Rules questions: No cooperation?

[Kerstin Schmidt]

"If more than one protagonist is involved in the conflict, each player should compare his or her dice results separately with the producer." (p. 49)

I read the above to mean that players cannot pool their dice in the conflict although they may have their protagonists working together. Do I have that right?

And further when the conflict is between two protagonists, one of whom has a supporting character (not a Connection) on their side in the scene, then the protagonist and the producer (for the supporting character) make separate rolls against the other protagonist's player, yes?

Obviously players can spend fan mail to assist either side in a conflict - but that applies only when their protagonist "is not in the conflict" (p. 49), and  the producer doesn't have fan mail anyway; so the fan mail rule wouldn't apply in either of the two situations above. Correct?




Kerstin

[Georgios Panagiotidis]

The way I read it was:

If your character is present in the scene, you get to roll your dice. The successes you rolled are added to the side you supported in the conflict (your own, your fellow player's or the Producer's). You may spent fan mail to get additional dice.

If your character is not present in the scene, you may spent fan mail to give somebody else additional dice.

When it comes to narrating the scene, the amount of fan mail should give you an idea of the scope and intensity of the scene and the (dice-)support of the various players should be reflected in your narration as well.

[Matt Wilson]

Hey Kerstin:

I'm glad you mentioned this. It's something I address in the rules updates. I'll talk about it here and post it on my site when the new stuff is available for sale.

I read the above to mean that players cannot pool their dice in the conflict although they may have their protagonists working together. Do I have that right?

That's right, and it's because even if the protagonists are working toward similar larger goals, their issues should dictate what it is they hope to gain from the conflict.

With the exception of fan mail, you never add your dice to another player's.

Like, let's say it's an interrogation scene from your classic cop/crime show. Two protagonists are both trying to get the suspect to confess. Protagonist A, though, has the issue of being an alcoholic, and wants to keep from looking drunk in front of the lieutenant, who's watching from the other side of the one-way mirror. Protagonist B has the issue of romantic troubles and wants this interrogation to go smoothly, so that she can go home in time to get ready for her date.

Their stakes for the conflict are loosely tied to getting the suspect to confess, and if both fail/succeed, it's likely that the suspect will or won't confess. However, it's possible that only one protagonist will succeed, and the confession will ultimately be up to the person who has narration rights.

And further when the conflict is between two protagonists, one of whom has a supporting character (not a Connection) on their side in the scene, then the protagonist and the producer (for the supporting character) make separate rolls against the other protagonist's player, yes?

It can get really tricky with opposed protagonists, because maybe they can each get what they want despite being at odds. If it's a fistfight, maybe what they're doing is trying to beat each other up, but maybe what they really want by doing so is to make the other person sorry, or to defend their honor, or something like that.

The new example I have in the book is a romantic rivalry. You could have them each want the third person to love them, and it may be that each can succeed.

However, if there's a conflict where only one protagonist can get the stakes, say in the above it's 'which of the women does John choose?" then you can compare successes between the two player's rolls (or cards).

For John to choose either of them, they'd have to beat the producer's roll.

Hope that helps!

[Frank T]

So Matt, what you're saying is that players always roll against the producer and never against each other? Because in practice, it can sometimes get hard to find matching stakes. Your examples sound fair enough, but you know, it's just not always that fitting. I don't think it too unlikely to have a plot scene come up which is not really about issues and in which two protagonists just plainly have opposing goals. How would you make the stakes so that both could, theoretically, get what they want? What if the the goal of one protagonist is to stop the other protagonist from reaching his goal?

You know, this exact question occured to me as I first read the rules and found they do not mention the possibility of rolling player-vs.-player, so argumentum e contrario, it's always player-vs.-producer. I've heard of different groups who roll conflicts directly player vs. player. I think I did it once or twice, too, just can't think of the exact situations right now.

- Frank

[Ben Lehman]

This is fascinating.  I missed or "missed" that rule in reading the text and haven't been playing that way.  Now I can't wait to try.

yrs--
--Ben

[Rob Donoghue]

Hnh.  Ok, conceptually this jars me.  I've gone forward on the assumption./understanding that part of what makes scenes pop is the clarity of a single focus, in the form of whatever the conflict is. It feels like a trade off for more robust inter-player conflict at the price of that clarity.  More, I immediately worry about spotlight dilution.

I'm talking purely on paper here, since if I'm lucky, my first game will be this coming weekend, but this approach throws at least a few thoughts I had (Such as allowing conenctions ot be played as "proxies" in other character's scenes as a means to contribute) for a spin, so I'm wondering if you could talk a little bit more about how you see this impacts play. Are there downsides that are balanced out, or am I just seeing boogeymen?

-Rob D.

[John Harper]

Important thing to remember: You never roll just because your protagonist is in the scene and doing things in the conflict. You only use dice if:

1) You give them as fan mail to someone else
- and/or -
2) Your protag has their own stake in the conflict (whether or not another protag is involved)

So, if Bill is trying to keep from looking like an utter coward when facing down the vampires, I can have my charcter Sabrina say encouraging things to Bill. Does that help Bill? We don't know until someone narrates. I don't automatically roll my dice for Sabrina in the "Bill's Dignity" conflict, though, just because my character is helping. I would only roll if Sabrina had her own stake in it. Which could very well be, "try to be helpful without patronizing Bill." Or even, "Seem to be encouraging while secretly mopping up vampires behind Bill's back."

And/or, I could give Bill some of my fan mail dice, to help Bill's player win the conflict. This is the actual, in-system help that players can use. But protag-to-protag cooperation is a matter for narration, almost always, not a matter of all the players rolling their dice together.

[Darren Hill]

So Matt, what you're saying is that players always roll against the producer and never against each other?

I think it's consistent with the method Matt describes that players can roll against each other. Their issues may conflict. Or more simply, in that interrogation, each player might want the satisfaction of being the one who got the suspect to talk.
I wonder also, it seems to follow that the Producer might not have any stake in a scene and it might just be a Player v Player conflict - is this possible, Matt?

[Kerstin Schmidt]

Cool, many thanks Matt. 

Everyone, thanks for replies. Matt has clarified that and why players can assist others only by spending fan mail, so please let's close that one and concentrate on the discussion on my second question:  what happens when protagonists are at odds?

It can get really tricky with opposed protagonists, because maybe they can each get what they want despite being at odds. If it's a fistfight, maybe what they're doing is trying to beat each other up, but maybe what they really want by doing so is to make the other person sorry, or to defend their honor, or something like that.

For me this is the interesting and puzzling example.  Unlike in the cop show or your romantic rivalry example, there's no third party or outside obstacle involved, so it isn't obvious at first glance how the producer comes into it. (Not to me at least, and judging by what else has been posted, not to others either.) But perhaps it works like this:

- Each player's roll against the producer determines  whether their protagonist succeeds in making the other protagonist sorry or defending her own honour.

- Comparing the two players' rolls determines who wins the fight. In this example, the winner may still not achieve his "real" objective (the sorry/honour thing) - or conversely even the loser of the fight could achieve hers.

Yes? If that is how this rule works, that's just cool beyond belief.   





Kerstin

[Frank T]

Oh shit, I overread Matt's last paragraph:

However, if there's a conflict where only one protagonist can get the stakes, say in the above it's 'which of the women does John choose?" then you can compare successes between the two player's rolls (or cards).

That'll teach me to post in the 15-minutes-breaks. Forget about my above reply.

- Frank

[MarcoBrucale]

I'm getting quite confused... I thought things were a lot simpler than that.
For example:

posted by Kerstin Schmidt:
- Each player's roll against the producer determines  whether their protagonist succeeds in making the other protagonist sorry or defending her own honour.

- Comparing the two players' rolls determines who wins the fight. In this example, the winner may still not achieve his "real" objective (the sorry/honour thing) - or conversely even the loser of the fight could achieve hers.

If neither of the goals introduced by the protagonists explicitly include 'win the fight', PtA won't adress the question by dice throwing. Whoever wins the right to narrate will simply decide, I think.

posted by Matt Wilson:
However, if there's a conflict where only one protagonist can get the stakes, say in the above it's 'which of the women does John choose?" then you can compare successes between the two player's rolls (or cards)

Yes, but... is this really necessary? I mean, the 'basic' resolution mechanic already includes the chance for a win+lose combination (only one of the two protagonists wins, the other loses). But why force such a dichotomy a priori? Things can get very complicated (read:interesting) when you roll the dice, and they say that both protagonists have won the conflict... "Which of the women does John choose?" 'A', 'B', 'Both' and 'Neither' seem equally good answers, let's say "story-wise", and the PtA rules can generate all of them.

Sorry in advance if I am missing something important.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I need to clarify a confusion that seems to have sprung up; Matt, back me up on this one, because I see it a lot when discussing The Pool and Universalis.

The dice do resolve the basic conflict as their numbers dictate, based on the goals of the fictional characters as stated by their players/controllers. That outcome must be treated as a constraint by any narration.

To repeat from the other angle: the outcome of a rolled conflict in PTA is not freely adjustable by the narrator. This is not a "conch" game, in which the dice operate only to determine who gets to speak. (See Dust Devils and Trollbabe for wide-open-narration games which are emphatically not conch-games; see octaNe for a counter-example; see discussions about The Pool for confusion about whether it is or is not a conch game.)

Best,
Ron

[Matt Wilson]

Things can get very complicated (read:interesting) when you roll the dice, and they say that both protagonists have won the conflict...

Marco: a quick reply, as I'm running off to the printer in about 5 minutes to get the new books printed. It's madcap here at Dog-eared Designs. Madcap I tell you.

Yes, you're absolutely completely right, and that's the way to do it 90 percent of the time. I treat the comparison of protagonist successes as an optional source of information that the 'narrator' can use to explain what happens in addition to the stakes. Player vs. producer determines the stakes. Everything else is up for grabs, but the dice/cards can provide you with some cues in many cases. Winning the fight is mostly just color if what you really wanted was to defend your honor.

Ron:

Hopefully what I just wrote to Marco clarifies what you just said. If "I want him to regret what he said" is the stakes, that's what the dice say. Do you physically hurt him? I dunno. Does he still beat the tar out of you? I dunno that either. But I will know based on the dice/cards whether or not he's filled with regret.

Now off to the printer!