[PTA] Dirtside - A moment to remember

[iago]

Aaaah, that's very interesting, because for me, there's a lot of enjoyable tension to be had in whether or not the outcome's going to be in my hands.  So I would enjoy the texture of "someone might die" more than I'd enjoy "someone will die", since the former allows for some sensitivity on the part of the narrator to the ebb and flow of the story and the latter says simply that the callous toss of the dice is, once the stakes are set, the sole determinant.  I can see why folks who might be on a less "I trust my narrator" footing would be liable to prefer the latter instead, but I give my trust freely and often.

[John Harper]

It has nothing to do with trust, Fred. I trust all of my fellow players. That's a given for me. I don't play with people I don't trust.

It has to do with resolving a conflict. What's at stake? The dice roll resolves those stakes. In other words, the point of rolling dice (to me, when I play PTA) is to produce a clear resolution that is then interpreted by the narrator. That's my preference. When you have vague stakes like "Susan might die" then the narrator is creating the resolution. I feel that this creation phase should happen during stakes-setting, not after the dice roll.

To put it another way, if Susan's death is not what's at stake in the conflict, then it can be narrated and approved/disapproved by group consensus after the roll. But what is at stake? That thing, whatever it is, should be resolved one way or the other by the dice. Maybe it's "Does Susan finally show her bravery?" The conflict roll says, "No." That stake is resolved. That's the way I understand conflict rolls in PTA. They create yes/no answers, interpreted by the narrator. Anything that isn't a yes/no issue should not be put up as the primary stakes.

[iago]

Right, and that's where I disagree.  I'm fine with "this range of possible outcomes" as my stake, rather than "this list of definite outcomes" -- and in fact, I may prefer it.  So there's some clarity.

[John Harper]

Coolio.

[Lisa Padol]

'Cause one thing's for sure: if narrator fiat can overturn what was stated as the Stakes, that establishes a very slippery slope to a very unpleasant place in play, for this particular game. There. I can say that without anyone flipping out, right? No accusations. Re-read the paragraph right before this one.

Hm. Okay:

1. I will sometimes overrule a randomizer in games that are not PTA. I feel no guilt about this, because what has happened is that the randomizer has made it clear that there is something I prefer.

1a. In these cases, the rest of the group is generally in favor of overruling the randomizer, so we're getting group consensus.

2. However, in the case of PTA, overturning the Stakes may lead to play that is not what PTA is all about.

2A. Play that is not what PTA is all about is fine, but is not what should be happening when people agree to play PTA.

3. Were the Stakes actually overturned? Given the phrasing, I would say that, technically, they were not.

3A. While I find the resolution as described acceptable, having the character get captured would also have been cool.

4. If they were overturned, I like the framework of saying, essentially, "We picked the wrong Stakes, and we are fixing things in a way least disruptive to our particular group. This does not endorse future overturnings of Stakes."

4A. Your Mileage May Vary.

5. If they were not overturned, were they, nevertheless, the wrong Stakes? That is, should the narrator have been given the power to decide whether the character lived or died, or should that have been determined in the description of the Stakes?

5A. This leads to a question of what correct Stakes are and how much should be left up to the narrator. I'd be interested in seeing a discussion of this (or is there one on the forum already?).

6. BUT, there is an additional wrinkle here. Specifically, part of What is at Stake is: How much does the player care about the characters who are important to her character? At this point, the boundaries are getting seriously blurred, and I question to what degree you are playing PTA for this particular conflict.

6A. How pure the PTAness is really isn't something I'm worried about, but it does bear on whether breaking the rules in this case is really, um, breaking the rules. To a degree, the way the conflict was framed already broke the rules.

6B. While I think the whole set up and resolution was cool, not least because it provided food for thought for all of us, I'm okay with hearing that some or all of what happened was outside or in flat contradiction of the rules for PTA.

7. What, if anything, is a group supposed to do if everyone in the group agrees that the result of a conflict is wrong and makes for a less good show?

7A. I'm not sure if this is a side issue or if this is the main point of contention. If it's a side issue, please ignore it or start a new thread about it.

-Lisa

[ricmadeira]

Okay guys, gals, thanks to everyone who chimed in! I have no problem with anyone's comments, at least not so far, in case John (Harper)'s worrying. Just call 'em like you see 'em; I appreciate it, and I have already gotten at least one precious insight from all this:

One drawback to making stakes too specific is it removes some power from the narrator. With stakes like the above, having control of the narration is worth spending some fan mail on.

Me and my group were all totally new to player narration before trying PTA; in fact, the players still don't feel very confortable with it, and consider it more a chore than an opportunity, but I'm aiming to change that in Dirtside II. It never occured to me that tweaking the stakes a bit could help generate more interest from the players (my stakes are always very clear cut, except maybe for this case here where I was aiming for an altogether different target)... and I bet it never occured to the players that some stakes can be more equal than others. I'll make sure they're aware of the possibilities next time. ;)

However, framing stakes is really not what I wanted to focus discussion on (in case the sentences "I can't even begin to explain how cool I thought this was." and especially "This is the most important stuff, but no, the story doesn't end here." weren't indication enough). Except for this conflict here, I think I've always laid clear stakes and followed or had them followed to the word, so even though I could use lots of advice on improvements there's no real game-breaking problems to work out....take Ron's advice and don't worry too much!

Before I try to get this back on track, I'd like to clear all the details up with a brief transcript taken from the digital sound recordings I have just unearthed, like I had already promised Matt I'd try to do. So, if you follow me into my next post...

[ricmadeira]

This is a transcript for the entire conflict, from beginning to end, taken from the sound recordings I did at the session. I will use narration to abbreviate some parts.

Player has entered the hangar bay with the three said NPCs in tow. There's one hell of a firefight going on between the Legionnaires and the people to whom she gave the task of getting a shuttle ready for the escape. The Player makes a run for the shuttle, taking the NPCs with her.

The Producer pauses for a bit and the Player urges him on. Producer asks the Player how many dice she has left.

Player (replying to question): "Some, but not many... So, what do I have to roll? What's at stake here?"

Producer (avoiding the direct question about the stakes, probably because he hasn't figured out that part yet): "Look, we'll roll three conflicts."

Player (very confused, as she should be as this never happened during the entire series): "Three conflicts?!"

Producer: "One for each NPC you have with you."

The Producer goes on explaning how much dice he'll roll (one die, three times) and how much dice the Player can roll (one Screen Presence die three times, plus her Fan Mail and Trait dice divided between the three rolls however she wants). The Producer then decides the order of the conflicts, trying to make it from lowest to highest in terms of audience interest: The Dad, The Fiancé, The Lesbian Lover. Only now, at the end of the explanations, do the stakes come up...(I must have stalling trying to think things through... evidently it worked, because I got the stakes just right. Read on!)

Producer (speaking slowly): "Those NPCs that fail the conflict are... are hurt.... and... and fall behind."

The Player moans. Then she has a doubt about what she can or should roll. The Producer explains everything again, in detail, sounding much more confident. The other players help to clear things up for her.

Producer: "The idea is to see in which NPCs you spend your dice!"

The other players laugh out loud at this. The Player moans.

Producer (Refering to the fact that all NPCs have the same base chance to make it, and that the Player's distribution of her dice is the only factor that can influence the odds.): "Indirectly, I'm placing the decision in your hands."

The other players start making suggestions, and throwing praise and/or derrogatory comments at this or that NPC. The Player, starting to realize how deep a hole she's in, asks again for a clarification on the entire process. The Producer is happy to oblige (I wanted her to make a conscious choice, nothing else would do). The Player moans extensively... again.

And finally it starts. The Father goes first.

Player: "Screw Dad. He only gets one die."

The Player wins this conflict, and the Producer gets narration. Producer says two or three brief sentences about how her dad is running at her side, shooting his service revolver at the Legionnaires.

Producer: "Now for the next one..."

Other Player (giving advice to The Player, and playing right into the Producer's plan): "You're thinking of dividing your dice equally between the other two. It's gonna end badly. You're gonna frag them both!"

Next conflict is for the Fiancé. The other players taunt the Player, joking that's she already killed him once and saying that she should make up for it now. They're refering to a previous scene where she was put as the leader of the firing squad that was to execute him and how she made no move - besides hesitating and delaying the firing order until she could delay no more - to save him, choosing instead to save her military career... fortunately the firing squad turned out to be an elaborate device of one of the more shadowy NPCs, created to make people think the traitor Fiancé was dead and to raise the suspicions that were hanging over the Player's PC.

The Player gives her Fiancé a total of two dice, and she wins with two successes! The Player doesn't really narrate anything, but at least she explains how the trait she used to win the conflict helps her get her Fiance safely to the shuttle.

Now for her Lesbian Lover and ex-Nemesis.

Player: "So, at best you only get one success, right?"

Producer: "That's right... and at worst you only get zero, right?"

Player (laughs nervously): "I didn't want to spend all my Fan Mail, there might be other important scenes... oh, screw it. I'll roll everything I got: my Screen Presence, my connection Lilly, and both my Fan Mail dice."

Producer: "Hey, now we know who she likes best!"

Other Player: "Exactly! Now that was lovely."

Player: "I hope she [the NPC] knows it!"

Producer: "Oh, she'll feel it."

Player and Producer roll the dice. It's a 1-1 tie! Everybody laughs very loud!

Player: "The horror! I can't believe it! Ooooh, so much pain..."

Other Player: "I can't believe it! She's not out of the woods yet!"

Producer (narrates a bit): "So, you're running along to the shuttle. The bad guys are shooting at you and at the ship. You're a bit-"

Other Player: "The audience isn't gonna like it if you kill her lover!!"

Player and Producer roll their success die again, to un-tie, and the Producer comes out on top! The Player moans loudly...

Other Player (joking): "Ouch! No way, I'm out of here! Don't worry, we all lost a Connection this episode, so..."

Player: "Hey, don't kill her. Listen, I'll stay behind. I'll stay."

Producer tries to say something.

Player (groaning): "Oh, no. The pain!"

Producer narrates the NPC getting shot and falling over the PC, both of them tumbling to the ground.

Player (in-iharacter, screaming the NPC's name): "KC!!!!!! I'll fall back... I'll fall back..."

Producer hesitates.

Player: "I'll fall back..."

Other Player (throwing a suggestion and mentioning the mechanic girl friend of the PC, the Connection the Player in this lost conflict): "Lilly can also fall behind. KC can become unconcious as both girls drag her into the ship."

Producer (to Player): "Ha... who are you willing to trade for KC?"

Player (very nervous): "Do I have to trade?"

Everybody laughs.

Player: "How about Dad?" [Laughs... and moans.] "The pain. Two Fan Mail dice... I can't believe it!"

Other Player: "That's not pain. The real pain is she [the NPC] getting k-"

Player: "It's not that! It's just I used two Fan Mail dice on her and still she died! Or maybe..."

Producer says something... maybe "Your fault!"

Player: "Wait, I'll go back."

Other Player (slowly, to Producer): "You're very cruel, Ricardo, very cruel..."

Player: "It's the dice, the dice. That's why I like Amber [Diceless]! Come on, I go back! How is she?"

The Producer narrates the scene, going for the gory details of the big stomach wound and the deafening noise that the ship's engines are starting to make. The Player picks her lover up.

Producer: "And Lily is-"

Player (in-character, to her friend Lilly): "Hold it, hold the ship!"

The Producer narrates Lily coming to rescue the PC and NPC. The 3 of them reach the ship, run across the loading ramp and throw themselves to the ground once inside. The door closes behind them, but the shots still ricochet on the ship's body. Eventually the player realizes her friend Lily is not moving...

Producer: "Maybe that spreading red spot on her back has something to do with it?"

The Player moans.

And the scene goes on from here, with the PC taking the controls of the ship (she's the pilot) and yelling for the other persons aboard to take care of her two dying friends. Minutes later, after the danger has passed, the Fiancé brings her Lily's dead body and rests it on the co-pilot's seat... Tough luck.

Wow, such sweet memories this brings! I loved almost all of these interactions, and the group dynamic was just right (although the third player didn't contribute that much at this point). Now I really have to put this MP3 on our site. After all, that was why I recorded the session in the first place.

So, in conclusion, apparently, I'm more smart than I thought. The stakes were exactly right; what happened was just what the stakes demanded: the NPC got shot and fell behind; nothing more, nothing less. There was talk of characters dying, but that was entirely outside of the stakes declaration. So I didn't cheat by not having the lady killed.

As for the character that ended up dying, it turned out to be rather poetic... that character was the Connection that the Player used to augment her Screen Presence in the failed roll, and she was also the one who helped her save her friend. I *did* ask the player if she was ready to make a trade, and she even offered Daddy as a sacrifice to the Great God Crom The Producer, but I decided her other lady friend was more of a fair trade (although I didn't discuss this with the player before I made it happen).

I'm very happy with the results... but I had already told you that, eheh.

[John Harper]

Hey Ricardo,

Thanks for posting that transcript! Great stuff. We should all try to record our games more often. It's very interesting to "hear" the real game being spoken by the players.

[ricmadeira]

Thanks, John! I thought it kinda cool to hear all that stuff again; now that I'm not trying to think fifty things at once, I realised how much of the group dynamics had slipped by me unoticed. There were lots of cool small things I never noticed going on, and this just in 15 minutes of play. On the downside, the recordings are be somewhat boring to those outside the game (and even to those that were there)... lots of pauses/silences here and there that you never notice while gaming because your mind is racing between fifty places; also you always have facial expressions, gestures, etc, to keep track of.

Anyway, and finally moving the discussion away from the correctness of the statement of the stakes and the resolution of the conflict, here's what I thought most important about this "moment to remember": the clear and direct relationship between the player's management of resources (Trait and Fan Mail dice) and the player's emotional engagement (if that's the correct term) with the elements envolved in the conflict/stakes.

I know, I know, this is pretty basic; at least in this kind of game, with this kind of conflict resolution, obviously the players will spend their resources to make happen the things they want to happen, and keep from happening things they don't want to happen. My 7 weeks old daughter could have figured that one out by herself. I had just never seem this so clearly, right there in front me, unfiltered by other considerations in an equation where there were no other variables to keep track of except for one: the player's commitment.

This was in fact so clear - because of the way the multiple conflict were simultaneously set up, with identical stakes for each and sharing the same base chance of success/failure - that you could evaluate on a numerical scale how much the player cared for each of the three NPCs involved in relation to one another: Dad is a 1, Fiancé is a 2, and Lover is a 4.

You normally don't get to see things this clearly, that's all. The important conflicts are always spread between the session in different scenes, always involve different stakes, and the opposition the player has to beat (i.e. the Producer's Budget dice) varies a lot and has a most direct influence on the number of resources the player spends. So you can't compare various conflicts to each other; you might know which one's the player cares most about, but it's probably not through the mechanics you reach that conclusion.

Is there a new game mechanic hiding in here? Maybe a game where the player, faced with a specific sort of a, for instance, Family vs Duty bang, can spread his pool of resources between both, maybe trying to keep Family and Career at the risk of getting neither, or maybe prefering to play it more safely by choosing one over the other and concentrating his resources on that one?

At the very least, I think there's a use for simultaneous conflicts of the sort I narrated here: non-conflicting (with each other, of course) conflicts, that happen at the same time, have the same stakes and have the same base chance of success/failure. This way, the way the player spreads his resources between the various conflicts tells you exacly how much she cares for each one in relation to each other... at least in a perfect world where the player doesn't simply choose to divide the resources equally.

What do you think?

[ricmadeira]

Okay, so now I can finally go back to Lisa's comments...

6. BUT, there is an additional wrinkle here. Specifically, part of What is at Stake is: How much does the player care about the characters who are important to her character? At this point, the boundaries are getting seriously blurred, and I question to what degree you are playing PTA for this particular conflict.

As it turns out, now that I have unearthed the voice recordings and provided a transcript here, I'm pretty certain I managed to do all this without stepping outside the rules of the game. The stakes were framed correctly, and the narration/resolution didn't deviate one bit from the stakes. The only thing non-PTAish is the three conflicts in one scene bit, which I'm not sure if it's a hard fast rule or just an advice.

As for the "How much do you care about each of these characters?" angle, that was the reason I did things the way I did. I asked that question, and received my answer, working only through the mechanics of PTA. The only "blur" you could see there is that I made the player aware of my nefarious purpose; however, I don't think leaving my explanations out of it would make any difference in the way she handled things.

7. What, if anything, is a group supposed to do if everyone in the group agrees that the result of a conflict is wrong and makes for a less good show?

7A. I'm not sure if this is a side issue or if this is the main point of contention.

I'm sure we're all in agreement here that if the group thinks the outcome of the conflict is less than stellar and needs to be changed, that's either because they didn't choose the right stakes or because they shouldn't have made a conflict out of that particular event. So no contention, there! Like John Harper first pointed out, disregarding the outcome of the conflict resolution mechanic is opening a can of worms and a dangerous start on a path to... hmmm... nowhere? :)