[PTA] The Tower

[John Harper]

Yes! If everyone makes the cards (especially if they make them together, face to face) then the Producer doesn't get elevated to higher authority.

Not sure about the dice thing. I like the idea that the Producer is "just another player, but different" so she should get to narrate just as much. For me. In my games of PTA. :-) Less-frequent Producer narration with different dice is a cool idea, anyway.

[Adam Dray]

How much kibitzing occurred at the table during scenes? Did other players give input into each other's scenes as they were occurring or did they hold back and "stay out of it"?

[iago]

How much kibitzing occurred at the table during scenes? Did other players give input into each other's scenes as they were occurring or did they hold back and "stay out of it"?

More and more inter-involvement as the evening went on and the system got comfortable.  Why do you ask?

[Adam Dray]

I ask for a couple reasons.

First, you seemed to get through a lot of scenes in the time provided. That's cool, and I wanted to understand how.

Second, I think a lot of the issues you had with tone and cohesion could have been headed off by more communication between players during the game. Rob said, "a stronger shared image of what the show was about would have also gone a long way." Rob, correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be suggestion stronger preloading to make the game go the right way. Like spending more time aiming to make sure the bullet hits its target. But the game is more like a guided missile where you get to make corrections towards the target as it flies.

Did the tone and cohesion issues seem to get better towards the end of the game, or was it consistent from beginning to end?

[Rob Donoghue]

Tone was pretty consistent throughout play, but coherence definately improved, but I attributed that primarily to increased rules comfort and the establishment and play of the connections between the characters, so it felt more natural to keep things together.

Puttering around, reading threads, I've subsequently gotten the sense that the default assumption for a scene is much longer than we tended to go.  The visual in mind was a fairly fast-cut show, and the idea that most scenes had some sort of purpose (be it a conflict or a reveal) meant that things moved to that very quickly to the point and on to the next thing.  Mostly, this was because I honestly had no expectation for how long a scene was going to last going in, and some scenes certainly ran long, but I was lookign at my role as producer as primarily to keep the pacing tight and the table involved, and that kind of naturally resulted in shorter scenes.  I think that was at least partly encouraged by the fact that the finale was really the only scene that had _everyone_ in it, so there was some hand-sitting which I'm leery of and tried to minimize.

I think that if we'd had more time to do the prep, establish themes and characters, get everyone on the same page so that they know what the play and connections are supposed to feel like, then that would be much more of a safety net, so to speak, and there would be enough group investment that things woudlnt' need so much to be sanded down.  Alternately, haveign a strong pitch (because, honestly,w e had a kind of fuzzy one) might serve the same purpose.  So, when I talk about pre-loading, it's nto about where the game is goign to go, it's (in my mind) giving everyone at the table a more complete toolset to do the job.

I realized in talking about this, however, an odd break on the subject of kibbitzing.  See, of the players at the table, I had one guy who can pretty much make any scene go, but doesn't like stepping on toes, two players who were solid, but not likely to really take the reins, and two GMs with _really_ strogn storytellign sensibilities who coudl easily have run away with every scene thatthey were or weren't in with solid, awesome suggestions, but they conciously held themselves in check because (and I'm theorizing on their part here) that that would feel disrespectful of the other players, especially those who are trying to find their sea legs.

Ever played in a D&D game where a guy bring shis girlfriend and just "tells her what to roll"? And when she tries to do something, he corrects her to show her how she could better take advantage of her feats or whatever?  He's trying to help, but practically speaking he's just making the experience suck more for her, and usually guaranteeign she'll never come back (and with good reason).  That's the danger, in my mind, of too much kibbitzing.  My players were happy to contribute once the player had started the ball rolling, or toss out ideas if it was needed, but "Oooh, you should...." sentences were really not appreciated as the player decided on what they were looking for in a scene.

All that said, I'm still gung ho to take it for another spin sometime. At this point, I'm wishign I could actually see someone else run it, though, just for a point of comparison.

-Rob D.

[iago]

Tone was pretty consistent throughout play, but coherence definately improved, but I attributed that primarily to increased rules comfort and the establishment and play of the connections between the characters, so it felt more natural to keep things together.

For me, there was a disconnect between the Tone we said we wanted, and the Tone we ended up playing.  So while that may not be inconsistent, it was still jarring for me.

The visual in mind was a fairly fast-cut show, and the idea that most scenes had some sort of purpose (be it a conflict or a reveal) meant that things moved to that very quickly to the point and on to the next thing.  Mostly, this was because I honestly had no expectation for how long a scene was going to last going in, and some scenes certainly ran long, but I was lookign at my role as producer as primarily to keep the pacing tight and the table involved, and that kind of naturally resulted in shorter scenes.  I think that was at least partly encouraged by the fact that the finale was really the only scene that had _everyone_ in it, so there was some hand-sitting which I'm leery of and tried to minimize.

I honestly entirely agree with the idea of making scenes short, so long as we don't make them rushed.

I realized in talking about this, however, an odd break on the subject of kibbitzing.  See, of the players at the table, I had one guy who can pretty much make any scene go, but doesn't like stepping on toes, two players who were solid, but not likely to really take the reins, and two GMs with _really_ strogn storytellign sensibilities who coudl easily have run away with every scene thatthey were or weren't in with solid, awesome suggestions, but they conciously held themselves in check because (and I'm theorizing on their part here) that that would feel disrespectful of the other players, especially those who are trying to find their sea legs.

That's entirely true (as one of the GMs with strong story sensibilities).  In fact, I tended to act much like I think a screen presence 1 character would act, toward that end.  I listened for hints of plot from other people, and did what I could to push those forward, rather than creating an agenda of my own.

I'm wishign I could actually see someone else run it, though, just for a point of comparison.

This will be happening.

[Adam Dray]

I suspect that rushing the prep left your players with less investment in the story, and thus you had to compensate to keep players involved.

Regarding your better storytellers bulldozing over the others, I think there are ways to handle this more gently. Even in "Moose in the City," Ron as producer was able to contribute fantastic ideas quietly (via written suggestions) without pressuring people to act. I think the group just has to talk about this out in the open.

Ever played in a D&D game where a guy bring shis girlfriend and just "tells her what to roll"? And when she tries to do something, he corrects her to show her how she could better take advantage of her feats or whatever?  He's trying to help, but practically speaking he's just making the experience suck more for her, and usually guaranteeign she'll never come back (and with good reason).  That's the danger, in my mind, of too much kibbitzing.  My players were happy to contribute once the player had started the ball rolling, or toss out ideas if it was needed, but "Oooh, you should...." sentences were really not appreciated as the player decided on what they were looking for in a scene.

I think there's a difference between that kind if kibbitzing in a Gamist game vs. kibbitzing in a Narrativist game. When you give someone advice on how they could have done it "better" in a Gamist game, you're essentially Stepping On Up when it isn't your turn, aren't you? If you offer tactical advice after the novice player makes the decision, you're correcting (and lessening) their Step On Up. If you offer tactical advice before they do, they can't Step On Up, because you did it for them. The player doesn't get to succeed or fail on his or her own merits, and that destroys the fun.

When you kibbitz during a Narrativist game, you're not competing. You're Addressing Premise. You can do that with your friends. If they offer advice before you make a decision ("Hey, wouldn't it be cool if your character ...") or after ("Hey, you could have done this ...") then they're essentially showing everyone at the table just how much they buy into your character, and that's pretty cool. Yeah, it can still rub people the wrong way, but I don't think it attacks the heart of the fun of the game in the same way as it does in Gamist games.

All that said, I'm still gung ho to take it for another spin sometime. At this point, I'm wishign I could actually see someone else run it, though, just for a point of comparison.

I have no expertise with PTA, but I'd love to run a game of My Life with Master for you guys sometime.

[iago]

When you kibbitz during a Narrativist game, you're not competing. You're Addressing Premise. You can do that with your friends. If they offer advice before you make a decision ("Hey, wouldn't it be cool if your character ...") or after ("Hey, you could have done this ...") then they're essentially showing everyone at the table just how much they buy into your character, and that's pretty cool. Yeah, it can still rub people the wrong way, but I don't think it attacks the heart of the fun of the game in the same way as it does in Gamist games.

Ooh, hm. I have to disagree there.  Because in either case it could very much send the message of, "You didn't play your character right," or "What you did wasn't as cool as what I had in mind."  Just because it's Narrativist doesn't mean the interaction is magically freed of its fun-stealing (or "judging") power.

[Andrew Norris]

I guess it really boils down to group dynamics.

We have *tons* of this exact kind of kibitzing going on during our sessions, with a clear understanding that the person with current narration rights has no obligation to go with any of them. As in Adam's situation, we take this kind of thing as buy-in rather than judging.

But I can see where at the specific point you mention (player deciding what they want out of a scene), making sure they're giving sole, unbiased input could be important.

[John Harper]

Ooh, hm. I have to disagree there.  Because in either case it could very much send the message of, "You didn't play your character right," or "What you did wasn't as cool as what I had in mind."

When you say "could", Fred, are you referring to something that actually happened, or are you speculating? Yes, it could happen. But did that kind of thing actually happen during this game? In another thread you mentioned that your group trusts each other with narration, which seems incompatible with not trusting each other with kibitzing and feedback. I'm just curious if this is the same group, what the dynamics of play are like, and if any negative kibitzing stuff occured.

[Rob Donoghue]

Yah, group dynamics is a big part of it.  We genuinely had such a range of comfort levels (and interests) with this sort of narrative that erring on the side of caution was a limiter.  It's a bit of a catch-22: I could totally build a group from my cloud of players who would all be 100% comfortable with a high-input game, but I don't _want_ to build a game out of only those people. It's too...I dunno. too easy. :)

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.

And, conceptually, this comes back to a stylistic thing that I am goign to conciously get past to do PTA.  See, I love the reveal - it's the moment that really brings things home for me in a game, and a lot of my players enjoy it as well.  It's the payoff on a lot of what's gone before.  PTA doesn't necessarily support the reveal, and most notably doesn't support the planned reveal, since the likliehood of any datapoint going around the table untouched can be pretty low.

Which suggests that the way to do that best is to be entirely open about all things from the get go.  If the Producer lays in a little bit of foreshadowing at the outset, they are either a) inviting th eplayers to decide what that foreshadowed or b) she needs to commuinicate the thing she's foreshadowing so it can be taken into account (though given the lack of fiat, potentially ignored) by the other players.  The problem, for me, is that this means really diluting the utility of foreshadowing, or really turning things into something more akin to a joint writing exercise, which can be fun, but it's not necessarily what I come to the table for.

(And I note, as I keep feelign otu what seems to work and not work for me, I'm hardly complaining about the game - I've got no expectationthat it be all things to all people - but I'm trying to get a sense of what it can actually do well and not well so I can think in terms of what to try to squeeze out of it next time around.)

- Rob D.

[iago]

Ooh, hm. I have to disagree there.  Because in either case it could very much send the message of, "You didn't play your character right," or "What you did wasn't as cool as what I had in mind."

When you say "could", Fred, are you referring to something that actually happened, or are you speculating?  Yes, it could happen. But did that kind of thing actually happen during this game?

It has happened.  Not with me as the player, but it has happened. 

In another thread you mentioned that your group trusts each other with narration, which seems incompatible with not trusting each other with kibitzing and feedback. I'm just curious if this is the same group, what the dynamics of play are like, and if any negative kibitzing stuff occured.

It's not incompatible. :) There are some players who may trust someone else when that someone else has narrative control, but when they have narrative control, they want to be trusted -- not second-guessed.  Which is how this can come off.

[Rob Donoghue]

When you say "could", Fred, are you referring to something that actually happened, or are you speculating? Yes, it could happen. But did that kind of thing actually happen during this game? In another thread you mentioned that your group trusts each other with narration, which seems incompatible with not trusting each other with kibitzing and feedback. I'm just curious if this is the same group, what the dynamics of play are like, and if any negative kibitzing stuff occured.

Some of the players at the table had had that problem with other players at the table in a slightly different context (more rules oriented) but since it had happened, it was now the elephant in the room, so to speak.  A little bit of Negative kibbitzing did occour and, frankly, I was the guilty party this time, as my attmept to provide helpful suggestions to a player was taken as being talked over (an existing hot button).  As such, erring mostly occoured on the side of caution.

Trust runs strong in the group, but that doesn't preclude pride or more mundane annoyances. 

-Rob D.

[John Harper]

Ah. Okay. Understood.

This is definitely one of the "big box " issues that has to be addressed before you get all the way down to mechanics and techniques in play. Like you said, Rob, you could find a group of people to play PTA with that would be 100% compatible with the game. (I ah... highly recommend this, btw.)

Your somewhat more masochistic route may be more interesting, however. Fraught with difficulty and bruised feelings, perhaps. But more interesting. :)

[Adam Dray]

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.

See, I think of PTA as a group of writers sitting around a table, planning a cool show. They're not the audience. They have a duty to produce the coolest show possible, and that means discussing options for cool stories. Character ownership is pretty loose. I suspect that your group has a bit of the "don't step on my guy" thing going.

And, conceptually, this comes back to a stylistic thing that I am goign to conciously get past to do PTA.  See, I love the reveal - it's the moment that really brings things home for me in a game, and a lot of my players enjoy it as well.  It's the payoff on a lot of what's gone before.  PTA doesn't necessarily support the reveal, and most notably doesn't support the planned reveal, since the likliehood of any datapoint going around the table untouched can be pretty low.

Why doesn't it support the reveal? Any player can have surprises for the other players. There's always potential for reveal there. Think back to "Moose in the City." Ron hands a stick-figure drawing of Jimmy with antlers. I want to quote a bit of that in, so bear with me here:

After a bit we let Moose come upon my little guy Jimmy, drawing on the sidewalk as usual.

"Whatcha drawing?" says Moose.

Ron is giving me signals.  "Um," I say.  I try frantically to read Ron's mind.  He thinks I already thought of it, but I didn't.  I wonder what it could be.  "I'm drawing Moose, yes."

"And...?" Ron says.  He's trying to impress it into my brain with staring and eyebrow movements.

"And... Um?" I say.  "And me?"

Ron passes me a scap of paper with this drawn on it:



Oh my god, I can't even tell you!  We hand the picture around.

If that isn't a reveal, I don't know what is!  "Oh my god, I can't even tell you!"

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."

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.

Does it turn things into a joint writing exercise?  Yeah, sorta. The alternative is something akin to illusionism, ouija board role-playing, railroading, or the Impossible Thing Before Breakfast, isn't it? Some of those are fun for some people, and some of them aren't.  I suppose a lot depends on preference.