More Questions

[Matt Wilson]

All that stuff John just said.

Yes!

[Lisa Padol]

Lisa, if you're having a hard time getting stakes worked out, try this quick rule of thumb: every protagonist's stakes must be about their issue.  I know that the rules only recommend keeping the issue in mind when you're doing stakes, but if you require it for the first few conflicts, I think you'll get stakes that are more diverse and gets you into the groove faster.  Ask "Yeah, it's cool that Zander wants to help Buffy kill the demon, but why?  And don't just say 'cause he's her friend'."

Hope that helps.

It sounds like it should. I'll give it a try next time we play.

Thanks,
Lisa

[Lisa Padol]

Seriously, I'm glad my responses are helping you out. This kind of gaming is hard. I was there at the coffee shop with Matt, week after week, when he was first hammering this game out, and I thought I understood it back then. I ran several series of PTA and still didn't "get it", because I wrestled the game to work inside my comfort zone.

Only after lots of TSOY, Trollbabe, and Dogs -- and then a serious read of PTA revised -- did the lights really come on for me. This kind of gaming is just plain different from what I did for all those decades before. And man... I can't get enough of it now.

See, I'm okay when people tell me, "This is hard." It's when I'm told, "It's blinking obvious -- it's all right there in the text." It isn't obvious, and it isn't exactly all right there. I'm clearly not the only one having trouble figuring this out, and I don't believe we're all blind. (This isn't aimed at PTA and Matt, or at the Forge in general. I think I'm still venting at the last GenCon in Milwaukee, where exactly when Reg opened for what was NOT BLINKING OBVIOUS. It's a good thing Josh and I ran into the folks with nerf weapons Wednesday night.)

And the Forge games look like they should be simple to figure out. Cute little books, easy to carry, complete game right there, so how hard could it be? Yet, my group has run into a surprising amount of trouble with MLWM, and into odd misunderstanding with PTA. No, it ain't easy.

-Lisa

[Rob Donoghue]

Ok, feeling closer, but still not there.

If I go into a scene with stakes and actions, and I succeed, it seems reasonably that the narrator then narrate success based on my actions.  Ok, as an example, let me take the end of Buffy's second season.  The scen might be about killign angel and stoppign the world from being sucked into hell, but the stakes really seem to be somethign more like whether or not Buffy is capable of killing the man she loves, and the action is to fight him to the death.

If Buffy's player wins, I expect the narrator to respect both the action and the stakes, so that Buffy fights Angel and kills him.  I woudl expect the narrator to feel free to bring in external twists, like Angel getting his soul back at the last minute, but I would not expect him to do something like "and then Tuxedo Mask arrives and saves Buffy and defeats Angel, and holds his battered body on place for buffy to kill, which she does!".  Ok, it's a totally lame example on many, many levels, but something less extreme may happen, like the narrator feeling it would be much more poetic for Buffy to kill him after a round of sex inspired by the fighting.

Now, I completely, completely, completely understand that this can potentially be negotiated, but the fact that this would be the narrator ignoring the player's stated action (or more specifically, disconnecting the action from the stakes) seems like a bad thing to me.  But I'm not sure how that's explicitly addressed.

Now, this is more problematic when Buffy loses.  Specifically, there is nothing that suggests whether or not the Narrator should respect the character's stated actions and their implications with regards to the stakes.    To swing back to Roxy, if her goal is impressing her friends, failure only means she doesn't impress her friends.  Her getting embarassed (The logical inverse) is, mechanically, not more likely than her getting, I dunno, jumped by prohibition era ninjas or whatever people think is cool.

So my questionis this: are implicit consequences, either are a narrative inverse of stakes or a logical extension of actions, something the narrator must respect, or do they have no more weight than any other shouted suggestion in the negotiation melee?

-Rob D.

[John Harper]

Now, I completely, completely, completely understand that this can potentially be negotiated, but the fact that this would be the narrator ignoring the player's stated action (or more specifically, disconnecting the action from the stakes) seems like a bad thing to me.  But I'm not sure how that's explicitly addressed.

You know exactly how it's addressed, because you say so in the first sentence of the quote there. And I just quoted the bit from the rules to you in my previous post.

"The entire group participates in the narration...." I don't know how much more clearly to state that. You're worried about "wrong" narration, when the only way to have that is if the entire group wants it -- which means it's not wrong. Read pages 65 and 66 again. There is no way, according to the rules, for the narrator alone to have Tuxedo Mask swoop in and save the day. Or anything of the kind.

You phrase "shouted suggestion in the negotiation melee" is troubling to me. If that's the way you characterize "the entire group participates in the narration" then I can see why you're worried about the narrator "respecting" input from the other players. But this is the narrator's job, according to the rules. The narrator must synthesize the contributions of the entire group.

And "the narrator" is not a computer program. It's Jim, sitting three feet to your left. Jim is a cool guy. That's why you game with him. Jim will listen to you and show you that your trust in him in well deserved. Jim will not crap all over your character's scene just because he can. And if he does, you will call him on it. If he doesn't listen, and respect you, and earn your trust, then you won't play PTA with him. Anymore than you would let Jim DM D&D if he dropped boulders out of the sky and killed the party for no reason.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: PTA is not a game for holding on too tightly. Yes, you have authority over your protagonist. But the "story" of your TV show, and the "story" of your character will be created by everyone playing and by random chance -- again and again, every session. Your hypothetical about Tuxedo Mask sounds like fear to me. "But someone else will say what happens to my character! And it might not be what I imagined!" Yes! This will happen. It should happen, a lot. This is why we play with other cool people. Because they will add their own creative voices to our story, even the most intimate parts of our own character. It will be surprising and delightful stuff. It will not always be what you alone want most. That's the whole idea.

[Darren Hill]

I had the same worry as Rob (still do, slightly), but I found it helped to think of it like this.
The narrator is the GM at that moment - he has final call. Now, if I were GM, and a player said, "ah, but you haven't taken this into account - I would do this," as GM in a more traditional game I would naturally take that onboard, and make a decision over whether that was reasonable or not. Usually it is. In a traditional game, the GM is expected to have final call, but is adapting his descriptions all the time to take player input into account.
So, it's not "the narrator narrates the outcome and the final buck stops with him," it's "the narrator is the GM, and must take into account and incorporate anything reasonable that people put to him, and then render a final narration."
I don't know if that helps you Rob.

[John Harper]

Yes. Well said, Darren.

[Rob Donoghue]

So first, I'm just going to state that there is a complete absence of fear regarding control of the character.  The fear of tuxedo mask is the fear of lameness, and possibly some fear of arbitariness, and doesn't really deserve more discussion than that.

Here's the thing, I look at synthesis with the narrator acting as a filter, taking that which is presented (and his own ideas) and producing a whole, trying to balance respecting people's ideas with an interesting narration, much the same way a GM does, with a freedom to pick and choose from the buffet of ideas presented.

Now, when you say something like "There is no way, according to the rules, for the narrator alone to have Tuxedo Mask swoop in and save the day" I can only infer two possible things - either the narrator has been temporaily considered to be removed from the group (since his idea can't be used) or that the narrator may only use ideas which the entire group agrees on.  Since the former is kind of out of left field, I'm assuming you mean the latter, which seems more aggregation than synthesis to me, though that would explain why you describe the discussion as a negotiation (and why I don't).

So, I'm gonna call back to the booth here for some clarity on synthesis, and specifically, whether the Narrator is obliged to use all, some or none of that which is suggested or discussed.

-Rob D.

[Rob Donoghue]

(And corrolary question: What can they use which has _not_ been suggested?)

-Rob D.

[John Harper]

The word "alone" is the key to my comment, Rob. The narrator cannot introduce Tuxedo Mask without the real consent of the other players. Or rather, he could -- but if he does so against the cries of objection by the other players, then he is not acting in the spirit of the rules. See what I mean?

Your last two questions mystify me, I must admit. You already know the answers, right? I mean, "everyone contributes, and the narrator has the final say" plus "the players cooperate to make a good episode" is really all I can say. No one is in a position to tell you -- concretely and absolutely for every possible case -- what a narrator can and cannot say. You know what "cooperation", "negotiation" and "synthesis" are. Do you really need it spelled out further?

[Rob Donoghue]

Yes, but....

Because my goal is to play explicitly by the rules, rather than in a way I merely consider to be good play, I am really trying to find out what the rules are, so that I can keep that agreement with myself.  I think, to some extent, the confusion has been because I;m really not askign how to run the game _well_, I'm asking what the rules do and do not say.  In the case of this example, I;m not worried about Tuxedo Mask actually happening in my game because, well, no one's that big of a  dip, but I am worried about not knowing where the line that seperates the rules from goos play stands.

So the question is not should the narrator introduce tuxedo mask, but rather can they?

And it seems they can.  And that's no bad reflection on the game.  In fact, it makes it far more a game I would be interested in than one where the narrator is more strongly bound by the ideas of the players because part of the reason I want to play with these people is so they can surprise me.

So the question of what the narrator can and can't do is one that's suggested by the assertion that the narrator can't introduce Tuxedo Mask.  If they can't, there must be a reason.  But since they can and merely shouldn't (which I don't think there's any disagreement on now) th questions are moot..

Well, except, I now am back at not having a satisfactory answer for the previous question.

When I, as a player, set my stakes and  describe my action, there are a handful of things which the eventual narrator must include: How the takes are won or lost, appropriate behavior, and any traits included.

Now, with that in mind, stakes are declared positively (at least as described).  They are something the player will get or not.  Thus, Roxy lays down that she will impress her friends.  If she wins, because it is one of the things that the narrator must do, he will describe her impressing her friends.

Now, if she loses, I think the general response is that she not only doesn't impress her friends, but she actually does something inverse to that, specifically embarasses herself in some way.  The thing is, because the stakes are only declared positively, the narrator is free to do any number of other (presumably interesting) things provided he makes sure to use any traits, act consistently with the characters, and makes she she doesn't impress her friends.

The upshot of this is that the player has explicit, rules supported control of the direction the story will go if they win their stakes, but has no such authority regarding what losing their stakes means, which seems an odd split to me. 

So I'm wondering if the negative consequences can be stated as part of the stakes (So that Roxy is lookng to impress her friends and not embrass herself).  It _seems_ like not, but there's enough flex that I'd like to know.

Now, just to clarify, this is purely a rules question.  I think in most situations the Narrator will take their cue from the stakes anyway, but since the goal of this is to play by the book, not the way I feel it should be played, I want to make sure which way the rules fall.

-Rob D.

[John Harper]

First of all: the totality of the PTA book is "the rules."

All that stuff about cooperation? Those are rules. Not "suggestions" or guidelines, but rules. As in, "when you play this game, you do X."

In light of that, I think you can see that "playing by the rules" means everyone tries to cooperate. In PTA, you can actually say, "Hey, the rules say we're supposed to be cooperating on this. Can you cut me a little slack?"

The concrete rules are:
- Scenes are for important moments in the story (never for "what my guy does now")
- Conflicts are interesting, important turning points in the story (never task resolution)
- Stakes are what the protagonist wants
- Cooperate with the other players (yes, this means: don't fight tooth and nail to protect your precious ideas from outside influence*)

Use them all together.

In this context, your concerns about the "scope" of stakes, and how much you can cover (negative/positive outcomes) just don't make much sense to me. Because "how much you can say" is written on the faces of the people in your game. The book says that stakes should be what the protag wants. But the specific way that your group says their stakes will be determined by what the group accepts, from moment to moment.

I truly cannot tell you specifically what is okay to say or not say for every set of stakes you will ever create. Sometimes, it will make sense to you and your group to be very simple and vague ("I make it there in time") and let narration color the rest. Other times, you will be more specific ("I make it there in time, without putting so much as a scratch on my new car."). You know what's okay by looking at your fellow players and communicating with them. If they're nodding along with you, then fine. If they're scowling and going, "How come you're saying so much now?" then you should dial it back.

I think in most situations the Narrator will take their cue from the stakes anyway, but since the goal of this is to play by the book, not the way I feel it should be played, I want to make sure which way the rules fall.

"The narrator takes their cue from the stakes" is a rule. It's on page 66. If you're playing by the book, you must do it this way.


* That's not directed at you, Rob. It's just my ranty-ness for the benefit of anyone else reading.

[Rob Donoghue]

I don't mean to be all yes-but, but well, Yes, but....

I don't think there's any question about how stakes will get kicked around in play, my question was one of how far the definition of the bounds of Stakes go.

Look, maybe we're not in agreement on a core principle here.  I look at the rules and I see that there are a core handful of explicit elements, such as the three musts, the nature of scene framing, how to write up protagonists, how to use fan mail, and stuff like that.  I also see there's a lot of implicit stuff, which are the loose core principles (get along, have fun and such) which but which there is no explicit enforcement or framework for.  The best example from this discussion is what the narrator must or must not do - the narrator has explicit guidelines (the musts) and implicit ones, like how he choses to take everyone's input into account, if at all - he should listen and take people's suggestions into account, but if he has an idea he's really taken by, he can run with it, ignoring input in favor of this, without violating his explicit responsibilities.

Now, implicit is this is my assumption that this split is important, and perhaps this is where we disagree.  I get the sense that it's the implicit elements of cooperation and everyone pitching in to create a whole that are what excite you most about the game.  I may be wrong in this, but it's the vibe I get.  If that's true, focusing on the distinctions between explicit and implicit is silly, because the explicit exists solely to serve the implicit, and all can be derived from there.

For me, at least, the explicit bit is what I'm interested in, because it is what separates PTA from any number of exercises I have less patience for.

Now, in this particular case, there is an issue I find interesting and important, and that is the threshold where the player surrenders sovereignty over they character and their character's story.  Now, I'm a big believer that players do like to have a sense of ownership of their characters, and that sovereignty is a big part of that, and PTA challenges that, right off the bat.  But it leaves some concessions, most notably in the form of my ability to define the stakes for my character.  I can listen to people, take ideas, do whatever I want, but ultimately it is MY decision, and when I win, the narrator must respect my contribution, rather than merely should respect it.

Does the difference between "must" and "should" matter, especially if the outcome is going to be the same 99+% of the time?  Even if the GM didn't explicitly have to respect the stakes, they'd pretty much do so anyway, so why is that a concern?

In my mind, it matters.  Even if the result is the same, the result based on "must" allows the player to keep more of a sense of control of their character rather than a (fairly transparent) illusion of control.  This is what keeps this from being improv or an involved writing exercise, the lingering RPG element of character ownership.  And, frankly, it helps the player care about the character rather than simply intellectually respect what the character is doing.

Now, that control is not necessary for a fun time.  Plenty of people can let it go without a second thought, and plenty of really great games can come of it , especially if they're more jazzed on what happens than any specific tie to the character. But that's not what I'm looking for.

There's a ton of opinion in that last bit of stuff, and I want to be clear that that's the case because, honestly, if you disagree strongly, then we've probably got too strong a disconnect to work past.

Now, with all of that to explain what i think is important or not, does the question "Can stakes imply their negative consequences?" make more sense?  As it stands, the narrator must give you the outcome you're looking for when you win your stakes, but they only must give you something else when you lose (though clearly they _should_ give you something dramatically appropriate).

If the answer is yes, then players have a little more control over their characters (which I find desireable).  If it's no, they don't, and there's a spilt that I'd be curious to hear the design reasons for, though it would not be first game to tie player control to success/failure.  Simple as that.

-Rob D.

[John Harper]

First, let me correct an error:

he should listen and take people's suggestions into account, but if he has an idea he's really taken by, he can run with it, ignoring input in favor of this, without violating his explicit responsibilities.

This is not true. I can't believe I have to say this again:

"The entire group participates in the narration but one player has the authority to synthesize everyone's contributions and say for certain what it was that did or didn't happen." (p. 65, 66)

I can't understand why this concept is not sticking for you. How can you read that and then think the narrator can "run with his own idea and ignore input"? They are contradictory concepts.

Now, with all of that to explain what i think is important or not, does the question "Can stakes imply their negative consequences?" make more sense?

No. It really, really doesn't make sense. At all. I already answered this question, at length. The shortest version is: I don't know. What does the book say? What did I say in my last response? That's all I have for you.

[Rob Donoghue]

And we seem to be back to "Can't" vs. "Shouldn't" and I'm equally baffled at the fact that that  distinction is just not making sense to you, so I suspect we won't be reaching any practical conclusions at this point.

-Rob D.