[PTA] The Tower

[iago]

To Adam, I think Fred kind of points to the potential for competition - most of the people I play with woudl actually dwell more on the cooler way to do something than the tactical way, which is a weird sort of competition, and the results are generally pretty positive, but it definatley muddies the waters.

I suspect some pre-game discussion of this might help. Perhaps kibbitzing is acceptable if the suggestions are made before the player makes his or her decision. Suggestions after the decision can come off as "you could have done better" and can rub people the wrong way.

Really, the very specific real-world situation I have in mind when I say this, is someone getting annoyed at kibbitzing happening during the decision process, period.  For an example of what this seems like to that player, I point you to the dilbert cartoon of the manager standing over Dilbert's shoulder shouting, "No, no! Click there!  Click THERE! NO, YOU FOOOOL!"

[Adam Dray]

And that actually happens regularly?

[iago]

If by "the reveal," you mean that the Producer can't plot out a long, complicated story and then have the players figure it all out in the end, maybe you're right. That sounds like railroading and illusionism to me, which PTA doesn't support very well. But you can definitely "reveal."

You're running a little far past the finish line of Rob's idea there, I think.  And I'd actually say PTA doesn't support the "reveal" on anything except those things which you definitively, directly control.    So even as, say, a player in the game, not a producer, if I introduce something into the game and don't immediately follow it up with the reveal, then I have (in a six-player game like the Tower) given up my ability to do that reveal unless the idea I tossed out there makes it through five rounds of other people getting the chance to transform it.

Now, transformation is cool, certainly, and it can certainly lead to some kind of reveal.  But there's no preservation of intent, which can at times (but not always, I'll easily grant!) be very much not at all like television -- and being like television is the promise PTA makes.

Remember, the players are the writers, not the audience. There are plenty of opportunities to surprise your fellow writers, but you don't want to keep them too in the dark. To do so would be like trying to write a novel with a co-author and "surprise" her with a reveal at the end of the book.

See, I think the players are the audience and the writers.  Otherwise why ask yourselves, "Is this a show you'd want to watch?"  If I don't then get to watch it, then no game of PTA is ever a show I'd want to watch.

[iago]

And that actually happens regularly?

Often enough for me, as a conscientious sometime-GM and otherwise-participant, to be sensitized to it and on a conscious footing to accommodate it.  Yes.

[John Harper]

So, for a game with six (!) players, who don't like to kibbitz very much, with some trust issues among players, never having played the game before -- there were some troubles. I think that's what you're saying, Fred. And man... I'm not going to argue with that.

I don't know what to say now. I mean, we say stuff, and you say, "but sometimes that doesn't work!" or "not with these people it doesn't!" So, okay. Are all of our experiences and perspectives irrelevant because we're not you and your players? Can we say anything that might be constructive for your group for PTA? Or are we done here?

[iago]

I don't know what to say now. I mean, we say stuff, and you say, "but sometimes that doesn't work!" or "not with these people it doesn't!" So, okay. Are all of our experiences and perspectives irrelevant because we're not you and your players? Can we say anything that might be constructive for your group for PTA? Or are we done here?

Y'all've been saying plenty constructive (or at least enlightening) things so far, but at this point, I'm working through answering the questions y'all're putting to me. Rob, who Produced the Tower, may feel different.

[Rob Donoghue]

So, for a game with six (!) players, who don't like to kibbitz very much, with some trust issues among players, never having played the game before -- there were some troubles. I think that's what you're saying, Fred. And man... I'm not going to argue with that.

I don't know what to say now. I mean, we say stuff, and you say, "but sometimes that doesn't work!" or "not with these people it doesn't!" So, okay. Are all of our experiences and perspectives irrelevant because we're not you and your players? Can we say anything that might be constructive for your group for PTA? Or are we done here?

At least for me the goal has been to seperate what didn't work because of the specifics of the situation vs. what didn't work because of some component of the game vs. what didn't work because of my understanding of some component of the game. I may end up using the buckets differently than someone else might (after all, I'm sensing that there's some bug/feature disconnect) but I;m feeling it's been  pretty useful in that regard.

So that said, here's the thing about the reveal - PTA can do it if someone is struck by a particular idea, as the moose example cites, but the moose example also displays the weaknesses of kibbitzing.  Passing the drawing over was inspired, but if Ron had said "Oh, man, you know what would be great? Draw yourself with Antlers!" I can't help but feel that would have sapped vast swathes of the coolness out of that reveal, because it would have been kicked around the table some and it would have been intellectually satisfying (which is a fine thing) but, I suspect, less emotionally resonant.

But the example also nicely illustrates that the reveal is a much more sophisticated event than the mere "ha-HA!" of  railroading, and the specific issue that I have in mind speaks directly to theme. 

In my mind and experience, the simplest sort of  resonance with a theme really happens when the whole is greater then the sum of the parts, when two elements that would just be ok are suddenly placed next to each other and they really *pop*.  It is, until it happens, a (hopefully) subtle thing.

There's an unfortunate contradiction in that it is difficult to be both open and subtle over the course of play.  To set up the 1-2 punch requires laying the groundwork, and hoping it'll pay out.  The thing is, if you're subtle, you run the risk of  it being run over without it being noticed, but if you openly say "Ok, I'm setting up a thematic hook here that I really hope will pop with (Something complinetary) later". 

Now, if we really are just doing a writer jam session, I guess there's nothing wrong with that, but I'm definatley looking for some audience action too, and from that perspective, it's like planting a big sign that says "Symbolism here!" - kind of ruins the point.

So, while there are alot of other issues I have some idea or another how to pursue, the issue of how to capture the tricks of storytelling, foreshadowing, repetition, explorationof theme and such in a narrative free for all still somewhat eludes me.  The easiest solution is to play the game with the group who I know, as GMs, have enough of a grasp on these things that I can trust the ball will get passed, but I'm stubbornly resistant to that, if only because I have too many friends who I think could really dig this game*, but who have sensibilites somerwhere else.  In that sort of situation, I want to be able to push as much heavy lifting as I can off on the game, but I don't think that's going to work so well.  So I keep kicking it around.

-Rob D.

* This bears a little explanation.  The ways in which the game appeals to narrators/storytellers/writers is entirely obvious, and it make seem like trying to get a square peg in a round hole to try to get players who are less interested in narration to give it a swing.  The kicker is, the cadence and model of play is pretty much identical to the pattern which I know a few of my players use in their MUSHing.  It's a little less structured, but the ideas of framing and conflict are a 90-odd% match.  The difference is that they want to play the scenes, resolve the conflict, and play out the resolution - the game can do that, but it's a different approach then play/narrate-resolve-narrate.

If it's not obvious, it's one of those differences that it just small enough to make the potential disconnect far more pronounced than it really should be.