More Questions

[iago]

As a minor-follow up to my last point: I think what's important about this separation between Must and Should is that in a group with a solid social contract and a high degree of trust, sometimes the Shoulds should be ignored in favor of introducing some directions to the story that are unexpected, surprising, and delightful. 

By contrast, the Musts -- i.e., the actual stakes we're talking about here, not protagonist intent -- are where the player of a given protagonist asserts control over what kind of story he wants to be telling with his character.  Making Roxy's stakes about pride is a big deal and a significant constraint on the narrator, while still allowing the narrator to be something more than a sock puppet with five hands shoved up his ass.

[Matt Wilson]

Hey Rob:

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?

I see what you're after, and the answer is yes.

But narration could still determine that her car gets totalled. "Don't they have stop signs out where you live?" "Guess you small-town folk can't drink and drive very well. Maybe you'd be better off with a horse and buggy!"

[Rob Donoghue]

I see what you're after, and the answer is yes.

But narration could still determine that her car gets totalled. "Don't they have stop signs out where you live?" "Guess you small-town folk can't drink and drive very well. Maybe you'd be better off with a horse and buggy!"

Thank you, that was exactly what I hoped.

-Rob D.

[John Harper]

Rob: I kind of forgot about your quest to play PTA like a text-parsing robot. My responses probably aren't much use for that... ah... application. My posts in this thread were meant to be useful for real games of PTA played by real people.

I still think that the must/should dichotomy that you and Fred are talking about is so hypothetical and semantic -- it has little or no relation to actual play as I've experienced it. For example, no one actually says, "Bill, you must now narrate X but you should narrate Y." It just doesn't work like that among real players. Maybe this kind of legalistic approach is necessary for some types of groups that I haven't had experience with, though. If phrasing it like that helps you, I guess I can't argue with results.

[Rob Donoghue]

*laughs*

Nono, you misunderstand.  This isn't for my playgroup.  This is so, when I play a game by the book and comment on it here, especially about somethign that may or may not have worked, I have a firm foundation when the first and inevitable response is "You're playing it wrong."*

I've done that dance already, and it's no great fun.

-Rob D.

* - Of course, some will then say that strictly adhering to the rules is playing to wrong, but there's just no pleasing some people.

[iago]

John,

I guess it's like this: by making clear what the musts and shoulds are prior to discussion, I can minimize the discussion phase of resolving a scene.  If those are made clear, the narrator already knows a lot of the stuff that might be discussed, and can assume answers there.  This is potent mojo for ... for reasons I'll discuss shortly.

The way you've been presenting things so far makes PTA play break down like this:

1) Frame Scene
2) Establish conflict and roll the dice to determine the resolution path
3) Discuss what's going to happen
4) Do what you just discussed

From what I've seen you say, I think you really, really get off on the #3 part.  Whereas, for me, if the #3 part happens, it cheapens the experience of #4.  As described above, I would characterize PTA not as "the greatest tv show that never was".  I'd characterize it as a fantastic simulation of the experience of collaborative screenwriting.  For me, that's not a delivery of "the greatest tv show that never was" -- instead, it's just dull.

For me, and a lot of people I game with locally, what we like in our actual play is revelation, surprise, and discovery.  And for us, we want that to happen in #4 -- not in #3 -- of the above list.  In other words, we want the surprises to happen as the narration occurs -- not in the negotiation for what's to be narrated.  And -- to bring it back to my harping on PTA's subtitle -- that's the experience of watching a television show.

So, to weave this back together, this is why I said, earlier,

I think what's important about this separation between Must and Should is that in a group with a solid social contract and a high degree of trust, sometimes the Shoulds should be ignored in favor of introducing some directions to the story that are unexpected, surprising, and delightful.

Like I said, that's why this whole should and must thing is important.  It allows the narrator to just dive in and run with narration without extensive pre-discussion, and that creates a much better experience for me both as a player and as a potential narrator.  It answers the questions about what I must do and what I should consider in advance, so I don't have to spend extra time diluting the experience with discussion -- and it lets the audience (the other participants in the scene) assert enough control over my narration to get the central nugget of what's important to them (the stakes) while still preserving their ability to get the unexpected, the surprising, the delightful.

I can guarantee that hitting #3 more heavily would leave my playgroup bored, even if they were playing the game exactly right.  And that in making it a minimizable step by being clear about the musts and shoulds will keep them interested and engaged while continuing to play the game right.

[John Harper]

Fred, that characterization of my approach is just plain wrong. Not only wrong, but aggressively wrong -- casting "my play style" as the most boring thing imaginable. I've already said what I advocate again and again in this thread, though, and I don't know how to make it more clear. So until I get inspired to spell it out differently, you'll just have to take my word for it.

EDIT: Oh! Duh! The way I play PTA is in the examples of play in the book! It's been staring me in the face the whole time. Check out the play example and the shaded boxes all through the book. Those say exactly how I play, verbatim.

[Andrew Norris]

Hi folks,

Just wanted to say that I've been following this discussion with interest. I never had a problem parsing the PTA rules, but I'm seeing from this exchange that one reason for that is that our group's style naturally lined up with what John and Matt have been talking about. It's therefore been really useful to see discussion from a group that wasn't already doing that.

(For reference, we get about 90% of our excitement in the #3 stage, and #4 is the formality of the current narrator *not* vetoing anything in particular, and everybody nodding and going on to the next scene.)

Honestly, for me PTA is the experience of writing a TV show, in the bullpen with the other writers bandying ideas back and forth frantically. That's definately different from watching it.

[iago]

Fred, that characterization of my approach is just plain wrong. Not only wrong, but aggressively wrong -- casting "my play style" as the most boring thing imaginable.

I was afraid I was gonna offend you on that one.  Lemme cut out some text in what I said in order to make it a little clearer.

What I said was:

"For me, that's not a delivery of "the greatest tv show that never was" -- instead, it's just dull."

What I needed to be heard was:

"For me, ... it's just dull."

What this response says you heard was:

"[John's play] is just dull."

So, hey, look.  I didn't say that.  I had to put brackets up there in order to make my message get taken that way, and what's in the brackets is -- to be clear -- not what I was saying.  I went to great efforts to put a lot of "for me" language in there, and not only do you miss my point, you characterize it as an assault upon and judgment of how John plays for John.

My point was entirely centered around explaining why the language we're pushing for -- and which, I think in error, was removed in the process of producing the revised edition -- is important to the kind of play-style that my play group engages in.  Moreover, it's an attempt to explain how the clarification of such language not only does not damage the John Style of play but also improves the Fred Style of play.

What we've gotten in response to this is more minty rantness about how we're doing it wrong.  And you know what?  It's clear we're both responding to different discussion threads that just happen to occupy the same space on the bulletin board.  Few responses to date -- to some extent, I will admit, on either side -- have actually been in response to the other side's posts.

But you know what?  I don't think I need to keep getting told that Fred's Playing It Wrong.  Your enthusiasm for this pretty cool game is getting wielded in such a way that it's killing mine -- and as such I gotta be thankful that it was Landon who pushed Rob and I to encounter the game in the first place.  Landon's response kept my interest alive, and it's with that enthusiasm that I'm digging at this whole gig regarding the Musts and Shoulds so I can feel like the narrator's job is a freer thing, something of a higher order than custodial.

But I don't think you're interested in talking about that, so I'm happy to take my posts elsewhere.

[iago]

(For reference, we get about 90% of our excitement in the #3 stage, and #4 is the formality of the current narrator *not* vetoing anything in particular, and everybody nodding and going on to the next scene.)

That's exactly how I'd expect it to go for some people.  In off-line discussion, I've been realizing that the 1-2-3-4 model I put forward above really operates largely in either a 1-2-3 or a 1-2-4 fashion.  Namely, either you do 1 and 2 and then the group explodes in cooperative narration, largely eliding the need for 4 except for -- as you rightly say -- a formality, or you do 1 and 2 and then the narrator, already aware thanks to the rigors of proper stakes and intents of what he needs to keep in mind, swings for fences (largely skipping past step 3 because the observance of musts and shoulds have already been spelled out).

And both of these approaches -- at least in PTA version 1 -- are entirely consistent with the rules and how to play the game.  In PTA revised, without the "stakes/intent" split getting spelled out, it's a lot more muddled, I fear.  I'd love to dig at that side of things a bit too, but I'm not sure now's the time.

[John Harper]

Sorry, Fred... but no. What you said was this:

The way you've been presenting things so far makes PTA play break down like this:

Everything after that is not a characterization of how I play the game. You tried to characterize it, based on what I've said here, and you failed. You don't understand what I've said in this thread, and that's my fault for not being clear enough. That was my point. The thing that you lay out as 1-2-3-4 above is not how I play the game, nor is it what I'm advocating.

How do you respond to what I said about the play examples in the book? Do you read those and think, "Oh man... I don't want to play like that!" Or do the examples sound like the kind of play you want? Because that's exactly how I play it.

EDIT: For the record, Fred, I do not care AT ALL how you choose to play the game. I am not telling you that you're playing it wrong. I am trying to explain what the text means. That's all. Play however you like.

[Alan]

Hi Iago,

If we move #3 to before the roll, you retain your suspence.  Whlie I don't have a copy of the current rules, I believe this is what's intended in the discussion of stakes and possible outcome. 

1. Frame Scene
2. Roleplay until a conflict is discovered.
3. Clarify the Protagonist's stakes.
4. Discuss what player's would like to see happen and what they would find unacceptable.
  (This is where the _player's_ goals come in.)
5. Roll the Conflict.
6. Gather ideas
7. Narrate the resolution

From experience I know that the last two steps tend to meld into each other. 

...to bring it back to my harping on PTA's subtitle -- that's the experience of watching a television show.

I believe that 1st ed PTA's subtitle was "The Greatest Show that Never Was."
And the 2nd ed subtitle is "A Game of Television Drama."

I know from playtests that it has never been Matt's intention to create a game that recreates the experience of _watching_ a TV show.  His game has always been about particfipating in the creation of the show.  I don't think either of the subtitles would lead me to expect to experience the game ONLY as if I were watching TV.

[iago]

How do you respond to what I said about the play examples in the book?

"My book's 20 miles away from me right now next to my computer at home.  I'll have to look at it later, if I get time between now and when I head out of the country for 3 weeks."

Do you read those and think, "Oh man... I don't want to play like that!" Or do the examples sound like the kind of play you want? Because that's exactly how I play it.

I doubt it would be either of those, as they're both pretty strong reactions.  I suspect it would be more like, "That sounds kinda cool, but for us, I think it would be better if... [insert most of what I've been pushing here]."

[iago]

I believe that 1st ed PTA's subtitle was "The Greatest Show that Never Was."
And the 2nd ed subtitle is "A Game of Television Drama."

Alas.  I prefer 1st ed's subtitle.

I know from playtests that it has never been Matt's intention to create a game that recreates the experience of _watching_ a TV show.  His game has always been about particfipating in the creation of the show.  I don't think either of the subtitles would lead me to expect to experience the game ONLY as if I were watching TV.

I don't expect only that experience.  I do expect it to get a fair share, as might be illustrated by inverting what you're saying: would either of them lead you to expect to experience the game without any sense of watching TV?

[Matt Wilson]

I believe that 1st ed PTA's subtitle was "The Greatest Show that Never Was."
And the 2nd ed subtitle is "A Game of Television Drama."

Actually, the subtitle for 1st is "a game of television melodrama." I just shortened it for the 2nd.

The bit about "play the greatest TV show that never was" is just ad copy.

Alan's description of stages is pretty good. It is in fact a largely collaborative experience, with the final authority shifting around, and with the traits, player input and card results providing constraints and structure.