Several procedural questions

[JMendes]

Ahey, :)

Righty. We tried our hand at PtA last Friday, and I have several questions. Many of these are also in my Actual Play post, but I thought it might be a Good Idea(tm) to cull the questions in there and post them here.

--//--

In a game where the PCs are supposed to always succeed at figuring out what's going on, how does one frame a conflict around an agenda of "my  character is trying to find out what's going on"?

Actually, I already have an answer to this, from this post, also in Actual Play, but I'll add it in here as well, for completeness.

What happens when the character wins both the conflict and the right to narrate?

What happens when the character looses the conflict?

--//--

How many scenes are supposed to be in an episode?

And if the answer is "as many as it takes", how does one keep the episode bound within the confines of the playing session?

--//--

Exactly what is the sequence supposed to be for calling scenes? The rules state that the producer will probably call for more scenes thatn the players, but they also state to go clockwise. With four players, that's only 1/5 of the scenes being called by the producer. What am I reading wrong?

--//--

Are there any guidelines for expending budget?

Should it be exhausted by the end of the episode?

Should I be trying to make some things hard and others easy? Based on what sort of criteria?

--//--

Anyway, those were the sort of things that I hit snags against as a producer. Pointers would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers,

J.

[Matt Wilson]

Hey J. I'm going to break from Forge doctrine and answer some Q line by line.

In a game where the PCs are supposed to always succeed at figuring out what's going on, how does one frame a conflict around an agenda of "my character is trying to find out what's going on"?

I dunno what answer you found, but my answer is "don't have the conflict stakes be about that." Have the stakes relate to the issue, and the person narrating can choose to add in, "oh, and also here's some info you find out on what's going on."

And if the answer is "as many as it takes", how does one keep the episode bound within the confines of the playing session?

This is as easy as someone saying, "hey, it's 9:30, so we should get some scenes in that lead toward the finale. It's my turn, so I want a scene where we're getting ready to confront the main bad guy."

Exactly what is the sequence supposed to be for calling scenes? The rules state that the producer will probably call for more scenes thatn the players, but they also state to go clockwise. With four players, that's only 1/5 of the scenes being called by the producer. What am I reading wrong?

I dunno what crack I was smoking, unless I meant that since you call the first scene, you'll... crap, seriously, I have no idea. I remember writing that and thinking it made a whole lot of sense. Now I don't know. Stick with the whole taking turns thing. Also, if you want to go counter-clockwise, that's okay too.

Are there any guidelines for expending budget?

Should it be exhausted by the end of the episode?

Should I be trying to make some things hard and others easy? Based on what sort of criteria?

I don't know if there's a short answer to this, and I'm glad you brought it up. It's another thing that's probably worth expanding upon.

Budget is the producer's biggest source of power in the game, and it's finite. Spend it on the stuff that you think is cool, where you think protagonist failure would make a really profound impact, or just to make any given conflict more important.

You can, if you want, look at the feedback between stakes and budget both ways. Normally as producer I'd probably go, whoa, that's big stakes, so I'm spending 4 points!, but as the person who wins narration, you can also think hey, the producer spent 4 budget, so this outcome needs some impact.

I hope that helps a bit. Thanks for trying out the game.

[JMendes]

Hi, Matt, :)

First off, thanks for the quick reply.

I hope that helps a bit. Thanks for trying out the game.

That helps a bunch, actually. I'm still a bit shaky on the tme management thing, but I guess we might just need more practice or something...

This game rocks! Thanks for putting it together!

Cheers,

J.

[JMendes]

Hey, :)

We could have a different thread for each question, but this is easier, so I'll go along with your tradition break. :)

Ok, after our second session, I am very frustrated that I have been unable to extract from the game the kind of play that I still think is lurking under it...

In a game where the PCs are supposed to always succeed at figuring out what's going on, how does one frame a conflict around an agenda of "my character is trying to find out what's going on"?

I dunno what answer you found, but my answer is "don't have the conflict stakes be about that." Have the stakes relate to the issue, and the person narrating can choose to add in, "oh, and also here's some info you find out on what's going on."

I don't know how to do this. I expected it to be self-evident, but it's not. Specifically, I had charaters out in the middle of the desert trying to find out what happened to the team that was there before them. Scene after scene after scene, I found that none of the issues came up, ever. I could find lots of things that would make for decent conflicts, but I couldn't come up with stakes that were "not about that".

And if the answer is "as many as it takes", how does one keep the episode bound within the confines of the playing session?

This is as easy as someone saying, "hey, it's 9:30, so we should get some scenes in that lead toward the finale. It's my turn, so I want a scene where we're getting ready to confront the main bad guy."

To which someone replied something to the effect of "shouldn't we, like, find out who the main bad guy is, first"... In other words, it's readily apparent that it's hard for us to judge how many scenes must still happen before we can reach the 'final conflict' with some degree of satisfaction...

Also, if you want to go counter-clockwise, that's okay too.

Yes, this one, we understood. :) I think I'll work out a schedule for the scene-calling based on everyone's screen presences, maybe something like P-3-2-1-P-3-2-P-3, but otherwise, I get that it's not a big deal. :)

Are there any guidelines for expending budget?
<...>
Should I be trying to make some things hard and others easy? Based on what sort of criteria?

Budget is the producer's biggest source of power in the game, and it's finite. Spend it on the stuff that you think is cool, where you think protagonist failure would make a really profound impact, or just to make any given conflict more important.

I guess my difficulty with this stems from my difficulty with conflicts in general, namely, that I have no idea whether some specific conflict is important or not. What I did was save 5 budget for one specific and very minor thing at episode end, but one that I really wanted to be difficult, and just spent 1 budget on everything else, as a way to "keep things fair", so to speak. It felt very artificial.

Anyway, in rereading what I just wrote, it may come across as "answer-badgering", which is certainly no my intent. Like I said at the top, I think greate RPG collness is lurking within this game, that I would really like to find, but I am completely lost as to how to go about it...

Cheers,

J.

[Alan]

Hey J,

In the playtest here (with Matt as a PC), we always aimed to have an episode done in an evening.  Generally, we would check the time once or twice and this would guide how things developed.  It became natural.

Putting a character's issue at stake depends on the players (including the Director) actively _putting_ the issue into scene requests.  When a player suggests a scene the Director can ask them "How can we bring your issue into this?"  When the Director sets a scene, he can insert an issue element.

Also, consider aggressive scene-framing.  While the players suggest scenes, the Director frames them.  He can (and should often!) skip logical steps in the development of action to focus on the Issues - the dramatic moments.  In our playtest, the best play happened in a couple of instances where we skipped logical intermediate steps.  What happened was that the scene proceeded with the assumption that the logical development had taken place, and the play was more intense.

Also, remember that play is driven by rewards.  Emphasize the idea of giving Fan Mail for developing an Issue - either that of the spot light character or the character's own.

Finally, I believe that the printed rules of PTA say that scene requesting rotates around the table, starting with the Director, then the spotlight character, then everyone else.  After that, it rotates regularly.  There's no restriction on number of scene's requested based on Screen Presence.  If players don't understand what to do with a scene request when they're not the spotlight character, go over the rules for how to play SP2 or 1 (I can't recall what page they're on, but they're brilliant.)  Just because it's the SP1's turn to request a scene doesn't mean the scene has to be about his character.  Also, it is fine to "hold" one's scene for later or even pass.

[JMendes]

Hey, :)

First off, thanks for taking the time to answer this.

Putting a character's issue at stake depends on the players (including the Director) actively _putting_ the issue into scene requests.  When a player suggests a scene the Director can ask them "How can we bring your issue into this?"  When the Director sets a scene, he can insert an issue element.

Yes, but that's just the thing. I don't know how to do this. And if I, as producer (Director?), can't pull it off, I can't ask it of the other players, either. Now, I don't consider myself particularly dense, but it may well be that my instincts are simply too ingrained in "traditional" roleplaying (which I've been playing for over half my 33-year long life).

About the fan mail, as I understood it, it is awarded by the players for, well, for whatever they feel like awarding fan mail for. I may well need correcting for this...

For the first and last points, i.e. timing and order of calling, gotcha. :)

Cheers,

J.

[Matt Wilson]

Hey J:

Now, I don't consider myself particularly dense, but it may well be that my instincts are simply too ingrained in "traditional" roleplaying (which I've been playing for over half my 33-year long life).

I think everyone who's played the more traditional games a lot has baggage. I know I do, and it still messes me up from time to time. I basically had to write this game in order to get it, and that was like 10 hours a week for almost 2 years. So I'm right there with you.

Here's a support group kind of suggestion for you: start out taking the burden off yourself. Then put some trust and responsibility on the rest of the players. If the game's not going smoothly, it's because the group's not getting it.

First thing, for anything to work, you have to have protagonists with issues that leap out at you and do capoeira in your face. If the issues are cool, then the players will want to see them come up in play. I'll pick one from your actual play post as an example.

She is struggling with the disappearance of her husband, a former Heritage man, possibly a former meber of H1, we don't know yet.

Here's how I'd use that in a scene. You have some weird supernatural entity that's causing terrible chaos, but it may provide some explanation of where the protagonist's husband went. There's plenty of conflicts that could come out of that, but they all relate to the issue in some way. They could be:

[*] Rowan and some other character in the scene are at odds. She wants to wait and try to get whatever information she can. The other character wants to dispel the thing or whatever it is as soon as possible. What's at stake: can she stop the other character?
[*] The group are all in agreement and are going to help Rowan get the info, but there's some human lives at risk. What's at stake: can they get the information they need without someone dying or being seriously hurt?
[/list:u]
There's a bunch more that I bet other people could post to give you more ideas. The trick there was putting the issue in the scene so that it forces a dilemma. What makes it exciting is that you make a hard choice, then see if it was worthwhile. In the first example, the player decides whether or not to have the character jeopardize her relationship with another character. In the second, you have to decide if what you want is worth risking human lives for.

In either case, as producer I'd expect the suggestions to be coming from everyone playing, not from me alone.

Hope that helps.

[JMendes]

Hey, :)

Hmm... Good examples, and yes, I think I see how it works, but I seriously doubt even the five of us will be able to consistently come up with this kind of thing...

I would like to adress some specifics, though, not as a means of dissecting the suggestions themselves, but as a means of attempting to understand the process that generated them, and why we may be blocking on that process.

Rowan and some other character in the scene are at odds. She wants to wait and try to get whatever information she can. The other character wants to dispel the thing or whatever it is as soon as possible. What's at stake: can she stop the other character?

Personally, I have a small problem with this one, in that I instinctively avoid player-vs-player conflict as often as possible. Rationally, this is odd, since PtA is a game where nothing terminally bad will happen to a character, but the instinct's there nonetheless.

The group are all in agreement and are going to help Rowan get the info, but there's some human lives at risk. What's at stake: can they get the information they need without someone dying or being seriously hurt?

This one wouldn't have come up either, but for entirely different reasons, namely, that these guys were in the middle of the desert and there was no one else around. I'm thinking my mistake here was that I placed them in a naturally uninteresting setting to begin with, which may have been a source of problem. But then again, that's how I imagine most of the episodes of Heritage would be, which may well mean that the show itself is inherently uninteresting, in a totally non-obvious way.

Lastly, I may have made a mistake here, during the first session:

She is struggling with the disappearance of her husband, a former Heritage man, possibly a former meber of H1, we don't know yet.

Ana suggested that her husband may be one of the people they would be looking for in this episode, and I told her it was too soon for that, that she should wait until her spotlight episode. I think the group may have taken that to mean that any major conflict regarding their issue should wait until the spotlight episode. I remember falling for this trap myself, later in the game.

Anyways, again, thanks for your continuing help, it's really appreciated. :)

Cheers,

J.

[ricmadeira]

Personally, I have a small problem with this one, in that I instinctively avoid player-vs-player conflict as often as possible. Rationally, this is odd, since PtA is a game where nothing terminally bad will happen to a character, but the instinct's there nonetheless.

I wanted to explain this about a possibility we discussed before the first session... can't even remember what it was anymore, but this was your exact same reason for not wanting to go with it.

Anyway, the thing is you don't have a player fighting a player. At most, you have a PC against a PC in a couple of scenes. I think that's only normal in any series that deals with a group of people, and it sure can provide more fuel for issues/bangs leaving the producer free for a few minutes to think of other great things to come. Also, we're all great friends in real-life, and the PTA system virtually garantees you'll think outside your character to keep the common good of the group/story in mind... so I don't think how having a PC versus a PC in one or even a few scenes (specially when the stakes don't harm or ridicularize anyone) would be bad.

So, don't be afraid of this... specially not in PTA! My other group does a lot worse to each other's PCs in our Amber campaign, as you can imagine, and so far no one has had anything else than fun because of it.

Well, just my opinion. But that's not the problem here, of course.

[azrianni]

As for interjecting issues, two things: one, it's learnable; two, the players probably should do it more than/before the Producer does.  

As Ursula LeGuin says about writing, "You do it, and you do it, and you do it, until you have learned to do it."  Go looking for issues.  The issue doesn't seem to fit into the scene?  Throw in a flashback to show what the character is thinking about during the scene.  Have someone show up who reminds them of whatever.  Cell phone rings.

Traditional gaming puts all the burden on the GM to do the heavy lifting and hopes that the lower-status, lower-power players will catch up.  PTA is much more egalitarian, so there's no reason players can't lead the way on some things.  If I'm a player, I should want my issue to come up and work to include it in as many scenes as possible (esp. if I'm SP 2).  Anytime I call for a "character" scene, I ought to planning it around my issue.  Having the players take the lead on this is good, because it means they get to establish what their issues really are and flesh them out, thus teaching the Producer and the other players how to do it for that character.

[JMendes]

Hey, :)

Well, over in the other thread, I promised I'd come back here and comment more on my reluctance regarding PC-vs-PC stuff.

Like I said, it's a knee-jerk instinctive reaction. It causes me to simply blow over any ideas for conflicts that would pit a PC against another, when they pop up in my head. Sometimes, when a player suggests it, I might be okay with it, especially when the other player involved doesn't seem to be reacting negatively.

The thing is, the examples I've seen where this turned out badly are infinitely more negative than the good examples are positive. I've seen whole parties break up around issues like these, even when loss of characters wan't at stake. Yeah, I know, probably dysfunctional play to begin with, but it's there.

Yes, I do realize that PC-vs-PC does not equal player-vs-player. And I do realize that these are mature people, and it would take an extreme situation indeed to bring actual harm to the group. But the thing is, that actual harm, no matter how unlikely, were it to occur, would be infinitely more damaging than the good it would bring for a few PC-vs-PC conflicts that do turn out to be interesting. As such, in my mind, it becomes an unacceptable risk. (Sort of like if you payed me to play the lottery, but the prize comes out of my pocket if you win. Highly unlikely, but an unacceptable risk nonetheless.)

Anyway, I hope I have made sense. I recognize this is an issue I have, that will bear working on, but it will take time. :)

Cheers,

J.

[Danny_K]

The PvP issue is a really interesting one, and probably deserves its own thread.  To keep things focused on PTA, though, how far does this feeling go?  

Is it hard for you to have two characters bickering with each other IC?  How about having one player actively suggest ways to make things more difficult for another player's character?  (For example, "I know!  What if Julian's boss calls and asks him to come in on Saturday, right at the time when the Little League game is.  That will really put Julian in a bind.")

Both of those things are pretty essential, and they're a lot tamer than the heavy-duty PvP conflicts you get into in some games.  If you and most of your group don't feel comfortable with this level of conflict, then I wonder if PTA is right for you.  There's no judgement intended here, I'm just talking about a mismatch between players and game.

[Alan]

Does conflict between protagonists have to be conflict between players?

[JMendes]

Hey, :)

Does conflict between protagonists have to be conflict between players?

No. In fact, they almost never are, unless it escalates. That's entirely beside the point, though. The point is, even though the probability of escalation is infinitely small, the consequences are astronomically huge. As such, the risk (here defined as probability times consequences) becomes significant.

Is it hard for you to have two characters bickering with each other IC?  How about having one player actively suggest ways to make things more difficult for another player's character?

Oddly enough, neither of these represents a problem for me. The first is just fine, as long as it doesn't go mechanical. The second isn't PC vs PC conflict at all, and I've never seen it become a problem.

Cheers,

J.

[John Harper]

As TonyLB mentioned in another thread, Nar play is about conflict. On the shows that PTA emulates, conflict between protagonists is what drives the show. You can ignore protag conflict if it's a hot-button issue for you, but you are essentially asking to play a game with half of its engine stripped away. If you have 50% of the fun, I won't be at all surprised.

Based on your replies here and in the Actual Play thread, I am honestly wondering if you want to play games like PTA at all. Almost every legitimate suggestion is met with, "Yeah, but I don't like to do that," or "I don't think the group can play that way." It's like you're saying you want to experiment with something new and different while staying totally in your comfort zone, using the same old techniques you're used to. I submit that this is an impossible position.

The realities of PTA play may fall well outside your comfort zone. You need to ask yourself if that's a place you want to go.