you are not him"

NOW you have a suitable conflict.

What's at stake is how the detective responds to the fat man's bringing up his brother.  If he wins he responds one way if he loses he responds another.  There are unlimited possibilities for both ways and here is where kibitzing with the other players can really result in some fun stakes.

Perhaps the stakes are "If I win, I show the fat man to door with pride and dignity and not a little hostility.  Then back at my desk, I reflect on my brother...and how he WOULD have taken the case...aw screw it, I won't work for that blow hard, but I will find out what happened, because that's what John would have done.  If I lose, then the fat man breaks me.  I cave in with a slump, my pride gone, and agree to take the case because he humiliated me into it"

Then you deal the cards, see which way the fall (either way opens potential for dramatic play) and narrate and or roleplay out the outcome.


If the Fat Man was another PC then you can get even more involved since each PC can have his own stakes played against the house (the producer) you can actually create a matrix of 4 outcomes.

If the Fat Man wins the detective takes the case and is clearly working FOR the fat man.
If the Fat Man loses the detective refuses to be hired by the fat man but decides to pursue the case on his own on the side (possibly poking into areas the Fat Man would rather not)
If the Detective wins he maintains his dignity and self respect with regards to how he feels about living up to his brother.
If the Detective fails the mention of his brother humiliates and depresses him and he's reminded that he'll never be as good as John was.

Then depending on the outcomes of the individual draws, you mix and match to find out what happens, and then play it out.

[Matt Wilson]

What Ralph says is all good.

PTA is kinda weird because the stakes can be about "how does my character feel about what just happened," which doesn't apply -- taboo, even -- to a whole lot of games out there.

That's why I asked about issue, but Ralph has pretty well covered that too.

[stefoid]

thanks guys