PTA: Imperivm Confidential Episode II

[johnzo]

Last Thursday was the second episode of Imperivm Confidential, the Prime Time Adventures playtest that I'm GMing (or "Producing," in PTA terms.)  The players have been clamouring for a Forge debriefing, so here it is.

Past installments:

Pregame: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=7985
Episode I: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8062

The Cast

In two play sessions and a single pregame planning session, we've generated twenty-five named characters (both PC and NPC.)  Some of these have just been walk-ons so far, but many of them have significant roles and some of them are starting to come alive for me.  I love ensembles in movies, and PTA's making me love them in RPG's too.

Plotting

This was Jeff's spotlight episode, although ironically he didn't get to do much during the first act, because his story really turned on what happened during Conflict #2 (detailed below), so we held off on him until that conflict was resolved near the end of Act 1.  Aside from a lack of spotlight time on Jeff, I was pretty happy with what he got out of the episode; his character Marcellus made a life-changing decision that will impact the overall plot significantly.  He rounded up some usual-suspect type Christian slob and fingered the poor bastard for the murder of Senator Galinius, earning a hundred-thousand sesterce reward from the Emperor himself and an invitation to Cattalus's pleasuredome.  

Marcellus has gone from zero to hero in the space of a day, and I think we'll see some interesting results from that, especially with his relationships with his ex-wife and ex-best-friend.

Jeff mentioned that it was tough to go through a big character change like that without a little bit more establishing material.  I see that totally -- if you look at a carefully crafted show like Six Feet Under, the characters are in stasis for the first few episodes so that we can get a feel for them, and only once they've been firmly established do they begin to transform.  

In contrast to Jeff, Matt's been getting nothing but foreshadowing and establishing material for the first two sessions.  I hope it all works out when he finally gets some meaningful screen time.  The Issues section has more on this concern.

Scene Structure

I've notice we're falling into a pattern where the first half or so of the session is strongly plotted and directed by me and then the rest of the session is purely improvised.  I think next week will be much more player-driven than this week was.  The seeds we've planted are starting to grow on their own, and probably don't need a firm hand pushing things along anymore.  I have one concrete scene idea so far--Cattalus will be leading a procession into Rome to denounce the Christian patsy before the Senate--but I don't see much use in planning any others.

We're experimenting with player scene creation; at the end of every scene, we'd slip into meta-game mode and ask if anyone wanted to create a new one by picking out some characters, a location, and an objective. I know someone took advantage of this, although now, sixty hours later, I can't remember exactly who.  

The players were stage-directing themselves quite a bit, with Jeff and John inserting each other into scenes to terrific effect.  Especially at the end, when Jeff narrated the camera to focus on the eyes of John's character Decimus, hiding in the bushes, eavesdropping an extremely sensitive conversation between Jeff's Marcellus and Percellus the NPC.  John approved of the narration, and the second act ended on a great rising note of tension.

Our commercial breaks were a chunky mix of author, critic, audience, and game-designer stance.  It was a rich and rewarding session.

Conflict Mechanics

PTA has two conflict rulesets: a quick one for cheap little conflicts, and one for big dramatic plot-turning ones.  The draft PTA rules specify that conflicts occur whenever any of the game's players disagree on what will happen next in the story.

We had three conflicts that were interesting from a game theory/playtest standpoint.  In the first, we used the full extended conflict mechanics to adjudicate a stealth attempt.  As producer, I was more interested in seeing what would happen once Achillea got into the place she was sneaking into than the actual sneaking itself, but I didn't actually communicate that to Alan the player.  Which leads to Conflict Lesson 1: Before rolling the dice on a full-blown conflict, make sure both all parties are interested in exploring the conflict in detail.  PTA's heavy conflict mechanics are all about exploring the ebb and flow of a conflict rather than providing a quick resolution to it.  For whatever reason, we didn't think to use the quick conflict mechanics for that attempt.  It wouldn't have been a wasted roll, either; if successful, it would have allowed the protag a tactical advantage heading into the confrontation inside.  If unsuccessful, it would have created a chaotic scene that could have been interesting.

After the game we noodled around with an idea that people could justify narration based on their Edges.  For instance, Alan could have said, "I use my Gladiator edges to clobber the guard senseless with one blow and then step over his body into the house" and I think everyone at the table would have been okay with that.  

The second conflict was an attempt by Decimus the thug to retrieve Macellus's ex-wife Apollonia per the orders of his patron Cattalus.  Cattalus had asked Decimus to bring the woman to him without frightening her.  This was a critical story-point.  Apollonia is a big piece of Marcellus's story, and her attitude regarding Cattalus and Decimus would've driven a bunch of story, so we really wanted to know how it went down.  It actually resolved rather quickly.  John rolled well and knocked Apollonia's cousin and de facto protector unconscious, scaring her into following him.  (Cattalus said "without frightening" but Decimus heard "without hurting" which I thought was a nice bit of characterization.)  This struck me as a good example of the heavy conflict mechanics in action, because the story could have gone a number of ways at that point based on the die rolls and narration, and three major characters and two minor characters had stakes in the proceedings.  So, Conflict Lesson #2: Extended conflicts are best used at the moment of the highest story-possibility. Only take up the dice when a lot rides on the way they fall.  This is something that Hero Wars stresses, and I think PTA should stress it too.

The third conflict was a little tougher.  Marcellus was trying to appeal to his former friend Persullus's sense of reason while Persullus was trying to escape Cattalus's villa.  P and M are old friends, but M outed P as a Christian in front of Decimus, so P is quite frosted with M right now.)

We rolled some dice, and P. menaced M. with a knife and M. said some stuff, but we had some difficulty getting into the spend-dice-narrate-action mode.  I had trouble channeling P.'s character one die-action at a time.  We decided put the dice aside and resorted to actor mode to resolve the conflict, and it took a very interesting turn -- Marcellus appealed to Persullus's mercenary side, saying that his newfound wealth would benefit P's struggling lion-importing business.  Which leads to PTA Conflict Lesson #3: the dice are not the only adjudicators out there that can give a surprising and interesting result; actor-mode play can also work well for that.

Had we been in die-rolling mode when M. made his offer to P, I hope I would've had the sense to  concede the conflict immediately; the story point that it raised -- old friends glued back together into a new, corrupt configuration--was too powerful to ignore.  

So I think the die mechanics should emphasize that concession is not just a tactic for someone who's losing dice, but also that it's an escape hatch for players who have reached a satisfactory conclusion without a dice-mandated defeat.  The PTA manuscript might also want to acknowledge actor-mode freeform as a useful tool in resolving conflict.

One final note on PTA conflicts: PTA's extended-conflict mechanics force players to choose between defending their standing and advancing it.  If one player chooses to hold their standing exclusively and both players are evenly matched in terms of dice, the conflict can easily stalemate or slow to a crawl.  The manuscript might want to acknowledge that possibility and provide some guidelines to getting out of it--perhaps by complicating the conflict, adding new, external elements to it, or putting a ticking clock to it, or something like that.

Issues:

I'm having tough time playing to Matt / Atticus's issue, which is that he's conflicted between the need to do good works, justice-wise, and the need to revenge himself against the agency responsible for his father's death.  Potent stuff, but not easy for me to work with, because the guy who personifies this issue--Atticus Sr--is offstage permanently, and Matt left the circumstances of Dad's death as a mystery with the idea that the whole game would collaborate on an interesting backstory there.  Except that since Senior hasn't got any story-presence--he's an entirely abstract concept so far--so it's been tough to fill the old man in.  The scenes I've set up for Matt are all about reminding him of his obligations and his risks; they're all very much in the present rather than in the past.

Perhaps, though, I'm overthinking this, and it isn't necessary to get into Senior's head to guide the Issue along.  It's just that every time I think about the revenge, I come to the same question: what happened to A's dad?  Did he die justly?  Stupidly?  Bravely or cowardly?  Who was the villain?  I need the foundations there before I can build the nice shiny tower.  Part of me wants to step back and let this develop in the game, but it hasn't developed yet, and I'm worried it won't if I don't push it.

I'm having no such trouble getting at Decimus's and Marcellus's issues, and I think the key is that those issues are personified in the game: Decimus is a tool of his patron Cattalus, and Marcellus is tormented by his ex-wife Apollonia.  So, if you want the issue to advance, all you have to do is put the protag together with his issue-avatar, and bingo, instant character drama.  I think this might be a good thing to recommend in the PTA manuscript: players should personify their issues with living NPCs.  Because if characters are the clay of fiction, relationships are the bricks, and the more relevant relationships that can be layered onto a character, the more possibility for interesting drama.

This coming week is Atticus's spotlight episode, and while we've set it up from a plotwise standpoint-- I want there to be more soul in it. I've got to figure out how to get Atticus's dad involved in the proceedings.  Whether its through another soothsayer or an NPC's recollections or a flashback or maybe even a ghost, I gotta put that guy on stage and see what happens.  I've thought about some twists with it -- I've got some ideas about exactly why he killed himself -- but dramatizing that stuff and making it relevant and organic is a big challenge.

Next Week On's:

We did one per player this week--last week, we did eight total, which was too many.  We only used two of them anyway.  

Here's what we've got for next week:

Matt's drives the murder plot forward directly (Atticus, stone faced, in the moonlight, watching the boat that holds a murderer)

John H. is advancing his personal issue ( Decimus, with three bloody crosses, taken from the corpses of Christians he's killed, showing them to the secretly Christian Senator Matellus, and asking "how much can He forgive?").  

Jeff's NWO was ambiguous (Marcellus in a room full of scrolls - millions of scrolls - reading one, saying "by Jupiter man, do you know what this means?" while a skulking, menacing looking figure sneaks up behind him.)  

Mine kinda anticipates a particular result of the current intrigue.  (Gaius standing in full armor in his camp, surrounded by his dudes. A lieutenant asks him, "what are your orders, sir?"  Gaius is the legion commander and war hero put out by the killing of Galinius; he's got a full legion just north of Rome, and might not be afraid to use it if he's angry enough.)  

It's not a real big problem if these things don't come to pass, although since Matt's and John's deal with their Issue, I really want them to happen.  

And that's it.  It was a hell of a game for me.  I had a ton of fun running it.

zo.

[Jeffrey Miller]

Aside from a lack of spotlight time on Jeff, I was pretty happy with what he got out of the episode; his character Marcellus made a life-changing decision that will impact the overall plot significantly.

I just wanted to reiterate my previous statement - spotlight episodes need to start & end with the spotlight character.

I have one concrete scene idea so far--Cattalus will be leading a procession into Rome to denounce the Christian patsy before the Senate--but I don't see much use in planning any others.

Structurally speaking, we might want to hold off on that until we find the /real/ killer. ?

Conflict Mechanics

PTA has two conflict rulesets: a quick one for cheap little conflicts, and one for big dramatic plot-turning ones.  The draft PTA rules specify that conflicts occur whenever any of the game's players disagree on what will happen next in the story.

The concept that struck me out of our post-game conversations was that PTA's conflict mechanics certainly support Conflict Resolution, but they're also well-suited for Conflict Exploration, when neither party is quite sure which direction the scene will (or should) go in.

...and it took a very interesting turn -- Marcellus appealed to Persullus's mercenary side, saying that his newfound wealth would benefit P's struggling lion-importing business.

Actually what he said was "There's a cancer festering under these cobblestone streets, and you my friend where a crowbar.. I'm sorry"  Marcellus was telling Persullus that his turning in the patsy (a really bad guy who certainly SHOULD be put to death, but just not for this particular crime) is a ploy to gain access and trust in order to investigate the /real/ murderer.

At least, that's what Marcellus is saying.  One nice technique that I think PTA should offer more strongly is the concept of "Show, don't tell" an old addage in the visual performing arts.  Take the movie Blade Runner, the narration by Harrison Ford... ugh, that's TELLING.  "You're in a bar, you're all friends, an old wizard has hired you to..." No, that's telling.  Play the scene out, or be sure you fill in the backstory later with flashbacks or expository scenes, but narration locks you in to assumptions and beliefs that reduce your flexability last time.  When Marcellus showed up to intervene between Apollonia and Decimus, its unclear whether or not he had already gotten his German patsy - we didn't play out the scene(s) between that intervention and their arrival at Catalus' pleasure dome to claim the reward.  Is Decimus in on it?  Did Decimus "turn" Marcellus to the dark side? The answer to these and similar questions turns the meaning of why Decimus was hiding in the bushes.  If we /knew/ it would be boring;  not knowing the motivations increases tenfold my interest and desire to explore the questions at hand..

I think this might be a good thing to recommend in the PTA manuscript: players should personify their issues with living NPCs.  Because if characters are the clay of fiction, relationships are the bricks, and the more relevant relationships that can be layered onto a character, the more possibility for interesting drama.

How about abstracting that to "must be something they can interact with"?

Jeff's NWO was ambiguous (Marcellus in a room full of scrolls - millions of scrolls - reading one, saying "by Jupiter man, do you know what this means?" while a skulking, menacing looking figure sneaks up behind him.)  

Just keeping it open, man.. there's a zillion interpretations for that scene.  I hate the "next week on.." when they reveal the Big Sekrit.

-j-

[johnzo]

I just wanted to reiterate my previous statement - spotlight episodes need to start & end with the spotlight character.

We'll do that this week.  Matt'll get the first and final word.  I plan on jumping right into the scene where we ended last week.

I have one concrete scene idea so far--Cattalus will be leading a procession into Rome to denounce the Christian patsy before the Senate--but I don't see much use in planning any others.

Structurally speaking, we might want to hold off on that until we find the /real/ killer. ?

Good point.  (adds to notes)

Actually what he said was "There's a cancer festering under these cobblestone streets, and you my friend where a crowbar.. I'm sorry"  Marcellus was telling Persullus that his turning in the patsy (a really bad guy who certainly SHOULD be put to death, but just not for this particular crime) is a ploy to gain access and trust in order to investigate the /real/ murderer.  At least, that's what Marcellus is saying.  

You know, there was some strange actor-mode thing going on with that scene, because all Persullus (and I) heard was that P. was going to have access to a nice pool of liquid cash to see him through his rough patch.  He completely forgot about all the "wanna help me swing it?" content in Marcellus's speech--he was onto "yeah, yeah, whatever, gimme the gold" at that point.

One nice technique that I think PTA should offer more strongly is the concept of "Show, don't tell" an old addage in the visual performing arts.  Take the movie Blade Runner, the narration by Harrison Ford... ugh, that's TELLING.  "You're in a bar, you're all friends, an old wizard has hired you to..." No, that's telling.  Play the scene out, or be sure you fill in the backstory later with flashbacks or expository scenes, but narration locks you in to assumptions and beliefs that reduce your flexability last time.  When Marcellus showed up to intervene between Apollonia and Decimus, its unclear whether or not he had already gotten his German patsy - we didn't play out the scene(s) between that intervention and their arrival at Catalus' pleasure dome to claim the reward.  Is Decimus in on it?  Did Decimus "turn" Marcellus to the dark side? The answer to these and similar questions turns the meaning of why Decimus was hiding in the bushes.  If we /knew/ it would be boring;  not knowing the motivations increases tenfold my interest and desire to explore the questions at hand..

This is great stuff, I think.  I like not knowing exactly where Marcellus stands.  Is his a corruption tale, or Deep Cover, or what?  Everyone else in Rome is going to look at him as an opportunistic social climber, but what does Decimus think?  It's just fun.

I think this might be a good thing to recommend in the PTA manuscript: players should personify their issues with living NPCs.  Because if characters are the clay of fiction, relationships are the bricks, and the more relevant relationships that can be layered onto a character, the more possibility for interesting drama.

How about abstracting that to "must be something they can interact with"

I'm not following you here.  What kind of "something they can interact with" do you have in mind that's not a character?

[Jeffrey Miller]

One nice technique that I think PTA should offer more strongly is the concept of "Show, don't tell"

This is great stuff, I think.

I just want to harp on this point a little bit, not aimed at you, but at gaming in general, with a quote..

Don't say the old lady screamed . . . bring her on and let her scream.

k, I'm done (unless someone wants to discuss it in more detail)

I'm not following you here.  What kind of "something they can interact with" do you have in mind that's not a character?

Well, I guess what I'm advocating then is an expansion of the definition and scope of "character"   A cursed dagger, a ship on which everyone travels together, etc, are all appropriate _things_ that could be the focus for an Issue.

-j-

[Matt Wilson]

Couple thoughts in general:

1. Not satisfied with how well the conflict rules are selling themselves so far. That's due to a bunch of factors, I think, but I felt like the rules "failed" when you guys opted to resolve the Marcellus/Pelonius conflict via freeform drama. Ultimately the rules won't appeal to everyone, but I want to make sure they make their case very well.

2. The "players create scenes" rule is without question going into the manuscript. I think I've settled on the idea of "dials" to set that determine how to say who goes when. There'll need to be some flexibility depending on the kind of series the group is playing out.
As Feng pointed out in an email:

in PTA, the Producer is not "the boss." He is a player, like the other players, with slightly different responsibilites. He is not in charge of how the game goes. Therefore, when the Producer reels out storylines or grooms favorite NPCs he is doing so as a fellow player, not as a dictatorial force.

In order for that to really work well, I think players absolutely must have the ability to create their own scenes and not lie at the mercy of the producer.

3. On scene structure, I originally imagined that the producer's job is to give each of the players a shove, and then play bass, with the occasional Jaco Pastorius-ish bass solo in the form of producer-controlled characters. However, I think just how long the producer runs alongside your bike before letting go will depend on the amount of infrastructure in the series. For a Trek-like game, all he/she'd need to do is say "you detect a strange anomaly," and sit back. But in a thick intrigue-filled show, it'd pay off to take a little more time.

4. Showing, not telling. I've been vacillating on this one. I think it's really useful info, but one thing I want to make absolutely clear is that any player who wants to just "tell" shouldn't feel bad about it. It's a good idea for a "ready for something more?" section, but shouldn't be the "right" way to play it.

[Alan]

Couple thoughts in general:

1. Not satisfied with how well the conflict rules are selling themselves so far. That's due to a bunch of factors, I think, but I felt like the rules "failed" when you guys opted to resolve the Marcellus/Pelonius conflict via freeform drama. Ultimately the rules won't appeal to everyone, but I want to make sure they make their case very well.

Hi Matt,

I don't think the PTA conflict rules rules are necessarily failing in some way.  What I observed at this session was that one of the players really preferred Actor stance play with Drama-based resolution.  And the GM provided the Drama-based resolution, instead of calling for PTA's Fortune-based system (which also encourages Author and Director stance decisions).  Ths may be just a learning curve.  I'll be interested to hear how things change in future play.

About scenes: Jeff's idea that a character should get first scene in his spotlight episode is a must, I think.  It'll set the tone of the episode.

About Showing and Telling: I think this is an issue for dials or personal taste of the players.  TV shows vary in their level of exposition and it can be a stylistic tag - like Star Trek's logs.  Also, sometimes exposition is the best way to cover something dramatically important, but inevitable, so you can move on to Story Now.  Finally, an RPG is not a visual media, so showing is much harder work than on a TV series, which has a pre-set script.

[Alan]

One thing I did notice about PTA's conflict resolution is that a medium conflict has alot of exchanges to final resolution.  I'll throw out some ideas:

1) Reduce the number of dice everyone rolls.  Right now Screen Presence is 3+Issue in dice.  How about 1 or 2 + Issue instead and adjust the Producer dice as well.  (I imagine you've already sweated out the Screen Presence forumula several times, so I won't be surprised if you have reasons to keep the current formula.)

OR

2) Every Advantage played takes one dice out of the opposing pool, even when blocked.  When not blocked each Advantage takes 2 dice from the opposition.  This makes initiative a whole lot more important, but it does guarantee progress towards the 0 dice conflict end.

OR

3) Every pool loses one die each round.

[Jeffrey Miller]

Ths may be just a learning curve.

How is my preference for playing out social interactions instead of rolling the dice to see "if I convince the shopkeeper to give me a break" is a "learning curve"? :)

[quotw]  Finally, an RPG is not a visual media, so showing is much harder work than on a TV series, which has a pre-set script.[/quote]

Oh thanks, I hadn't noticed the non-visual aspect of RPGs.. ;)

Seriously tho, its a commentary on play, not on the system.

-eogan-

[John Harper]

How is my preference for playing out social interactions instead of rolling the dice to see "if I convince the shopkeeper to give me a break" is a "learning curve"? :)

Because in order to play in the Author/Director stance that the PTA dice-system encourages, one might have to *learn* how to do so. This has nothing to do with your preferences, Jeff. It's a matter of learning to play a new game the way it's written. I think we all grok our gaming preferences just fine. Now we can try to learn the PTA style and see if we like the sort of play it generates, too.

The alternative would be to drift PTA until it generated only the types of play that fit neatly in our various comfort zones. That would make for a pretty crappy playtest, though. It would be like a videogame tester skipping whole levels because they didn't like jumping puzzles. So? The point is to test what's there so it can be evaluated, tweaked, and improved, not to pick and choose only the things that we already know we like.

Thus, the learning curve. Like Alan said.

[Matt Wilson]

One thing I did notice about PTA's conflict resolution is that a medium conflict has alot of exchanges to final resolution.  I'll throw out some ideas:

1) Reduce the number of dice everyone rolls.  Right now Screen Presence is 3+Issue in dice.  How about 1 or 2 + Issue instead and adjust the Producer dice as well.  (I imagine you've already sweated out the Screen Presence forumula several times, so I won't be surprised if you have reasons to keep the current formula.)

I like this option the best. It might work better for several reasons (though I think I'll leave the system be for the remainder of IC).

1. Fewer dice at a time means fewer neat things to have to think of.

2. There's more of an immediate concern regarding a weigh-in about conceding the conflict.

The latter assumes that everyone "gets" the potential power that comes with full narration rights. That didn't quite work out in the conflict between Achillea and Caius, so I'll have to make that a little stronger in the game text.

[Jeffrey Miller]

How is my preference for playing out social interactions instead of rolling the dice to see "if I convince the shopkeeper to give me a break" is a "learning curve"? :)

Because in order to play in the Author/Director stance that the PTA dice-system encourages, one might have to *learn* how to do so. This has nothing to do with your preferences, Jeff. It's a matter of learning to play a new game the way it's written. I think we all grok our gaming preferences just fine. Now we can try to learn the PTA style and see if we like the sort of play it generates, too.

Aw.. see THAT I can understand -- thanks for clarifying, John.  I'm admittedly drifting the system, and as I've promised, I'll play it "by the book" this week (even if it kills me) -- I didn't realize we were playtesting, not just playing.

-j-

[Jeffrey Miller]

One thing I did notice about PTA's conflict resolution is that a medium conflict has alot of exchanges to final resolution.  I'll throw out some ideas:

1) Reduce the number of dice everyone rolls.  Right now Screen Presence is 3+Issue in dice.  How about 1 or 2 + Issue instead and adjust the Producer dice as well.  (I imagine you've already sweated out the Screen Presence forumula several times, so I won't be surprised if you have reasons to keep the current formula.)

I like this option the best. It might work better for several reasons (though I think I'll leave the system be for the remainder of IC).

Just remember that fewer dice introduce more random chance into the equation.  More random chance == less ability for players to control the outcome.

-j-