Conflict Resolution and the Zeppo Effect

[John Kim]

So a question came up on the 20x20 Room which I thought was interesting.  Rob mentioned in his post you can see the http://www.20by20room.com/2005/02/comedy_is_easy_.html">Comedy is Easy, PTA is Hard.  He writes,

That's the fact that screen presence equals effectiveness. In other words, in a PTA game of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Xander would be most effective at fighting vampires in the episode that focused on Xander, and much less effective in episodes that focus on Buffy or Willow. This works for some kinds of stories, but what if the whole point of the Xander episode is that he sucks at fighting vampires?

You might say that effectiveness for the character isn't really what the dice provide; it's more about story-shaping power for the player. But there's a definite ambiguity there about what screen presence is for. It can be ignored when, as usually happens, the goals of the character and the desires of the player are the same. But when they aren't -- when our player Mike wants his nerdy character Andrew to strike out with Angelina Jolie -- the rules take you into strange places.

I haven't played PTA, but this resonates with me, since I recently had an episode of my Buffy RPG which focussed on the "Zeppo" PCs -- that I described in http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=14220">Buffy and the Mirror Universe.  So the episode in a sense focused on the issues of Roberta, Chip, and Carlos.  However, the episode also highlighted that they are in a supporting role.  i.e. They acted by seeking the help of their friends.  The others were still the powerhouses.  

From reading my copy of the PTA rules, I can see Rob's confusion.  The start of the conflict section suggests that it's about player contribution: "Conflicts are a means of determining whether or not the player gets what he or she wants for the protagonist".  But the later part puts it in terms of protagonist victory or failure: i.e. "A player may decide early in a conflict that victory isn't worth spending the necessary traits, or that failure on the part of the protagonist might actually be more interesting."  So which do you see PTA conflict resolution as?  i.e. Is this about regulating protagonist victory or failure?  Or is it about regulating player contribution?

[Nicolas Crost]

So which do you see PTA conflict resolution as?  i.e. Is this about regulating protagonist victory or failure?  Or is it about regulating player contribution?

Neither one and both of them. Kinda.

In PtA it all depends on the stakes you set for the conflict. In our PtA game we have encountered numerous situations where winning or losing a conflict in the sense of "do you kill the vampires" or somesuch was NOT at stake at all. More often the way this victory is achieved is the central point the conflict revolves around. So (to use an example from our Veritas Mundi game) the point might not be if Jolene does beat up the evil guys but if she manages to control her ghost (win the conflict) or lose control, killing the guys (lose the conflict). Either way she would have beaten the bad guys though.
So basically it is up to you how you frame the conflict. And a good way to do this in PtA is the issue of the protagonist in question. A good conflict should always be about the issue in some way. So looking at Jolene, her story revolved around not wantig to be overwhelmed by the power of the ghost and to stay in control. So beating up bad guys is not the real conflict for her. Her control over herself and her ghost is at stake.

Now for the Zeppo-Effect this means the following: the zeppo is going to "lose" against the vampires. They are going to beat him up badly. But that is not what the conflict is about. For that you have to look at the issue. Which might for example be self-worth or something. So the stakes might be -  Lose conflict: You feel like a whimp. You don't call your friends for help because they might laugh at your whimpyness. Win conflict: You realize that fighting is not your cup of tea. Every man has his talents, fighting is not yours. But your friends know you are a valuable mamber of the team (or at least you think so). So you call them for help.

Well, that would be my take. In PtA every conflict is somewhat about player contribution (regulating narrative control). And depending on the stakes it might be about "winning" (in the traditional sense of kicking baddie ass) or it might not be. And from my experiences the more interesting conflicts are about the issue and not about whether the character kicks ass or not (well, except when this is the issue...)

[John Kim]

Now for the Zeppo-Effect this means the following: the zeppo is going to "lose" against the vampires. They are going to beat him up badly. But that is not what the conflict is about. For that you have to look at the issue. Which might for example be self-worth or something. So the stakes might be -  Lose conflict: You feel like a whimp. You don't call your friends for help because they might laugh at your whimpyness. Win conflict: You realize that fighting is not your cup of tea. Every man has his talents, fighting is not yours. But your friends know you are a valuable mamber of the team (or at least you think so). So you call them for help.

Well, that would be my take. In PtA every conflict is somewhat about player contribution (regulating narrative control). And depending on the stakes it might be about "winning" (in the traditional sense of kicking baddie ass) or it might not be.  And from my experiences the more interesting conflicts are about the issue and not about whether the character kicks ass or not (well, except when this is the issue...)

I guess you thought that I meant "winning" in the sense of kicking baddie ass -- but that's a wrong assumption on your part.  I never meant to imply that conflict was limited to fighting bad guys.  From my point of view, this is still about the character winning or not.  The Stakes for win/lose depend on the predefined character issue, not on what the player says that he wants.  For example, let's take the stakes as you've defined them.  According to PTA, if I decide I want my character to feel like a wimp -- then I can automatically get that since that is "losing" the conflict.  

Still, I'm interested by this sort of purely internal conflict (i.e. "Do I call my friends or not?").  None of the PTA examples touch on this.  Can you (or anyone) give some examples of how that works in actual play?

[Nicolas Crost]

I guess you thought that I meant "winning" in the sense of kicking baddie ass -- but that's a wrong assumption on your part.

Oh. I guess, I got that wrong then... Sorry 'bout that. :)

For example, let's take the stakes as you've defined them.  According to PTA, if I decide I want my character to feel like a wimp -- then I can automatically get that since that is "losing" the conflict.

Well... no, you can't.

Both producer and player may prefer to see a protagonist succeed in a given conflict, and they both may occasionally prefer to see a protagonist fail. In either case they can improve the odds of a certain outcome, but there is no certainty of success or failure regardless of the dice allocated."

So in PtA, if you want something to happen for sure, you cannot make it the stakes in a conflict. So if you want to make your character feel whimpy, don't make it the stakes.
This is why I think conflict in PtA is a way to inject uncertainty and surprise into the resulting narrative (or play). It is about success, but the interesting issue is what to define as success and failure. Setting the stakes in PtA is the meat of the conflict. It requires some thought and sometimes even work (well, at least it did in our games).

About the internal conflicts: They worked very well in our Veritas Mundi game (which has a thread in Actual Play which also talks about setting the stakes). Whenever a player felt that he was not sure how the character would react, we would model that into a conflict. Sometimes even when a player had some kind of vision, he would still use a conflict just to add the possibility of surprise.
The resulting conflicts and resolutions where the most interesting and emotionally engaging ones in the game. Yesterday we finished the season (and John's spotlight episode) with John having to choose between the power his ghosts give him (for which he has to perform sorcerer-like cruelties) and the girl he loves. I (as John's player) always felt that he would send the ghost away and go for the girl. But we made it a conflict because we all felt that this would be interesting. And John lost the conflict, succumbing to the ghosts who ordered him to rape the girl. This conflict was one of the most powerful ones we had in the entire series and will shape the story of the character for the season to come.
So I feel that the internal conflicts work very well in PtA and really add to the game. Basically you always have the two options: either decide how the character would react (as in any standard RPG) or let the dice decide, opening up the possibility for unexpected twists. Great stuff!

[Rob MacDougall]

Hi John. Thanks for raising this issue over here.

Hi Nicolas. Thanks for your replies. I understand what you're saying. Responses to my original post over at 20'x20' have been similar: that you have to define your conflicts carefully in order to get the effects you want.

I'll try to write more, but at the moment I'll just make the perhaps obvious point that how to do that is not always immediately apparent. How a given group defines conflicts is going to be, I think, both the cause of and the solution to most potential difficulties in PTA play. Defining the next conflict is PTA's version of IIEE. It's where all the "work" of playing comes in, and it's where the rules are most ambiguous. What form do conflicts take? (as John says: do they determine player contribution? or character effectiveness? or are they decision making devices as you describe? or all three at various times?), who proposes them? (the GM? the player? the group?), when are they proposed? (when framing a scene? halfway through a scene?) The openness of all this may be for some groups a feature and for others a bug.

Rob

[John Kim]

Ah.  I was thinking at an early copy of PTA (Dec 2003), where the player could concede a conflict before the dice are rolled.  I suspect I'll have to foot for the later version if I'm going to get too deeply into this, since it sounds like it's changed significantly.  Still, I'm curious.  

This is why I think conflict in PtA is a way to inject uncertainty and surprise into the resulting narrative (or play). It is about success, but the interesting issue is what to define as success and failure. Setting the stakes in PtA is the meat of the conflict. It requires some thought and sometimes even work (well, at least it did in our games).

Yeah, that was the main point of Rob's entry (i.e. the work involved).  It sounds like you think of it as two things: (1) the exercise of setting stakes, which is the meat; and (2) throwing in some uncertainty by mixing up the results of that.  So it seems like the player input is guaranteed in some sense by the stake-setting and other methods.  But here, it sounds like you're saying the conflict roll itself is about regulating PC success.  

About the internal conflicts: They worked very well in our Veritas Mundi game (which has a thread in Actual Play which also talks about setting the stakes). Whenever a player felt that he was not sure how the character would react, we would model that into a conflict. Sometimes even when a player had some kind of vision, he would still use a conflict just to add the possibility of surprise.
The resulting conflicts and resolutions where the most interesting and emotionally engaging ones in the game. Yesterday we finished the season (and John's spotlight episode) with John having to choose between the power his ghosts give him (for which he has to perform sorcerer-like cruelties) and the girl he loves. I (as John's player) always felt that he would send the ghost away and go for the girl. But we made it a conflict because we all felt that this would be interesting. And John lost the conflict, succumbing to the ghosts who ordered him to rape the girl. This conflict was one of the most powerful ones we had in the entire series and will shape the story of the character for the season to come.
So I feel that the internal conflicts work very well in PtA and really add to the game. Basically you always have the two options: either decide how the character would react (as in any standard RPG) or let the dice decide, opening up the possibility for unexpected twists. Great stuff!

I'm curious how you define what is the "win" vs what is the "loss" in such conflicts.  So do you as John's player narrate in both cases?  Or does the Producer narrate in the case of a "loss"?  From the phrasing, it seems like you felt clearly that this was a loss.  In my own play, it seems there often isn't a clear "win" or "loss" in internal conflicts.  It's different sides of the PC going against each other.  Neither is a "loss" for the PC as a whole.  I have a similar problem with seduction, which I dislike being cast as a "conflict".  i.e. Sleeping with someone is a loss.

[Nicolas Crost]

Hi Rob,

Defining the next conflict is PTA's version of IIEE. It's where all the "work" of playing comes in, and it's where the rules are most ambiguous.

I have to absolutely agree with you here. Defining the conflict and especially the stakes is the "work" part of PtA. A good conflict can really increase the emotional involvement of the players while a bad one will usually just fizzle. And you are right about the rules being a bit unclear in this part. It took us a few sessions to get used to the way interesting conflicts have to be defined in PtA.
We basically came up with the following:
1. Play until some feeling of tension is reached in a scene. Usually someone will then ask for a conflict, even more often more players will do so at the same time.
2. Look at what is happening in the scene. What could happen? What would be an interesting conflict? What about the issues of the protagonists?
3. Set the stakes. this is the most difficult part. And it very much parallels the ideas in the Role of dice thread: We try to define two interesting outcomes of the conflict. the dice decide which one happens.
4. If you absolutely want something to happen, don't make ist the stakes! Make the conflict about something different. This has lead us to basically sometimes having plot-relevant details (who is going to win the fight) be at stake, sometimes the way something was achieved (are the bad guys killed or taken alive) and sometimes internal conflicts.

Hi John,

But here, it sounds like you're saying the conflict roll itself is about regulating PC success.
...
I'm curious how you define what is the "win" vs what is the "loss" in such conflicts.

What constitutes success and failure is always dependend on how the players define it. And it must not always be very intuitive. Or as Matt put it:

Jolene's stakes are, can she still be loyal to Alina after she suspects about her putting the Russian thugs on Sandra?

That's cool. You don't often see players choosing to put that kind of character positioning up for a roll. Usually it's quite the opposite.

So a lot of times which of the two possible outcomes is then positioned to be the "success" and which the "failure" is very, very flexible.

In my own play, it seems there often isn't a clear "win" or "loss" in internal conflicts.

You are absolutely right about that. Same goes for me. So I guess our conflicts are more of a decision between two interesting alternatives using dice. Which is why it is so very impotant to only choose (interesting) alternatives you can absolutely live with. Meaning no "losing the fight" or "dying" in inappropriate situations.