More Questions

[Lisa Padol]

Okay, so, Avram, Beth, Josh, and I played 2 pilot eps of PTA this past weekend, with me as the producer both times. When 2 or more people have their characters act as a team against the producer, as opposed to a multi-sided thing, they can really cream the producer. Were we playing correctly?

I don't have a problem with the system if we were -- this may be intended as a feature of the system. But whether characters act alone or together influences my decisions on budget, and my decision influences their decision on whether to draw extra cards for traits and fan mail.

We're also having occasional fits and starts framing stakes correctly, but I think that'll come with time. Still, if there's a thread on this, point me to it?

The reason we ran 2 pilots was that the game we ran on Monday we'd hoped to have another player, Matt, join us for, but at the last minute, he couldn't. No harm, no foul, no guilt -- I'd been told that the thing to do was to give a player who, like Matt, knows he's got an erratic schedule, a character who is an Also Starring role. That character doesn't always show up, and always has a screen presence of 2 when he does show up. No spotlight episode, but no, um, footlight episode either. I was told that this was in the official rules, but I did not actually find it there. Did I miss it? Again, I'm okay either way, and I'll continue to use this variant.

Are we intended to use one deck or two? Ben used two different decks so that we could tell the fan mail draws from the rest. I brought two decks, but no one else wanted me to use them that way. Instead, we put the d6s we used as budget/fan mail (I brought my dice bag, but forgot the poker chips) on top of the fan mail cards, and I used the second deck as a deck to switch to when we ran out of cards in the first deck. That is, we went through all the cards, putting used cards face up on the bottom, then switched decks and shuffled the old deck.

-Lisa

[Matt Wilson]

When 2 or more people have their characters act as a team against the producer, as opposed to a multi-sided thing, they can really cream the producer. Were we playing correctly?

I don't know what you mean by 'as a team against the producer.' Can you explain? In the rules there's no way for players to gang up.

I'd been told that the thing to do was to give a player who, like Matt, knows he's got an erratic schedule, a character who is an Also Starring role. That character doesn't always show up, and always has a screen presence of 2 when he does show up

See page 103 for suggestions about 'guest' players. That's the only official stuff in the book.

Are we intended to use one deck or two?

One deck.

I used the second deck as a deck to switch to when we ran out of cards in the first deck.

You actually ran out of cards during a conflict? Holy crap. How many players did you have? Were you spending tons of fan mail?

[Lisa Padol]

You actually ran out of cards during a conflict? Holy crap. How many players did you have? Were you spending tons of fan mail?

Wait -- are we supposed to shuffle the deck after each conflict?

See, we didn't run through an entire deck for a single conflict. We ran through a lot of cards -- there's something I think we got wrong that I'll put in a separate post to this topic -- so, let's say we ran through 9 cards in one conflict.

Conflict ends, narration happens. Then, there's 9 cards on the table. I put these in a discard pile. So, there's now (52 - 9 =) 43 cards left. Next conflict, I'm drawing from a deck of 41 cards. Let's say 5 cards get used, so for the third conflict, I've got 14 cards in the discard pile and 39 cards in the deck.

This continues until I don't have enough cards to play out the current conflict. At that point, I hand the deck to someone to shuffle, and I use the second deck for the next batch of conflicts. When that one runs out, it gets shuffled, and I use the first deck.

-Lisa

[Lisa Padol]

When 2 or more people have their characters act as a team against the producer, as opposed to a multi-sided thing, they can really cream the producer. Were we playing correctly?

I don't know what you mean by 'as a team against the producer.' Can you explain? In the rules there's no way for players to gang up.

Okay, Josh was probably correct about that, then.

Let us say that Keruton, Mist, and Firemaker are all fighting a Really Nasty Demon, aka RND. This is the pilot episode, so they all have 2 cards for screen presence. I'm ignoring fan mail and traits to keep the example simple.

I decide to spend 3 budget, so I get 4 cards.

What's at stake is "Does the RND get away?"

So, do the three sets of 2 cards for the players combine to make 6 cards vs my 4?

Or, should we be comparing my cards against each of their cards in turn, making this 3 separate conflicts?

If so, have we set the stakes correctly?

Or, should there be one player whose character is the main fighter, and that player flips 2 cards for screen presence, with the others helping out with traits and fan mail? Can the others help out with traits, or only fan mail? All characters are on the scene.

Josh thought that it was one player vs the producer, with the other players helping with traits and fan mail.

Avram and/or Beth thought it was all the players combining their cards vs the producer.

I thought we needed a quick decision, and, as this was the pilot episode, it was okay if we corrected as necessary for next time, so I snap judged that it was all players combining their cards, for 6 cards vs my 4, and I figured I'd ask what it was we were actually supposed to have done.

So, what were we supposed to have done?

See page 103 for suggestions about 'guest' players. That's the only official stuff in the book.

Okay, so I didn't actually miss anything. I'll still use the "Also Starring" rule. It's very useful.

-Lisa

[Matt Wilson]

Wait -- are we supposed to shuffle the deck after each conflict?

Yes. Or rather, you are supposed to not create a discard pile.

[Matt Wilson]

Let us say that Keruton, Mist, and Firemaker are all fighting a Really Nasty Demon, aka RND. This is the pilot episode, so they all have 2 cards for screen presence. I'm ignoring fan mail and traits to keep the example simple.

I decide to spend 3 budget, so I get 4 cards.

What's at stake is "Does the RND get away?"

I suggest you take a closer look at pages 61 and 62 of the new book, the part about stakes. "Can I stop the RND" is acceptable stakes for one protagonist, but each protagonist should have his or her own unique stakes in the conflict.

[Lisa Padol]

I suggest you take a closer look at pages 61 and 62 of the new book, the part about stakes. "Can I stop the RND" is acceptable stakes for one protagonist, but each protagonist should have his or her own unique stakes in the conflict.

Sure thing.

<pause to reread pages>

Okay. I'm going to make up an example to make sure I've got it now. I got in the habit of trying to translate out loud in print, as it were, when a friend of mine started asking for feedback on some of his articles. If I get it wrong, let me know. I am not being deliberately obtuse; I am trying to make sure I've got it down, and, if I don't, to find out where I'm glitching.

So, if we have three characters, Keruton, Mist, and Firemaker, and they are all fighting the RND, even though it is one fight, and all of the characters are ganging up on the RND, the players are not ganging up.

This means that all three cannot set the same stakes. They may all have the same end goal of stopping the RND, but their actions will be different, and the stakes should likewise be different. Correct so far?

Each player draws a number of cards equal to Screen Presence + Any Edges or Traits used + Fan Mail, while the producer draws 1 + Budget.

Let's say:

Producer has 3 successes
Mist has 2 successes
Keruton has 4 successes
Firemaker has 3 successes

So, Producer wins against Mist, loses against Keruton, but has to start counting hearts with Firemaker's player.

Is this correct? Or does the producer draw separately for each of the characters, running three separate conflicts?

If Keruton is fighting the RND, I know that the players of Mist and Firemaker can toss in fan mail to help Keruton out. Can they also use their character's traits on behalf of Keruton?

-Lisa

[Matt Wilson]

Hooray! You've got it. Produicer has one draw of cards and compares against each.

Last bit, re: supporting other protagonists. You can only spend fan mail to do so. Not traits.

[mneme]

Last bit, re: supporting other protagonists. You can only spend fan mail to do so. Not traits.

I'm going to play dumb for a moment.

The PCs are fighting a RND.

Player 1 says "if I win, my stakes are that we defeat and banish the RND."
the GM says "if I win, the demon temporarily enslaves the PCs."

I am player 2.  My PC is on the scene.  My goals are more or less the same as those of player 1, and I have one fan mail and three unchecked traits.  What are my options regarding the conflict?  My PC is not on the scene?  How do my options change, if at all?

Also, conceptually, is the conflict between the players or the characters?  Or is this a relevant question?

[Matt Wilson]

I'm going to play dumb for a moment.

The PCs are fighting a RND.

Player 1 says "if I win, my stakes are that we defeat and banish the RND."
the GM says "if I win, the demon temporarily enslaves the PCs."

I am player 2.  My PC is on the scene.  My goals are more or less the same as those of player 1, and I have one fan mail and three unchecked traits.  What are my options regarding the conflict?  My PC is not on the scene?  How do my options change, if at all?

Also, conceptually, is the conflict between the players or the characters?  Or is this a relevant question?

If your protagonist is in the conflict, then you establish stakes for that protagonist. If your protagonist is not in the conflict, then you can influence the outcome via fan mail.

The trick, if your overall goals are the same (e.g. defeating the demon), is to come up with personal stakes that you can win or lose regardless of what happens to the demon.

Let's say your protagonist's issue is that his or her lover was killed horribly by a demon, and the protagonist is having trouble keeping it together whenever demons pop up. Great stakes for this conflict would be "can I get protagonist A to believe that I'm calm and collected enough to be part of this team?" If you succeed, then you're all 'it's just another demon, man, and I'm working through the pain." If you fail, then it's psycho freak out, hitting it long after it's dead with that look in your eye that makes the others go aw crap, or whatever the narration person puts the stamp on.

[Darren Hill]

The trick, if your overall goals are the same (e.g. defeating the demon), is to come up with personal stakes that you can win or lose regardless of what happens to the demon.

Aaaahhhhh. <little lightbulb of realisation appears above head> This answers a question I was just gearing up to ask, but now I don't need to. Thanks.

[Lisa Padol]

Okay, the light bulb's gone off. I now understand how the rules are supposed to work, and, when we have the next Keruton session, we'll try using the actual rules, as opposed to what we guessed were the rules.

I am still kind of boggled by the lack of a mechanical team up. I mean, it would seem that if all the characters want to accomplish the same thing, e.g., keep a demon from escaping, as that seems to be our default example, it should be possible to work together or to have the same goal or to aid each other, apart from fan mail. But, quite clearly, this is not how the rules are intended to work. I am trying to figure out what the correct question is, and I not sure I have it yet.

Why aren't the rules intended to work that way? I'm trying to come up with a television example. Hm.

1. A fight scene where, for the audience, the big question is: Do the heroes take down the nasty? Yes, there are interesting character notes, but this is a Plot Scene. Mechanically, I would have thought that either there was a gang up, or there was a partial gang up (e.g., one character as the focus, the others aiding with traits and fan mail), or there was no gang up, but everyone had the same stakes. Clearly, this is not the case, and I am trying to get why this is so. That is, I understand the rule. I am trying to make another light bulb go on, this one about the whys and wherefores of the rule.

2. All the ships in Star Wars trying to blow up the Death Star. I'm not sure that's such a good example, though, since the only player character is Luke, IMO.

So far, I can only think of fight examples. Even "Keep X from leaving the room" or "Persuade X" I can see -- that is, one person uses intimidation, one person uses persuasion -- this lets you frame the intent and stakes differently. But, hm..

Okay, we want to convince the Captain to authorize a new purchase. The computer AI says that it will make the ship more efficient. The human head of security says that it will make the Captain look good. Yes, you can do this as two different things, but it would seem logical that the head of security is supporting the AI. That is:

Captain: We don't need the extra expense.

AI: It will increase our efficiency by 82%.

Security: And the increase in efficiency will make you look good, sir.

Producer: Ah! We have a conflict.

So, folks, how would you guys run this one?

-Lisa

[Darren Hill]

It's not obvious, but the way PtA's rules works, when multiple protagonists are involved in the same conflict against a Producer, their chance of success is greater than when they are alone.

This is because only one player needs to succeed for the team to win the larger goal.

Let's say that Prot. A and Prot. B are fighting a demon. Prot A wants to prove himself a worthy demon slayer, while Prot B wants to cope with his rage against the supernatural death of his father. Both have their personal stakes, but also, both are fighting the demon - so [putting aside thier personal stakes, if either wins, the demon will be defeated.
Now, if everyone bids the same number of cards, everyone has (roughly) a 50% chance of winning. (I've used this number because it makes the calculations easy - in practice, the numbers will vary, but the principle remains true).
Prot A v Demon: 50%
Prot B v demon: 50%

Probability tells us, then, that the chance of the team (Prot A + Prot B) beating the demon is actually 75% - because both have to fail for that not to happen.
So, by teaming up, our players have increased their chance of winning - even though there are no explicit rules to support this.

[MarcoBrucale]

Just my 2c:

A fight scene where, for the audience, the big question is: Do the heroes take down the nasty?

This very specific example is mentioned in the rulebook. In the context of the stories PtA is designed to generate (television serials), this question arises very rarely or not at all. I mean, 99% of the times the fight is there either to provide the show's 'franchise' or to stress some kind of character issue. How many times did you really doubt that the heroes *of a serial* would prevail in a fight with the week's bad guy? So IMveryHO, the rules are incredibly appropriate for the genre, in a subtle and elegant way.

Okay, we want to convince the Captain to authorize a new purchase. The computer AI says that it will make the ship more efficient. The human head of security says that it will make the Captain look good. Yes, you can do this as two different things, but it would seem logical that the head of security is supporting the AI. That is:

Captain: We don't need the extra expense.

AI: It will increase our efficiency by 82%.

Security: And the increase in efficiency will make you look good, sir.

Producer: Ah! We have a conflict.

So, folks, how would you guys run this one?

The key is always in the way you define stakes. Sometimes, it's hard to come up with good stakes in the heat of a PtA session... In this cases, I always try what I call the '...and,' trick. If two or more players want to have the same thing as a goal, I make them mention something else ("hmmm... yes, I want to convince the captain to do X, ...AND I want to establish myself as the most respected counselor for the captain").

It works for us, I hope it also is of some help for you :-)

[John Harper]

Darren: Good point about teaming up! I hadn't noticed that. That's cool.

Marco: Yes! Well said.

Here's a handy guideline (which will not always apply, but is useful when first playing, I think): The PTA conflict resolution system does not usually resolve "Can I do X?" It resolves "What happens when I do X?"

So: Everyone fights the big bad demon. The slayer has her stakes: "Slay the demon." Simple enough. The slayer's bumbling boyfriend has a different stake, though: "Help the slayer slay the demon." And the slayer's wise mentor has yet another stake: "Make sure the kids don't get hurt."

Everyone rolls, and we find out what happens. The narrator uses all those outcomes to construct the narration. So, the boyfriend rolls a failure. In the narration, he does all kinds of heroic things, but they just don't help. The mentor rolls a success. In the narration, the mentor throws himself between the kids and the demon, taking the brunt of the attacks and nearly dying. But the kids are safe. Finally, the slayer rolls a success. The demon is slain. In the narration, the slayer pursues her goal single-mindedly -- attacking the demon without so much as a glance to her friends.

All those things that just happened (outcomes + narration) give us story fuel for what comes next. We don't just find out whether the demon is dead or not. We create springboards for the boyfriend's insecurity. For the mentor's pride in his slayer, or shame at her callousness. For the slayer's realization that demon-slaying is sapping her humanity. And a hundred other possibilities. That's what the show is about.

So, we don't just resolve, "Is the demon dead?" We take the status quo, twist it, and create a new situation that must be addressed. Wash, rinse, repeat.