Producer and Scene Creation

[Ian O'Rourke]

After having read the print version, which is very good by the way (very clean and the cover is excellent), I'm a bit confused about the role of the Producer and scene creation.

I always thought the Producer created the first scene and after that he only created as many as the other players as the scenes are created in turn. I'm getting the impression this is not necessarily the case though as it says in Jobs of the Producer (p58) that Producers will usually have the opportunity to create more scenes than the players (under saying yes to players). I also got the impression this may be true in other parts of the book without it saying it.

So, is the idea that the Producer can insert a scene when he likes to nudge and keep things moving, or does he only have strictly one scene in turn like everyone else?

Just curious as the 'only in turn like everyone else' makes it a game much more departed from how we play anyway.

Good game though, and I'm sure I'm free to do either, just wondering what the general vision was of how it was supposed to work.

[Matt Wilson]

Hey Ian:

You just go in a circle or something, and include the producer in the circle. Should be evenly divided.

The "more scenes than the players" sounds like an artifact. I'll add it to the repair list.

Thanks!

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

You just go in a circle or something, and include the producer in the circle. Should be evenly divided.

Yeah, I've been meaning to ask about that: why 'in a circle'? In one group, we usually wind up deferring to whoever has a good idea first. Doing it in a circle means that someone's on the spot, whether or not they have an idea.

In the other game, I'm the Producer and I consider it my job to get the people who aren't throwing down as much to throw down, encourage the granting of fan mail when players are getting mysteriously stingy, throw ideas in to mix stuff up, &c. In that game, I establish more scenes because they're really used to having an unquestionable GM and they just look at me, doe-eyed, until I say something, so I say enough to give the story a reason to choose a direction, and we go from there. Certainly, the players aren't ready to start a scene just because it's their turn, but there's a good chance that one of them has come up with a good idea over the course of the preceding scene.

[Ian O'Rourke]

Nikola,

I was thinking this as well, I realise that the fact each person in the game gets an equal number of scenes is the ultimate in equal storytelling, and that is why it is that way, but I think, if you are wary of the dangers, there is options for letting the producer have more scenes - especially if (a) the producer lets players contribute once the ball is rolling and (b) uses it as a tool to get the player/protagonists rolling (as you say, not all players want to add them all the time).

I believe the scene can be created by players in any order, it just suggests round the table as an example, as well as players having different ideas at different times, some may have scenes in a certain chronological order - it's a discuss it go with the flow thing.

In our Buffy game we played 70% like Primetime Adventures, but the players didn't always want to create scenes, they did it when they wanted. I see PTA as a way to get them to do it more consistently, aggressively promoting their issue when they do, but whether it is better for them to do it military fashion on the spot, on their turn is another matter.

A few Producer scenes inserted in their out of his turn might be productive in that environment while still getting aggressive issue focus and the concentration on drama.

[Georgios Panagiotidis]

Right... I'm afraid you completely and utterly lost me.

Let's see if I get this straight...

1) Person requests scene: Focus, Agenda, Setting
2) Producer frames scene: Mixing it up and serving it
3) Scene is played out: conflicts etc. rise
4) Next person requests scene, etc.

That was the basic set-up as I understood it.

There is no actual creating of the scene by a single person, except for the opening scene of the episode.  Unless you call step 2) creating. In which case, the Producer should listen to the various suggestions the players make as he frames the scene.

Is there anything I'm missing?

[Ian O'Rourke]

I think the theory is you might, initially at least, not have players comfortable with doing step 1 in turn, all the time and on the spot. Does this mean you should not play PTA at all? I don't think so. The producer could do step 1 and 2 for numerous scenes with the players contributing a scene when the feel inspired (step 1).

It's also true, that at times, the Producer might feel the whole game might be improved if he got to put a scene of some sort in before his next turn (in is role as nudger of the drama and general flow) in the normal sequence - hence him creating a few more than the players.

I think that is all that is being discussed, not there is a fault or issue with the game.

[Georgios Panagiotidis]

Ah yes, the cloud of confusion has been lifted. :)

I can see why people might be uncomfortable with step 1. But I think it should be high-lighted that the player gets to choose whether we see a plot or character scene next. This way each player has a say in the general pace of the game. Especially if you make sure that this decision is entirely independent of what the other players want.

Finding an agenda I can imagins to be quite daunting, but then again that's where the suggestions of the other players come in. As they do with the setting.

It's also true, that at times, the Producer might feel the whole game might be improved if he got to put a scene of some sort in before his next turn (in is role as nudger of the drama and general flow) in the normal sequence - hence him creating a few more than the players.

I can see your point, and I admit it's tempting... but I feel doing so takes away a big part of what makes a PtA game so successfull/enjoyable. The players are encouraged and empowered to control the flow of the episode. It is their choices that decide whether the episode is a character-piece or a tightly scripted story. The Producer shouldn't take that away from them, IMO.

[Ian O'Rourke]

I can see your point, and I admit it's tempting... but I feel doing so takes away a big part of what makes a PtA game so successfull/enjoyable. The players are encouraged and empowered to control the flow of the episode. It is their choices that decide whether the episode is a character-piece or a tightly scripted story. The Producer shouldn't take that away from them, IMO.

I agree and eventually that may well happen and that possibly should be the goal overall...to get the game working that way. At the same time, if you play PTA with the Producer having to create a few more scenes to keep things going (because of the dynamic of the group) but playing PTA gets the players (a) working on issue in scenes and (b) creating their own scenes more and more we have a result which is better than the traditional way they went before.

It's movement along a line...which would hopefully result in pure PTA. Unless everyone was getting what they wanted from it in the 'bastardised' version (still more authorship going on and more aggressively than before) and then everyone is happy.

It is a slippery road though, in that you might create your own rut in terms of how you play PTA ;)

[azrianni]

Personally, I like having everybody take a turn, and even having people try to go "in order" with occasional exceptions where needed.  I can understand the reasons people have given for doing something different, but consider these advantages:

1) It keeps people involved in the story, and involved in thinking about how they want the story to develop.
2) It is, along with Screen Presence, the great equalizer in the game.
3) If you ever want your players to learn to do more than sit there "doe-eyed," then they need a nudge in the direction of contributing more.
4) More people involved in giving the show direction increases the chance of surprises, which is what I think makes the game better.  It's not just my pre-conceived plan being railroaded through.  Suddenly somebody says, "I want a scene in which my mother calls and asks me why I've been out of touch," and we go in a new direction.

For hesitant players, I'd encourage them to try.  It doesn't take much: plot or character, agenda, location.  And nothing says the scene they request has to involve their character!  So if everybody wants to go back and see what happens when [other protagonist] wakes up, good for them!

[Alan]

I asked Matt this question in play-test.  The conclusion I remember is that it's okay to defer to someone with a burning idea, but the the turn passes back to the person who deferred.  The principle is that everyone should have equal input, but if everyone is confident, I don't see why someone might occasionally pass on a turn.

You know, I bet it's also okay for one player to request a scene for someone else's character.  And another idea: how about scenes with no protagonist present - these could be important moments for Connections, or the current Antagonist.  I like the idea of a "Villain's Plan" scene.

[John Harper]

This is an issue related to how much the players are indoctrinated into "standard" RPG play in which the GM runs the show. Old-school gamers aren't used to the idea that they must show up to the session with as much story-making punch as a GM in a standard game. They're used to sitting back and letting the GM take the reins and then sometimes contributing their two cents as their PC.

PTA is far, far away from this style of play, and it can be pretty daunting if you're accustomed to old-school methods. In my experience, brand new roleplayers don't have much trouble with the idea of "on your turn, pitch a scene for your charcter." There's less hesitation, less "is this okay?" baggage to overcome. Sure, somtimes you draw a blank and it's nice to be able to pass your turn. But if the expectation is there, I think the players (meaning everyone, including Producer) will learn to step up to the plate and take a larger share of responsibility for making the episode.

I agree with Ian that there is a spectrum of play styles and you shouldn't push people into the deep end if they don't want to go. But telling them the deep end is there (and please jump in when you can) is a good start. Establish a friendly expectation of contribution, but don't pressure anyone.

[chrisn]

This comes long after this thread has been closed, but has anyone tried giving players the option to "pass" their turn, at a cost, say, of one fan mail?

[ashmoo]

When we play, if someone is stuck for an idea, they just pass without having to pay anything.

[Alan]

Hi Ian,

I'm with Chris. The purpose of the scene rotation in PTA is not to _require_ someone to set a scene, but to ensure everyone has a chance to. A player can pass if he or she really wants to. However, I would treat scene requests just like the narration mechanic in conflict resolution. In conflict resolution the player with the highest die has narration rights -- but other players can make suggestions and the narrator can even elicit input if they don't know what to do. Likewise, with scene requesting, the turn player can ask for suggestions if he or she doesn't have any ideas, but does have final say on what gets requested.