[PtA] Badge or another tale of woe and frustration (long)

[Georgios Panagiotidis]

This is a write-up of our first sesson of 'Badge', a cop-drama set in New York and chronicling the exploits of the Organised Crime Division New York in battling the local crime family, the Martines.

Characters

Jeffrey P. Tanner(Tobias): a young and pampered rich boy (Joaquin Phoenix), who seems to coast by on the reputation and the connections of his father (David Hasselhoff). His issue is 'asshole with a controlling father' (player's own words).

Anna Maria Ramonez(Eva): a young and ambitous woman (Jennifer Esposito) with South American ancestry. That's all we know so far.

CJ Cromwell(Frank): a seasoned veteran in his mid-fifties (Samuel L. Jackson) with a corruption problem and a tendency to drink. A lot. All the time.

The characters are very thread-bare, because all three players had trouble getting into the spirit of the game for one reason or another. I think Tobias just flat out does not comprehend the narrativist angle of the game. Eva is still stuck with creating her character the way she does in other games, i.e. by reacting to the other player's characters during the game. She also had a difficult time coming contributing to scenes, and ended up hemming and hawing when she had to request a scene. Frank, I think, has figured out the general idea behind PtA. But since he's very new to the group (having just moved here recently) he's holding back for now, for fear of messing up the group dynamic. Which is not really necessary, as we've only played together once or twice before.

Pilot:
It was all rather confusing and slow-moving. I don't think I remember all of what happened, but I'll try to run through
the scenes that stood out in one way or another. I think Screen Presence was 1, 2, 1 for Tobias, Eva and Frank respectively.

After a desastrous attempt to find evidence linking Mr. Martine (aka The Frenchman) (Christian Bale) to a drug cartel, Ramonez initiates the creation of a special organized crime division that's focussed on Martine. She is joined by Cromwell, who has been bought by one of the Frenchman's lackeys (Kevin Spacey) and later Tanner after his father has pulled a few strings. Ramonez complete disregard of the various team-members personal status and background quickly results in the team actively disliking her.(The scene that was supposed to highlight her ruthless ambition doesn't hold up well... but led to one of the better scenes in the game so it stayed in.)
Later Tanner somehow gets one of the Frenchman's lawyers (Meat Loaf) to testify in court. This first stroke against Martine leads him to put more pressure, i.e. threaten, Cromwell and his family if Ramonez' team should ever manage to seriously interfere with Martine's operations again. That's about it, I think. Now onto some of the scenes and how they did or did not work.

The first scene, introducing Tanner and his father started out rather well, with everybody giving suggestions how to frame the shot and how it should look like, etc. The scene itself though played out rather oddly. The scene started with Tanner's father giving Tanner a dressing down as he's getting ready for some important meetings. I tried to play him as controlling and disrespectful as possible, hoping to get Tobias to push his character's issue in the scene. His father would put one restriction after another on him (daily reports, weekly meetings, etc.) to which Tanner replied by rolling his eyes and leaving the house. No roll, no apparent conflict. Nothing really.

Looking back, I wonder if I shouldn't have pushed for such an obvious conflict through his father and let Tobias try and find the conflict in the scene himself. Giving him a more active part in the scene, instead of pushing him into a reactive stance.

One of the scenes that worked (IMO) was a scene in which Ramonez had to address the members of the division. In an earlier scene she had requested various specialists to be transferred to her division. Most of those members were rather frustrated about being transferred and were therefore passive-aggressively sabotaging her attempt to get the division to work properly. The conflict in this scene was Ramonez trying to improve morale and getting the team to accept her as team leader. She failed the roll, and thus the team chose Cromwell as the authority in the division and shunned Ramonez.

In a later scene we ended up having a prolonged argument about scene construction. The scene started like this: Tanner was about to interrogate a lawyer working for the syndicate. During the scene Tobias established through dialogue that he was in possession of evidence that would incriminate the lawyer and offer him a deal.

This I really didn't like. There was something very boring and lame about simply establishing something off-screen in order to get what you want in the scene. So I blocked it. The lawyer denied any involvement and refused to talk. We interrupted the game and tried to find out the source of our disagreement. Eventually we settled on Tanner trying to bluff and rolled for that conflict.

Again, now that I look back on it I feel I should have handled this differently, but I'm not sure how. Was it wrong of me to simply block Tobias in-game contribution, because I thought it was boring and did not generate a conflict, IMO? Or should I have just annouced a conflict the moment his and my ideas about where the scene should go clashed, and rolled the dice?

We're still trying to get a handle on the game. What's especially frustrating is that I feel like I 'get' the game when I read it, or follow the debates here... but as soon as I try to run it, I run into problems. After the game we talked about our difficulties a bit, and Tobias asked if scene framing could from now on include a few suggestions about possible conflicts in the scene. The group is struggling with the distinction between Agenda and Conflict of a scene.

Any suggestions? Criticism? Insights?

We're running the next session this monday, and I want to address some of the difficulties we have and hopefully have a
smoother gaming experience this time around.

[TonyLB]

Screen Presence 1, 2, 1?  That's... sorta low, isn't it?  Was that deliberate?

[Georgios Panagiotidis]

Screen Presence 1, 2, 1?  That's... sorta low, isn't it?  Was that deliberate?

Not really, no. As far as I can tell, the players felt they should save the higher numbers for later, more important episodes.

[Matt Wilson]

Jeffrey P. Tanner(Tobias): a young and pampered rich boy (Joaquin Phoenix), who seems to coast by on the reputation and the connections of his father (David Hasselhoff). His issue is 'asshole with a controlling father' (player's own words).

Anna Maria Ramonez(Eva): a young and ambitous woman (Jennifer Esposito) with South American ancestry. That's all we know so far.

CJ Cromwell(Frank): a seasoned veteran in his mid-fifties (Samuel L. Jackson) with a corruption problem and a tendency to drink. A lot. All the time.

As described above, the issues seem a little 'light,' but it could be because of the quick summary. If they ever sound like those 1-point quirks you can get in GURPS, then you know they're not going to be any good.

But here's what I might have done in that game, if you're looking for ideas ...

The first scene, introducing Tanner and his father started out rather well, with everybody giving suggestions how to frame the shot and how it should look like, etc. The scene itself though played out rather oddly. The scene started with Tanner's father giving Tanner a dressing down as he's getting ready for some important meetings. I tried to play him as controlling and disrespectful as possible, hoping to get Tobias to push his character's issue in the scene. His father would put one restriction after another on him (daily reports, weekly meetings, etc.) to which Tanner replied by rolling his eyes and leaving the house. No roll, no apparent conflict. Nothing really.

I see a conflict there, and it plays right into the issue, at least from my perspective. Think of it in terms of the show's audience, which is all of you, really. What do we all understand about Tanner depending on how this scene ends? I might make the conflict 'does Tanner maintain his self control or not?' That is, does he keep his cool in front of his father, or does he have to resort to being an asshole?

The conflict in this scene was Ramonez trying to improve morale and getting the team to accept her as team leader. She failed the roll, and thus the team chose Cromwell as the authority in the division and shunned Ramonez.

I think you nailed that one.

In a later scene we ended up having a prolonged argument about scene construction. The scene started like this: Tanner was about to interrogate a lawyer working for the syndicate. During the scene Tobias established through dialogue that he was in possession of evidence that would incriminate the lawyer and offer him a deal.

This I really didn't like. There was something very boring and lame about simply establishing something off-screen in order to get what you want in the scene. So I blocked it. The lawyer denied any involvement and refused to talk. We interrupted the game and tried to find out the source of our disagreement. Eventually we settled on Tanner trying to bluff and rolled for that conflict.

I don't see anything wrong with introducing the evidence, as the finding of it doesn't make for much of a conflict. It's what this conflict's stakes are that's the real trick. I might have it be something like "does he screw up the deal because he can't help being an asshole?"

An easy way to look at each conflict is to talk as a group about what would obviously happen on a show, and what could go either way. If it's a cop show, you're not on the edge of your seat wondering if they're gonna catch the criminal, but maybe something could go wrong in the process, like maybe Cromwell got evidence without a warrant because he was drunk and screwed up. The issues prompt the interesting conflicts.

Hope that helps.

[Andrew Norris]

Matt's got a good point. I think the kind of cop show you're emulating isn't about catching the criminal, but about how the things you have to do to live in that world wear you down. I see a lot of that on NYPD Blue and The Shield. You get the guy, but you make compromises to do it -- let genuinely bad people off in exchange for evidence, collude with criminals, stay on stake-out all week and ignore your wife, etc. You sell your soul a little at a time, and you hope it's worth it.

I tend to let the players take all the rope they want to hang the characters with. Sometimes the best way to do that is to "give" in a scene, let them narrate solving the problem without having a conflict. Then I just shift the conflict to the ramifications of what they've just fiated.

I'd ask the player whether he narrated in that he had the evidence because he wanted to bypass the conflict, or because he wanted one of those "Now, I've got you now, you bastard" situations. If it's the former, and they have in their head that the rules are there to help everybody figure out whether they eventually catch the bad guy, then they might be focused on "mission-based" play, which PTA doesn't do well. If it's the latter, then I don't think there's a problem -- he sets up a scene where he's an arrogant SOB who gets results, damn the cost, you go with that.

This might just be me, coming from playing a lot of Sorcerer, though. I tend to let players solve their initial few problems easily, and use the ramifications of how they do it as fodder for future conflicts.

[Frank T]

The characters are very thread-bare, because all three players had trouble getting into the spirit of the game for one reason or another. I think Tobias just flat out does not comprehend the narrativist angle of the game. Eva is still stuck with creating her character the way she does in other games, i.e. by reacting to the other player's characters during the game. She also had a difficult time coming contributing to scenes, and ended up hemming and hawing when she had to request a scene. Frank, I think, has figured out the general idea behind PtA.

I can only make assumptions, because your summary is very brief, but your conclusions make sense. To take that a little further:

Tobias and Eva both sound like they are very used to reactive Sim play. So if you take the scene with Tanner and his father, it's only natural that Tobias would have his character just roll his eyes and walk out. He is just taking the situation in and it doesn't occur to him to go and do something that might actually change his character. It's a classic approach that features very static characters, whose only developement is that their stats get better. He'd rather look for a task to solve, like get that lawyer to talk. In that situation, too, he doesn't think of addressing his characters issue, but rather of advancing the plot toward "success". This is something which is really hard to deal with as PtA GM, because you don't want to tell the player what to do. Your best chance is to propose some neat conflicts and stakes that are totally about the character, but there's no general recipe for that.

Regarding the dad scene, you don't necessarily need a conflict in every scene. Especially in the pilot, I think it's totally okay to have some scenes that just illustrate the character. Regarding Meat Loaf: what Matt said. Though the conflict you finally applied seems okay to me, too. But Matt's suggestion has the merit that it gives the outcome an impact on the character.

If Eva has trouble requesting scenes, you should assist her, proposing different possible scenes. She might eventually get it. Does she have experience as GM? If not, that might be an explanation.

Regarding the distinction between agenda and conflict, well, the agenda may hint at a possible conflict, but the conflict doesn't need to occur the way the agenda pointed out. It's okay to not hint at a conflict in the agenda, but I have found it helpful to do so because it gives the game drive and direction.

Wasn't there a rule somewhere that screen presence in the pilot should be 2 overall?

I think we could maybe tell you more if you'd specify the issues, edges and connections. Most problems I have had running PtA arose out of poorly chosen issues and traits. So maybe a tweak on that part can give your game the right spin. Apart from that: No one said it's always easy to come up with the right scene, the right conflict, the right stakes. Don't worry. Next time you have next week on's to help you, and once you get the first spotlight episode, you'll get straight down to the issues.

You didn't have troube with the role of investigation in the game, did you? Anyhow, look at João Mendes'
Heritage - fun, but oddly unsatisfying play, if you haven't already done so. It's packed with useful advice on running PtA.

Hope this helps.

- Frank

[Georgios Panagiotidis]

Thanks for the replies everybody. Today's game has been cancelled unfortunately as one of the players got sick, but I'm meeting up with the other two for some boardgaming and I'll bring up some of the things posted here.

I do think that both Eva and Tobias are very much used to reactive gaming and I can't tell if they are interested or willing to try a different approach.

I'll try and post an update as soon as we've finished another episode.

[Georgios Panagiotidis]

After a game of Doom and Roborally yesterday, we ended up talking about our PtA game and RPGs in general. During our conversation I realized that there were a few things I was unclear about as far as running PtA was concerned which I think was the reason why I had so much difficulty with both running and explaining the game.

Tobias complained that once the dice had been rolled, the 'role playing' aspect of a scene ended and took away from his input on the game. He wanted to continue the scene by acting out the consequences of the dice roll. It occured to me that what he wanted to do was add to the game (SiS? I'm hesitant to use any of the Forge-terms as I'm never completely sure I'm using them right) in-character. Unlike other games where you could add or contribute to the game whenever the GM isn't narrating, PtA has a clearly marked window during which the players contribute to the game via in-character action. (Everything outside this window only permits OOC input.)

Said window being the moment the Producer has framed the scene until the moment somebody calls for a conflict roll. During this time the group is focussed on the 'role playing' aspect of the game.

Every other RPG I've played in had a lot of downtime during which players acted aimlessly in-character. In my gaming circles many consider this 'quality role-playing' or even 'in-depth immersion'. The Earthdawn game I played on Sunday consisted of nothing but this aimless role playing, four or five plot events we had no influence over, two fights and an attempt by us to set a trap for some demon. The game lasted 5 hours.

I think one of the biggest differences between PtA and RPGs like Earthdawn is that the rules do not allow for much downtime. They are actually quite unforgiving about it. Once you (as a player) have requested a scene, everyone's attention turns to your character. You get a few minutes to build an interesting scene, and you better make it count. This can be very intimidating in a game where the players are often hesitant to give suggestions (as was the case in my PtA game). You also lack the comfort of lazily throwing random things into the game, whenever you happen to think of them and seeing what sticks. I think this plays into the reason why experienced gamers seem to have trouble getting (into) the game.

PtA has a fundamentally different 'rhythm' (for lack of a better word) to it than other games. I wasn't aware of that and I think that was one of the reasons why the games were so difficult to run for me. The responsibilities of a Producer have similiarities to those of a GM, but they are not the same; especially when it comes to pacing the game. As a GM I try to give the players as much room as he wants to do his thing and adopt a hands-off attitude. But as a Producer I should try to help the player along to get to the conflict/purpose of the scene. Which is something I was hesitant to do, as I didn't want to give players the impression I was railroading them into something I had planned.

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

I think you're absolutely right about most everything ...

... except I'm kind of puzzled about this part:

Tobias complained that once the dice had been rolled, the 'role playing' aspect of a scene ended and took away from his input on the game. He wanted to continue the scene by acting out the consequences of the dice roll. It occured to me that what he wanted to do was add to the game (SiS? I'm hesitant to use any of the Forge-terms as I'm never completely sure I'm using them right) in-character. Unlike other games where you could add or contribute to the game whenever the GM isn't narrating, PtA has a clearly marked window during which the players contribute to the game via in-character action. (Everything outside this window only permits OOC input.)

It seems to me perfectly viable in the PTA rules to narrate conflict outcomes through any blend of in-character or out-of-character dialogue that you want. It's also worth remembering that "narrator" is not the solo monologist that many people might think - he or she is, instead, "maestro of the moment" and can accept narration help or suggestions from anyone ... and some of that input could easily be in terms of in-character dialogue.

Best,
Ron

[Georgios Panagiotidis]

It seems to me perfectly viable in the PTA rules to narrate conflict outcomes through any blend of in-character or out-of-character dialogue that you want. It's also worth remembering that "narrator" is not the solo monologist that many people might think - he or she is, instead, "maestro of the moment" and can accept narration help or suggestions from anyone ... and some of that input could easily be in terms of in-character dialogue.

I used 'contributing to the game' to refer to anything a player does to promote a conflict. Once the dice are on the table and the consequences are being established, no 'contribution' of this kind can be made. That's when the contributions of the players switch to tweaking and improving something that has already been established (the realisation of Intent or its failure). 

I was trying to articulate a conceptual difference not a stylistic one.

But you're right I defined this window a bit too rigidly. It does not affect how a player contributes, but (to) what.

[Georgios Panagiotidis]

Sadly, the game's been cancelled as one of the players has jumped ship.

Thanks for the replies, I'll apply the new ideas and insights I've taken from this thread to the next game of PtA I'll run... someday.

[Josh Roby]

Which one, and what reasons did they give?

[Alan]

Some quick suggestions on how to identify the right moment to roll a conflict in PTA:

His father would put one restriction after another on him (daily reports, weekly meetings, etc.) to which Tanner replied by rolling his eyes and leaving the house. No roll, no apparent conflict. Nothing really.

Trying to leave a scene is a call to resolve a conflict.  That is the moment to roll.  Does Tanner keep his cool and just leave, or does he blow up at dad? 

This I really didn't like. There was something very boring and lame about simply establishing something off-screen in order to get what you want in the scene. So I blocked it. The lawyer denied any involvement and refused to talk.

The moment the players (including the producer) disagree about what happens next -- that's when to roll a conflict.  Let the dice decide.  The point of the conflict is whether the lawyer talks.  Whetehr the evidence against him is geniune doesn't matter to the roll -- though if you win narration, you could describe the "evidence" as bogus, provided you still describe the success or failure of the interrogation.

[Georgios Panagiotidis]

Trying to leave a scene is a call to resolve a conflict.  That is the moment to roll.  Does Tanner keep his cool and just leave, or does he blow up at dad? 

I'm quite certain that the players feel that a decision like this (leaving a scene) should be entirely up to them and not be decided by the dice. Should I have told them before the game, that the dice may on occasion force their characters to act against their player's will, i.e. that an internal conflict of a character is also decided by the dice and not left up to the player?

Either way, the problem with the scene was, as far as I remember, that the player showed no attempt at producing a conflict of any kind. I didn't know what to do? Should I simply name a conflict in my role as producer and pick up the dice? Should I suggest it out-of-game ("Hey, maybe we could make this scene be about whether Tanner loses his cool?") or should I push for it in-character - as I end up doing by having Tanner's father put more and more pressure on him.

I realize now that you need a group that's finely attuned to one another for that to work. Or better yet, mind-reading powers for it to work. Out-of-game suggestions during the scene seem the next sensible choice, then. Aha! 

The moment the players (including the producer) disagree about what happens next -- that's when to roll a conflict.  Let the dice decide.  The point of the conflict is whether the lawyer talks.  Whetehr the evidence against him is geniune doesn't matter to the roll -- though if you win narration, you could describe the "evidence" as bogus, provided you still describe the success or failure of the interrogation.

Yes, I can see this now. This would be the conflict in a plot-scene, right? Whereas if that scene had been a character scene, the question would have revolved around how the character's issue is affected.

[John Harper]

Should I suggest it out-of-game ("Hey, maybe we could make this scene be about whether Tanner loses his cool?")

Yes. 9 times out of 10, this is the right thing to do in a PTA game. Mind reading (plus in-character cues) or Force are both pretty bad techniques for this game. Talk about the scene, player to player, and create the conflict together. If you can't see one, keep going, keep looking, keep trying to build one. If that doesn't work, just end the scene and try again later.