More Questions

[Lisa Padol]

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.

Well, it depends on the fight, y'see. There is always the mid-ep fight or the late-but-not-final fight where the heroes could lose. They could get wounded or captured or something like that. Something where either option is acceptable to the players, all the characters are there, and folks think that the stakes are the same for all. What I'm trying to do is reach that mind state where it all clicks and I see why this needn't be the case.

-Lisa

[Lisa Padol]

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?"

Okay, this helps.

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."

I'm not sure. I mean, the example helps, but I keep going back and forth between getting it and getting it, but not seeing it working all the time.

Some questions:

Okay, what if boyfriend succeeds and the other two fail?

How about this:

Slayer: I want to kill the demon.

Boyfriend: I want to stick his head on the wall.

Now, the question I was asked was: Doesn't the second goal depend on the first? What happens if Boyfriend succeeds and Slayer fails?

Well, for Buffy, no big, actually. Who says the demon is dead just because his head is stuck on the wall?

But what if it's not a supernatural show? What if, instead of demon, we have a lion? And the Slayer is a Big Game Hunter?

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.

This is what I am trying to get. I am beginning to see it as it applies to particular instances, which is the necessary first step. I do not yet see it as a rule that just works -- that is, my mind's not yet in the space where I look at what I think now is a problem and I say, "No problem -- just get out of that box you're in this way."

-Lisa

[Blankshield]

How about this:

Slayer: I want to kill the demon.

Boyfriend: I want to stick his head on the wall.

Now, the question I was asked was: Doesn't the second goal depend on the first? What happens if Boyfriend succeeds and Slayer fails?

Then the demon is dead, with his head on the wall but the slayer didn't kill it.  Maybe the boyfriend got lucky, maybe there was an Angel in the wings, maybe the demon is the kind that dies at 2:07 AM on Tuesdays.  The exact details are up to the narrating player, but as long as the folks that got stakes get 'em and them that didn't don't, it's all good.

Some of the things on Buffy that told us the most about her character was when someone else did her job for her.  Sure, she's all "I don't want to be the slayer, blah blah blah" but just watch how she reacts when someone beats the big bad without her...

James

[John Harper]

James is right. But I'll answer your first questions, Lisa.

What if the Boyfriend succeeds and the other two fail? The Boyfriend's goal was "Help the Slayer slay the demon." He succeeds. So he does indeed help her. The Slayer failed, though, so she doesn't slay the demon. Can you imagine how those statements can be reconciled in narration? That's another key to playing PTA.

Here's one way: The Boyfriend helps so much, he basically delivers the demon to the Slayer's feet. All she has to do is make the final blow. But instead she stalks off, embarrased to be helped by a mere mortal.

The questions about the lion situation are way too hypothetical. PTA is played by people who are constantly negotiating with each other to steer the game. There's NEVER any need to construct weirdly contradictory goals in conflicts like that. Also, "I stick his head on a wall" isn't much of a conflict, anyway. I mean, who cares? Why are we even rolling for that? If the lion is dead, you just do it. If not, you don't. How about coming up with some stakes that matter, instead?

Your questions give me the impression that you think all stakes-setting is sacrosanct. As if each player can just say whatever they want and get that as stakes. But that's not the way the game is meant to be played. Setting goals in conflicts is a negotiated process, with an extended free-and-clear phase in which everyone can discuss the goals and make changes. If you set up a conflict with goals that seem troublesome to you for any reason, you can ask to modify them until everyone is happy.

You don't draw cards until all the goals and conflicts and possible outcomes make sense and are interesting to all the players involved.

This will keep you out of 99% of the problems you're imagining.

[Rob Donoghue]

You don't draw cards until all the goals and conflicts and possible outcomes make sense and are interesting to all the players involved.

Ok, and that's a fine solution, but how?

Is this a producer authority?  Who is obliged to back down?  How much do we need to review stuff in situatiosn where there are multiple protagonists and the potential variety of outcomes increases exponentially?  I really don't want this to be a major point of debate in the midst of play because, well, less fun than playing, and this solution sounds like that's what i can expect.

In any other game, this is a power of resolution I'd give the Producer/GM, but giving the producer powers, rights or authority that is not explicitly outlined for her in the text seems to be the primary violation of the spirit of the rules.

-Rob D.

[John Harper]

Rob, to answer your post, I'm going to have to talk about things which can sometimes push a person's buttons. I hope you know that I have the utmost respect for you and any negative tone you might pick up in my post is not meant as any kind of personal attack.

So, how do you set stakes that everyone can live with? You talk about them until everyone agrees to them. This is something that you characterize as a "debate" that will stall the game and ruin everyone's fun. Something like a drawn-out attack-of-opportunity debate in the middle of an exciting D&D combat. You're thinking of this stakes discussion as "not the game" -- a distraction to the real play.

But this is not how PTA works. The negotiation of stakes *is* part of the game. Talking about what's at stake, and why, and what really matters to the players is easily 50% of the game play. It's not a distraction. It's important.

Stakes-setting is not a chance for everyone to hold tight to their own ideas and bitterly defend them against all arguments. It's a time for everyone to be open about what they're interested in (or not interested in), and cooperate with the other players to help everyone else get the stakes they want, too.

In most games, resolution is something to be minimized. You want to get the rolling over with as quickly and smoothly as possible so you can "get back to the game." PTA is not one of those games. Resolution is a big, central activity. It takes time. It takes the care and attention of all the players. Resolution is the best, most powerful time to hit character Issues. You're talking about what's at stake and why that matters to your protagonist. This is critical stuff! The game is about this.

That's why Matt suggests only one conflict per scene. They're not quick little "Did he do it?" checks that you make by the dozen in other games. And conflicts are certainly not a time to try and "get your way" at the game table. They're a turning point in the story of the protagonist (whether large or small) that we, as players, care enough about to focus on by setting stakes and negotiating and drawing cards.

PTA is cooperative, inside and out, top to bottom. Players cooperate to establish scenes, set up conflicts, suggest narration details -- the whole nine yards. They do not "debate" their points of view and try to win arguments about how things "should" go. To be totally blunt, if that's the default approach of a game group -- hostile debating, reluctance to back down or negotiate, mistrust -- that group cannot play PTA together. (I'm not saying that's your group, Rob, I'm just making a general point).

So, to answer the question again: how do you set stakes that everyone is happy with and that don't contradict each other and that generate Issue-driven, thematic play? You talk about it before you flip the cards. You negotiate. You cooperate with the other players. No, the rules do not teach you how to cooperate without arguing. You have to know how to do that already.

It's actually very easy to do. Gamers have to cooperate on some level to play any game together. Imagine a D&D game in which one player refuses to go further into the dungeon. They have their character sit down and refuse to budge. "Nope! This is as far as I go!" And then everyone "argues" to try and get them to change their mind. Yikes. But this doesn't happen. And in the rare, screwball cases when it does, D&D doesn't have any answers for how to handle it, either. It's not a system issue. It's a social contract issue. Will you, as a player, agree to cooperate enough with the others so the game can be played?

The difference is, in the vast majortiy of games, this cooperation is unspoken and invisible -- until it is suddenly missing. Then we get hour-long debates about attacks of opportunity. But in PTA, this cooperation is explicit, and spoken -- before every scene and before every draw of the cards. Your "cooperation-fu" is put to the test.

Again, this is not for everyone. Not appealing to all gamers is not the same thing as "broken." PTA has very clear systems for resolving conflicts and constructing thematic stories. It asks the players to employ certain techniques -- and it is explicit about these techniques -- namely, cooperation.

Jeez... this is rambling. I think I've made my point, so I'll end now.

(edit: typo)

[Rob Donoghue]

Holy Crap.

Ok, I had been assuming that the Producer had some sort of stakes in a scene, or that there were implicit anti-stakes, and maybe the problem is that I'm crazy, cuz now I can't find anythign to support that.

Someone clarify for me, suppose the example from the core book was just Roxy trying to ipress her friends.  Her stake is that she impress them.  She fails. What happens? 

Similarly, suppose that both characters lose in the example.  What happens then?

-Rob D.

[Rob Donoghue]

Though I think that it is a potential subject for serious debate whether or not cooperation is a technique or the absence of one, I'll dodge that and say we may disagree on the necessity of rules past a certain point of open negotaion. :)  Which is cool and, thankfully, may not even be germaine depending on the answers to my questions.

-Rob D.

[Lisa Padol]

Then the demon is dead, with his head on the wall but the slayer didn't kill it.  Maybe the boyfriend got lucky, maybe there was an Angel in the wings, maybe the demon is the kind that dies at 2:07 AM on Tuesdays.  The exact details are up to the narrating player, but as long as the folks that got stakes get 'em and them that didn't don't, it's all good.

Some of the things on Buffy that told us the most about her character was when someone else did her job for her.  Sure, she's all "I don't want to be the slayer, blah blah blah" but just watch how she reacts when someone beats the big bad without her...

Oh, I like this!

I do see one problem, and that is that first, or even fifth-time PTA players are not necessarily going to get this mindset right off the bat. This is the sort of thing I want to flow easily. With that flow, the sessions can kick ass. Without it, we're still enjoying ourselves, but we're sitting around the table going, "Um, wait, I don't think this is the way it's supposed to work..."

Again, keep the examples coming, please! I am following the examples, but have not yet made the jump to enlightenment.

-Lisa

[Lisa Padol]

The questions about the lion situation are way too hypothetical. PTA is played by people who are constantly negotiating with each other to steer the game. There's NEVER any need to construct weirdly contradictory goals in conflicts like that. Also, "I stick his head on a wall" isn't much of a conflict, anyway. I mean, who cares? Why are we even rolling for that? If the lion is dead, you just do it. If not, you don't. How about coming up with some stakes that matter, instead?

Well, we've just been told that even if we think we all have the same stakes, we all have to have different stakes. So, here we are, fumbling around, trying to figure out how to make this work. I'll see if I can come up with better examples, but the general case I was probing for here was: What if my stakes depend on someone in a simultaneous conflict with the producer winning his or her stakes?

Your questions give me the impression that you think all stakes-setting is sacrosanct. As if each player can just say whatever they want and get that as stakes. But that's not the way the game is meant to be played. Setting goals in conflicts is a negotiated process, with an extended free-and-clear phase in which everyone can discuss the goals and make changes. If you set up a conflict with goals that seem troublesome to you for any reason, you can ask to modify them until everyone is happy.

You don't draw cards until all the goals and conflicts and possible outcomes make sense and are interesting to all the players involved.

This will keep you out of 99% of the problems you're imagining.

Okay, another light bulb just went on. Keep it coming.

Yes, we had assumed that once we say, "The stakes are X and Y", that was that. Or, more precisely, while negotiation is certainly permissible, and talking to each other is good, the ideal process was a quick decision on what the stakes were, so as not to wind up with a lot of dull knock down drag out negotiation. This is something that may be specific to my group, as we have a sore spot with long, drawn out negotiation sessions in character, let alone out of character.

So, one step closer to the light bulb of figuring out what stakes

-- make sense
-- are interesting
-- all out comes of which are fun for the players
-- result in a show we'd all watch

-Lisa

[Blankshield]

Then the demon is dead, with his head on the wall but the slayer didn't kill it.  Maybe the boyfriend got lucky, maybe there was an Angel in the wings, maybe the demon is the kind that dies at 2:07 AM on Tuesdays.  The exact details are up to the narrating player, but as long as the folks that got stakes get 'em and them that didn't don't, it's all good.

Some of the things on Buffy that told us the most about her character was when someone else did her job for her.  Sure, she's all "I don't want to be the slayer, blah blah blah" but just watch how she reacts when someone beats the big bad without her...

Oh, I like this!

I do see one problem, and that is that first, or even fifth-time PTA players are not necessarily going to get this mindset right off the bat. This is the sort of thing I want to flow easily. With that flow, the sessions can kick ass. Without it, we're still enjoying ourselves, but we're sitting around the table going, "Um, wait, I don't think this is the way it's supposed to work..."

Again, keep the examples coming, please! I am following the examples, but have not yet made the jump to enlightenment.

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.

James

[John Harper]

Yes, Lisa! Stay on target... stay on target...

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.

[John Harper]

Someone clarify for me, suppose the example from the core book was just Roxy trying to ipress her friends.  Her stake is that she impress them.  She fails. What happens?

She tries to impress them, and fails. The narrator will say why, probably with lots of input from Roxy's player. Sounds like an embarrassing evening for Roxy, to me. Remember, we're only having this conflict in the first place because Roxy's player really cares about Roxy impressing her friends or not. Thus, the outcome (either way) matters to the player.

(As a general guideline, if a conflict results in a "boring" outcome, you probably should not have been playing cards for it in the first place.)

Similarly, suppose that both characters lose in the example.  What happens then?

Billy's goal was "Impress his father" right? (I don't have my book in front of me). In that case, neither Roxy nor Billy impress anyone. The narration of "what happens" follows, constrained by those facts.

[Rob Donoghue]

Ok, just drilling further because this is a major shift in my understanding.

When I establish stakes, how much (if any) of the establishment of the stakes is spent on the consequences of failure?

Given Tom, at the bar, lookign a the liqour, woudl it be more apt to say Tom's stakes are:

A) To walk away from the liquor and see to helping his son with his grief
or
B)  To walk away from the liquor and see to helping his son with his grief or stay and drink himself into a stupor of forgetfulness, neglecting those who need him.

I've always assumed B, but the thing about my recent rereading is that it seems to indicate tha that answer is A, and the consequences are entirely in the hands of the narrator who could decide that failure meant staying in the bar,  getting in a fight and ending up in the hospital, since that fulfills the reuirement of him not succeeding at his stakes.

If I am now understanding it correctly, that changes a lot.

-Rob D.

[John Harper]

The answer is 'A'.

But! But! This is important: Tom's player can always (and should always) talk about actions that Tom is taking in the conflict. Before, during, and after the cards are flipped. Tom's player never, ever has to shut up and listen to the narrator. The narrator is where the buck stops, that's all. Tom's player must always speak up for his own interests. During narration, when I start describing the barfight, and Tom's player doesn't like it, he is (IMO) required to tell me so. "Does it have to be a barfight? I was hoping for something more serene and sad here. Maybe he takes out his phone, carefully turns it off, and pours out another shot." And the narrator just says, "Yeah! Like that."

PTA is explicit about who has authority over a certain aspect of the game. But the general principle, established from the very beginning of the book, is that the players are cooperating, suggesting, and communicating at all times. The narrator stops the buck when it comes to describing the outcome of a conflict. But she must listen to the other players and craft the narration to suit. She is never the only person speaking. Page 65: "The entire group participates in the narration...."