More Questions

[John Harper]

Because, Rob... "can't" is meaningless in this context. Let me give you an example:

The player "can" say stakes that imply their negative consequences. Then the player "can" declare himself King of Spain, flush the cards down the toilet, and run around the room naked.

None of which is germane to the discussion of how to play the game.

There is no "can't." This is why I asked you what the book says. Does the book say you can't set stakes that imply their negative consequences? No. It does not forbid it. It just says, "Say what the protagonist wants." So... can you? OF COURSE YOU CAN. Is it against the rules? Not that I can see. We have the same book in front of us.

Should you? My last five responses in this thread have answered this question. Thoroughly.

I think that covers the bases. Anything else?

[Matt Wilson]

Man, now I'm confused. What is this thread about?

There's nothing in the rules that says the narrator or producer have to do what you say or even listen to what you have to say. Why wouldn't they, though? Why would you play this kind of game with someone who didn't?

[Rob Donoghue]

Because not every disagreement is about stamping on people's idea.  The Narrator may have a perfectly solid idea, but a player may not feel like they're keeping control of things thet feel they have the right to. 

If I , as a player, win my stakes, the direction of things is already laid down.  The Narrator has to go with my stakes, it' sone of the musts.

If I, as a player, lose, then I can get what I need, but only as part of a negotiation.  It may be a friendly open negotiation, and I fully anticpate the players all coming to an understanding in an amicable and reasonable way, but it is ultimately a negotiation.

If I'm a player, the appeal of the win is that I get it out of the way early on.  I get to lay the groundwork for the critical trust before the negotiaton.  That's pretty cool, since it leaves me feeling like the character's in my hands.  It's ironic that a small amount of control is what frees me up to relax and let go on thoe other issues.

When I lose, I don't have anything like that, and that's a problem if only because I like losing.  That's where the cool stuff happens.

So when I ask if the negative implication/inverse outcome of stakes can be declared as part of the stakes, and thus treated like they are when I win, I'm really asking "hey, can I make losing as cool as winning?" (and I mean it in a rules sense - obviously I can makes it happen outside the scope of the rules, but I'm trying to get the rules on my side.).

So, well, that's why someone would ask. :)

-Rob D.

[Darren Hill]

There's nothing in the rules that says the narrator or producer have to do what you say or even listen to what you have to say. Why wouldn't they, though? Why would you play this kind of game with someone who didn't?

Because, since there's nothing in the rules that says the narrator or producer have to do what you say, the players (and narrator, and producer) might not realise that they are supposed to take that into account - especially if unfamiliar with this kind of play (and since PTA is pretty much in a league of its own, that's most people). Fan mail is there as a reward for doing things you as a player (and subject of other player's narration) like, but there's no explicit declaration that the narrator should not do things the players like.
It's been mentioned in this thread that this sort of thing is implicit - no argument there, but it should be explicit.
"Why would you play this kind of game with someone who didn't?" Because without those explicit declarations, it's not entirely clear what kind of game this is. This thread - or the last page or two of it - is exactly about: what kind of game is it?

I'm puzzled as to the confusion over Rob's point - there is a difference between stating just "win" stakes, and stating both conditions for win/loss. If the rules said that the Narrator must respect suggestions from the player about what those loss conditions can be, I suspect this discussion would be over. But it doesn't (not mine anyway - not revised ed.) - it' explicitly states that the narrator is free to ignore such suggestions.
It's now clear to me the way Matt intends it to be played - but the few short paragraphs on narration in the original edition leaves a lot unsaid. I think, given what's been stated in these recent threads, there could be a lot less emphasis on "final judgement" and more on actively soliciting and respecting suggestions. (Maybe the revised edition is clearer on this.)

[Lisa Padol]

There's nothing in the rules that says the narrator or producer have to do what you say or even listen to what you have to say. Why wouldn't they, though? Why would you play this kind of game with someone who didn't?

Because, since there's nothing in the rules that says the narrator or producer have to do what you say, the players (and narrator, and producer) might not realise that they are supposed to take that into account - especially if unfamiliar with this kind of play (and since PTA is pretty much in a league of its own, that's most people). Fan mail is there as a reward for doing things you as a player (and subject of other player's narration) like, but there's no explicit declaration that the narrator should not do things the players like.
It's been mentioned in this thread that this sort of thing is implicit - no argument there, but it should be explicit.
"Why would you play this kind of game with someone who didn't?" Because without those explicit declarations, it's not entirely clear what kind of game this is. This thread - or the last page or two of it - is exactly about: what kind of game is it?

Precisely. We are being told, "Well, isn't it obvious?" No. It is not obvious. That which is implicit is not obvious to all readers. I think it does need to be made explicit.

I am finding the forum useful in figuring out how the game is supposed to be played, where I have actually misread the rules, where I need to change the way I look at the game. But, and with all due respect, a game should be complete as written. I should not have to follow a week's worth of posts to figure out what is implicit, but not explicit in the game. If I were the only one being dim here, I'd accept that it was me. I am not. My fellow players and some of my fellow posters, all of whom are quite intelligent, are hitting the same spots of confusion.

We'll keep plugging. And, I do know how difficult it is to figure out what is not obvious to one's readers when it is so blinkingly obvious to oneself that you just don't see that there is a question. I don't mean you don't see how anyone could ask a question about X; you simply don't see that there is any question.

Be patient with us. For myself, the most frustrating thing is that I have not been able to get three other people in one place with me to play more PTA. I think learning by doing would help immensely, and I think 4 people (producer + 3) is the minimal optimal number.

(Side note: It's a 3-legged stool. One leg is playing. One is reading -- the book and the threads on the forum. The third leg is watching tv. Josh and I have worked our way through Season One Buffy. (I'd seen most of them, but he hadn't), and have just seen our first ep of Firefly. Oh, man, is that good.)

-Lisa

[John Harper]

Rob, I'm seeing a lot of "yes, but..." from you, and re-statement of your questions. But I'm not seeing any indication that you have read and understood my posts. It would be very useful to our conversation if you could give me that much.

Your last post, for example, does not indicate that you have read my last two posts. I understand why you would ask your question in the first place. And I have answered your question three times now, apparently without much effect.

Here, I'll do it again:
Yes, you can say stakes that imply their negative consequences. Whether or not you should do that depends on what the other people in your group like. Which pretty much makes that "can" statement meaningless, as far as the real world goes.

Is that clear enough? Are you understanding me? Are we making any progress here?

[John Harper]

Lisa: I'm trying to NOT say "isn't it obvious?" I'm trying to actually explain what's in the book, and the underlying principles of play. If I ever say (or have said) "it's obvious" please call me on it.

[Rob Donoghue]

The problem is, I feel like you're saying yes to a question I'm not asking.

As far as i can tell, you are saying "Yes, you can do it, insofar as you can do anything with the consent and agreement of your group" which is not the answer to the question I'm asking because, well, of course I can do that, be it ith PTA or nealry any other game.

If you have said that yes, by the rules, the implict or explict negative consequences receive the same protections (i.e. they are treated as a must) as thhat which the protagonist wants, then I have simply missed it, an I apologize.

-Rob D.

[Landon Darkwood]

I've been watching this thread from a distance up until now, but as I've been reading it and my 1st edition PTA text, I noticed something that may be helpful to the discussion. It strikes me that a lot of what's getting bandied about in this thread as stakes is a little sloppy, because it's crossing over into territory covered by what PTA calls intent.

To review, a conflict in PTA has two parts: intent and stakes. Intent = what the protagonist is trying to do. Stakes = what is gained or lost depending on the outcome (this latter is verbatim from 1st edition p. 47). I don't know if this has changed in the revised edition, or whatever. But if it hasn't, than negative consequences are already implied by default when you set up a conflict.

So, let's hit up Rob's initial example: He posited a father in a bar who has a son that needs help with his grief. One proper phasing of this conflict is: Intent = I'm trying to drink myself into a stupor and ignore my responsibilities to my son. Stakes = My relationship with my son.

That's it. What's interesting about this is that in this case, "winning" the conflict means you damage your relationship with your son, because you succeed at your intent. "Failing" the conflict means you can't ignore it and have to go deal with your son, but you ultimately may preserve/strengthen that relationship. Either way, there is an explicit mandate in the rules to set up what is to be gained or lost separate from what actions are actually being taken, before the roll/card deal is made. It's not proper to leave it at "Roxy wants to impress her friends," actually. "Roxy wants to impress her friends, and what's at stake is her self-esteem." Or "Roxy wants to impress her friends, and what's at stake is her influence over the members of the group." Or "Roxy wants to impress her friends, and her pride is at stake." Any of these work.

Why? Because the narration depends on the stakes. Win or lose. "The narrator takes their cue from the stakes" on revised edition page 66 shouldn't, therefore, have any "if the player wins" kind of clause attached to it. I don't have the revised edition; I don't know. But if all of the above is still true, the narrator takes their cue from the established stakes in failure and in success. Period.

Here's important point #2: Who sets up the stakes? The group does, according to my text. The only thing the player does alone is make an initial statement of intent. "My guy is <fill in the verbs>." The group then clarifies what's at stake (page 47). Taken literally, that means that both win and loss conditions (because they're both the same as properly defined stakes) are defined by group negotiation and consensus, again, before dice/cards are rolled/dealt.

This being the case, some of the discussion in this thread may have been predicated on a false premise, which could be the cause of some of the baffling/confusion taking place.

Now, two important questions, the first directed at Matt and John: is the above all correct? The second, directed at Rob and maybe at Lisa: Does the above meet your criteria for a.) being entirely textual and b.) being explicit?


-Landon Darkwood

[John Harper]

Rob: I haven't said anything about "protections" because there's no such thing. I understand why you're calling it that, and I think it's emblematic of the whole disconnect we're having. You're talking about "protection" in the "negotiation melee" and I'm talking about cooperation to help everyone get what they want. That should tell us something.

But, yes, by the rules, you can say stakes that contain implicit or explicit consequences. I said that in the previous post, and the one before. It's also in the book, since the book only constrains your stakes setting in one way: say what the protag wants. Since no other constraints are listed, everything else is fair game if your fellow players allow it.

And by the rules, the narrator must include the win/loss of those stakes as part of the narration. I said that at the beginning, but it's in the text anyway and you weren't really asking about that part.

The thing I'm curious to hear your opinion about is I have also said, several times -- by the rules, the narrator must synthesize the input of all the players. You (the stakes-setter) are one of those players. So, by the rules, you may include "consequences" as part of your input after the draw, and by the rules, the narrator is obliged to use your input.

For some reason, you seem to think that only things said as stakes are "protected" (what a terrible term) and required as part of narration after the draw. But that's clearly not the case. By the rules, the entire group participates in narration, and the narrator's job is to include the input of the other players. All of those rules matter as much as abiding by the stakes. Stakes are important, but they are not "protected" as part of the game more than input and collaboration after the draw.

Landon: That passage has changed in the revised edition. It doesn't talk about the group setting the stakes together. Which I think it probably should. I'm not sure why Matt changed that.

[MarcoBrucale]

I think that one very, very simple guideline (as simple as to be overlooked as implicit by some players, as noted by Lisa Padol)  for generating 'PtA-compatible' goals and stakes is this:
Goals can be just anything, but Stakes must be *personal*.
The stake declared by a player for her/his protagonist, well, must be indeed something about her/his protagonist only. In this way, there's no way to obtain all the weirdness cited in the first pages of this thread.

As always, this is just IMHO! :-)
bye

[Matt Wilson]

So here's all the things that go into narration:

• What everyone at the table says, in what Ron has called a "dogpile." You know, stuff like, "ooh, how about this?" "Hey, I have an idea." "No, wait, what if...?"


• The traits used in the conflict, and the traits in general. If you checked off "pacifist," then everyone's thinking, okay, so there probably wasn't violence, right?


• Specifically your thoughts as the expert on your protagonist. You created the character. You have the most insight.

All this stuff must be considered by the narrator. But what happens if everyone else at the table thinks your protagonist should take a punch in the jaw while you think your protagonist should come out unscathed? It's up to the narrator. He or she is sort of like the judge in a court of law.

You don't have rock-solid character ownership. Everyone at the table has an interest and occasional control over everyone else's protagonists. If you win narration, you essentially gain temporary ownership over the other protagonists. Could people abuse that? Absolutely.

[Rob Donoghue]

The thing I'm curious to hear your opinion about is I have also said, several times -- by the rules, the narrator must synthesize the input of all the players. You (the stakes-setter) are one of those players. So, by the rules, you may include "consequences" as part of your input after the draw, and by the rules, the narrator is obliged to use your input.

Most likely, we're viewing the musts different.  Synthesis is described as the process, albeit without further detail, but three things are laid down as things the gm must do.  Both things are rules, but one is a loose guideline (which can be done in a number of ways) the other are, as written, hard points which must be respected.  If this distinction is not 100% clear, I have to point to the language.  The narrator "has the authority" to synthesize (with no further guidelines of what that means, and I think that's a point on which reasonabel peopel may disagree).  The Narrator "must" do the things in the three bullets.

Put more simply, if Roxy's stakes are to impress her friends, and she wins, she impresses her friends.  If the narrator decides to narrate her as winning some other stakes, he's violating the rules by violating the terms of the stakes.  That seems pretty clear cut to me.

If she loses, and he decides that rather than impres her friends, he decides her car gets totalled (or whatever), he's not violating a rule.  Yes, it wil be negotiated out and presumably the group will work it out, but it's still not a matter of the narrator violating the rule.

Provided that stakes are declared purely positively (solely in terms of what the protag wants, not accounting for anticipated negative outcomes), this split will remain the case, because stakes (Like trait use, stated actions and "appropriate behavior"*) are protected by the rules.

So yes, I and my group may expand the stakes to include the negative consequences but, according the rules, the negative consequences aren't stakes, they're just one more suggestion.  Now, I realize you think protected is a terrible term, but I cannot think of a clearer way to point to the difference between something the GM must respect (Positive Stakes) and something that they should listen to, and hopefully will take into account (Negative consequences).

Honestly, I think you're saying there's no difference between them because (I infer) that you consider the social contract to be so strong that a suggestion from the player in question carries as much weight as the printed rules.  And that's reasonable, unless one is actively attempting to be a stickler to the rules as written, in which case the distinction seems to be there in black and white.

-Rob D.

* This last is a bit of a dodge because, as Matt point out, the narrator is the one who has character control at the time, so in a strictly mechanical sense, that's their decision.  Stylistically and in social terms, it's not, but as a rule it makes it a bit harder to nail down as something to enforce).

[Rob Donoghue]

All this stuff must be considered by the narrator. But what happens if everyone else at the table thinks your protagonist should take a punch in the jaw while you think your protagonist should come out unscathed? It's up to the narrator. He or she is sort of like the judge in a court of law.

You don't have rock-solid character ownership. Everyone at the table has an interest and occasional control over everyone else's protagonists. If you win narration, you essentially gain temporary ownership over the other protagonists. Could people abuse that? Absolutely.

Matt, I'm really, really, really just looking for an almost simple yes or no answer because I'm specifically trying to do things by the book, and the book does not give me the guidance I need, so let me toss this out (with the qualifier that I'm just askign about rules.  There is NO question in my mind how the following would go at the table if I were being anythign but pedantic in my pursuit of the rules, but having decided to go by the book, it's the way I'm obliged to go.)

Stakes are defined as "what the protagonist really wants out of the conflict".  Is that definition the beginning and the end of stakes, or is it the core component that must be included, but can be built upon it?

Specifically, could the stakes "Roxy wants to impress her friends" become "Roxy wants to impress her friends and not reveal herself to be a hick" without us houseruling anything?

-Rob D.

[iago]

For what it's worth, I find Landon's presentation of a separation between Intent and Stakes to be a far more appealing way to look at pretty much anything that's been said about players setting stakes for their protagonists.  If that model does truly persist (and if you glossed past it, I encourage you to scroll back and read it closely), then I think we can say with some safety that the shoulds come from the intent, but the musts come from the stakes.

Regardless of success or failure for a given protagonist, that success or failure must be narrated in a way that has influence specifically and primarily on the stakes.

The protagonist's intent, on the other hand, is something that should be taken into consideration -- but isn't a must.

So, if Roxy's entry into the scene is split into -

Intent: "I want to impress my friends."
Stake: "My pride is at stake."

Then, however her dice fall, the narrator must narrate something where her pride is at stake (if she fails the roll, she loses face and pride, if she wins it, she gains it), but has only a strong suggestion to involve the effort to impress her friends.  Thus, he can very well total Roxy's car in his narration if she loses -- robbing her of the opportunity to impress her friends, sure, but definitively bruising her pride -- not only as someone who can perform well and laudably in front of her friends, but has someone driving a sweet ride, as someone deserving of responsibility to operate a car, etc.

So I do want to step in here a little and point the finger at both John and Rob.  If Landon's suggeston of the model of the split between intent and stakes is correct, both of you are using bad examples to explore your respective points.  And I think that the above both addresses Rob's questions about the separation between Must and Should, and doesn't step on John's toes in any way that isn't supposed to be addressed through social contract rather than the Musts of Rules.