[PtA] Scope of Narration, Scene Requests, and other questions

[Rob Donoghue]

I'm going to reiterate a little bit, because the point was that the example could be an example of this sort of problem, even though it wasn't a very good one.  If the answer is "It's impossible for there to be an impossible-to-resolve-interestingly conflict between stakes" then it might be worth running through specific examples.  I am proceeding from the assumption that there can be a genuine an d problematic conflict, and I consider it a sufficiently self evident point that I don't feel a strong need to get deep into specific examples.  As the example cited illustrates, it's clear that resolutions _can_ be come up with in almost any situation, but that begs the question of whether or not that is desirable because of either issues of scope or contrivance.*

So, if the concern is that my premise is flawed and it cannot happen, I'd love to hear that addressed.

Now, presumign it can happen, it's really looking like the two potential solutions are:

1) It shouldn't happen. (Somebody should)Make them change the stakes.
2) The narrator's authority should be sufficient to address this and whether the necessary solution is contrived or nor is irrelevant as that is a quality issue, not a rule issue.

Now, both of these are workable,solutions, though seem clumsy to my personal taste.  However, they are certainly VERY different, and I've seen both proposed over the course of this thread.  If either is the answer, it raises specific questiosn for me.

if it's #1, any question is who is responsible for this, and how? Is this an additional level of producer authority (or an extensionof existing authority)?  Is there a rule for determining precedence?  Thankfully, #1 is pretty straightforward.

#2 complicates things because we are not just talking about stakes in a scene, we are also talking about actions, which are as much of a part of the rules as the stakes themselves are.

Drilling down, the key rule here seems to be the second of the three things the narrator must do: "Narrator must include appropriate behavior for the protagonists involved."  I'm interpreting that as taking into account their actions, but it's a fairly fuzzy standard, particularily because the narrator is explicitly instructed to respect stakes, but give no such encouragement for actions.

Presuming that the narrator does respect everyone's actions, she is then faced with the potential for conflicting success.  Now, the narrator can respect the actions, but disengage them from success of failure.  In the example and resolution cited, Billy fails at his action but succeeds at his stakes, which requires that he succeed by some other action**, as determined by the narrator.

Now, so far so good, presuming we accept that a character can fail at their action but succeed at their stakes which is counterintuitive, but certainly not impossible, and a point worth addressing in it's own right, but we'll proceed on that assumption for the time being.

Given that we need to create a new action for the character, we have one stumbling block in that we should not replace their stated action.  If the narrator says "Well, what billy actually did was have a friend bring in a camera and snap incriminating shots" I pretty much can't imagine that going well.  Instead, we must _append_ an action onto Billy's (Such as waiting for Roxy by their house).

Now, let's presume, as in the example, that Billy's action is something that he does for the duration of the scene.  Presuming we're unwilling to counter it, we end up having to append the new action after the existing scene.

And that's where scope raises its ugly head.  If the resolution of Billy's action is out of the scene, there's a high likelihood that it will occour in something that might be better treated as a new scene.  At the very least, if it occours outside of the original scene, there is some question about where, in the context of the game, it does occour.

Now, that said, scope is not really something that I have a rules reference to make to, so perhaps that is the weak point here, but previous comments in this thread at least imply that scope is something to respect.

In any case, this is why I'm hoping there is actually a #3 that I simply have not realized, since it allows me to skip the annoying questions. :)

So, I hope that makes it a little more clear why I want the question answered, and what my concerns regarding its implication are.


-Rob D.

* Though I note, yes, Billy is  looking to Rat his sister out, so it's not as clear a conflict as it might be, but I'll stick with it because familiarity is better than arguing over the specifics of every potential example. :)

** - It is also possible to resolve someone's stakes through Deus ex Machina and other lazy writer's tricks, but I imagine those will only be as acceptable as they are in good TV, which is to say, not terribly.

[Darren Hill]

In the adjacent thread, the same question is being asked.
John Harper, in this message:

said (I paraphrase) that the solution is to negotiate in setting up stakes.
I understand what your saying, John, I just don't know how to do it. It's fine saying, "you need to come up with stakes that everyone agrees on," but how do you do that when, say, two people have an opposing goal? It's hard for me to understand how any changing of the stakes would be anything other than a disappointing compromise for everyone involved. I need a concrete example.
In my first post in this thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=16833.0), I give two conflict examples. If that was your group, can you suggest a way that the process of negotiation would have changed those stakes, and what conflict outcomes would have occurred in each case of each partipant succeeding and/or failing. (you can pick the simpler of the two conflicts!)
This isn't just a question for John, but for anyone familiar with PtA.

[edited to repair some incompetent quote-smithing!]

[John Harper]

Hey Darren: Can you fix the quote above? My name is on it (twice) but that's not me.

[Lisa Padol]

Now, their stakes (Impress her friends vs Impress his father) are not completely at odds, but the framing of the scene makes it clear that they have been put at odds by the conflict of whether Roxy stays and parties or Billy takes her home.  Given that, how does the scene resolve if both Roxy and Billy's player's beat the producer?

Okay, this may be outdated by others' posts, but here's how I'd narrate, more or less, if that happened. Roxy stays and parties, and impresses her friends. She either thinks she hid from Billy or she doesn't think she hid from Billy, but doesn't care. Either way, she didn't hide from Billy. Her goal was not Hide From Billy, but Impress My Friends, correct?

So, she parties. Billy spies and tells his father all about it later, and impresses him.

Now, the one thing I spot here is that this resolution involves a later scene. Is that a problem?

I still don't quite get why Roxy and Billy can't do this as a conflict with each other, but that's part of the whole perceptual thing I'm trying to get through.

-Lisa

[John Harper]

Lisa's example narration for Roxy and Billy is spot on. There is *no need* to get too tangled up in tasks when dealing with a scene like this. Yes, Billy's player said something about taking Roxy home, but that's not what was at stake. If it was, we would have made it the stakes. What was at stake was who impresses whom. The outcome of the cards gives us the answers and the narration makes sense of those answers.

I'll try to give Darren a concrete example based on his game.

You have a bunch of prisoners. One protag wants to execute them. Another protag doesn't want them to be executed. Conflict!

Not so fast. First: How do the players feel about this conflict? Are the players in conflict about what should happen to the prisoners? If they aren't, then it's easy. The players agree to the fate of the prisoners (dead or not) and then set their own stakes about something else:

- "I make Killer realize he's gone over the edge this time."
- "I kill all these people and really feel nothing inside."

Stuff like that. Note that, in this case, your protag can be doing anything, including "trying to stop" the other protag. But that's not what's at stake, so it's part of narration, not card flips. PTA does not resolve tasks, ever. You can wrestle it to try and get task resolution out of it (can I do X?) but it will break.

A similar case is if the players agree to put the lives of the prisoners at stake because they all can see it going either way. In this case, Killer might have a goal like, "I summon the nerve to murder all these people in cold blood." The Saviour might have stakes like, "I stop Killer from murdering these people." See how these can both succeed or fail? And the lives of the prisoners are still at stake? And we learn things about the protags, which is the whole point of the game.

In this case, players (not protags!) who are more interested in living prisoners might give fan mail to the Saviour's side of the conflict.

If, on the other hand, the players cannot agree about whether or not the prisoners lives should be at stake, then we have a different kind of conflict. A conflict between players, in fact. The PTA system doesn't resolve conflicts between players. You have to deal with that conflict with negotiation first. Then you can do the protag's conflicts.

I hope these examples help illustrate a concrete point, which is this:
If you find yourself with protag goals that are absolutely mutually exclusive and can, under no creative narration, be reconciled if they both succeed, then you need to keep working on your stakes.

If a player thinks that modifying their initial stakes is a "disappointing compromise", they are playing the wrong game for their tastes. Crafting good stakes that work together in relevant conflicts that everyone cares about is the skill of PTA play. That's the thing you're "gaming" when you play. When you start out, it's hard. The more you do it, the better you get at it.

[Alan]

I see John has posted while I was composing this.  I think I give a different angle on the same ideas.

The two who wanted to take the villain back for justice:
Captain Hanina Parion: This is straightforward. She's basically insecure about her leadership abilities, at least in part because of her privileged background.
Engineer Brent: He was raised as part of a clone family, and certain expectations were placed upon him, but he was always a bit of a misfit, never really fitting in anywhere. He wants to be accepted, to make a family of his own - can he make a life for himself outside the protective creche?
The one who wanted to kill, kill, kill:
Security Officer Nathan: He has struggled against authority all of his life, so he wants the freedom to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants. Basically, he needs to grow up - balance necessary authority/responsibility v individual rights & freedoms. (He's also a veteran ex-marine type, and so killing enemy combatants if they pose a threat is not hard for him - he's not actually portrayed as bloodthirsty, just expedient.)
The one who wanted to hand her over to the colonists:
Jack the Pilot: He's a hotshot pilot, and it has led to great things for him. But he was recently accused of cheating in a yacht race, and lost most of the respect he had gained. Now he wants to prove that he is more than just a pilot - that there is more to him than just that. Incidentally, this character was also raised in the region on a back-to-basics colony, so he had strong sympathies with the colonists.
The one who wanted to appear to help the captain, while helping the captive escape:
Alex the Manipulative Medic: He's an idealist. He was born to greatness (a very powerful family), but rejected the corruption that went with it, and is on a secret and grandiose (megalomaniac) crusade to make the universe a better place. How far will he go, what price will he pay?

Hi Darren,

First, I'll recommend that you read all of John Harper's posts in this other thread: <a href = "http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=16723.msg178815#msg178815" >More Questions[/url]

As John says, before a roll stakes are negotiable.  Players should spend some time talking about what they would like to see happen or not happen -- but more importantly why -- what signifcance will a possible outcome have to the protagonist's story this episode, this season?

You commented that you don't know how to give each protagonist different stakes, each relevant to their own Issue.  I would suggest look above at your first post.  In each case, you list the character and what they want to achieve -- but you also list why they want to achieve it.  If the stakes are about expressing the motive rather than the method, then each protagonist can find different, and deeper, stakes, even if their immediate goals appear the same.

For example:

Stakes for...
Captain Hanina Parion: to demonstrate her leadership ability to the team by taking command.
Engineer Brent: To contribute effectively as part of the team.
Security Officer Nathan: to control his impulse to be a loose cannon.
Jack the Pilot: to make the most effective single contribution, to stand out in the fight.
Alex the Manipulative Medic: to gain/retain the villainesses admiration.

[Darren Hill]

Thanks, John and Alan. I think I see now. I need to reflect on it to be certain.
I see how I was failing to separate player and character goals. I'm still not sure "PTA never resolves tasks" is true-  that demon killing example in the other thread wouldn't work. Maybe it would be more accurate to say, PTA only resolves tasks indirectly.

A similar case is if the players agree to put the lives of the prisoners at stake because they all can see it going either way. In this case, Killer might have a goal like, "I summon the nerve to murder all these people in cold blood." The Saviour might have stakes like, "I stop Killer from murdering these people." See how these can both succeed or fail? And the lives of the prisoners are still at stake? And we learn things about the protags, which is the whole point of the game.

This example was very helpful and illuminating.
And for that multipronged conflict:

Stakes for...
Captain Hanina Parion: to demonstrate her leadership ability to the team by taking command.
Engineer Brent: To contribute effectively as part of the team.
Security Officer Nathan: to control his impulse to be a loose cannon.
Jack the Pilot: to make the most effective single contribution, to stand out in the fight.
Alex the Manipulative Medic: to gain/retain the villainesses admiration.

I can see how that last conflict would have been much richer and deeper if we'd addressed it like this.
Still, I have a nagging feeling that this approach might remove the resolution of the things players actually want to resolve through the system, and leave the system to resolve the kind of things they prefer to do instinctively. It's quite a shift.
Still thinking. I'll get the opportunity to try this approach on Monday.


I think that excellent example you give, John, has gone a long way to help

[Matt Wilson]

Awesome discussion. I'm totally late to the party.

If anyone still has questions, I'm online, but damn, it looks like John and Alan are kicking ass.

[John Harper]

Happy to help out, Darren. I struggled with this stuff for quite a while, so I know where you're coming from.

Still, I have a nagging feeling that this approach might remove the resolution of the things players actually want to resolve through the system, and leave the system to resolve the kind of things they prefer to do instinctively. It's quite a shift.

You said it. In most games, the inner landscape and drives of a character are the only things a player gets any real authority over, so they hold on very tightly and fight tooth and nail to keep their initial concept intact -- while physical tasks are left to fortune. In PTA, (sometimes) we do the reverse. We hand-wave physical tasks, and then put the core "personhood" of a protag on the line and let fortune steer them one way or another. Crazy stuff.

But if you do this enough, you get a critical component of drama: characters actually change. The bitter lone swordsman has a moment where he just can't stand to deal out death again. Because the player focused in on the issue and put it on the line. Will this be the time that he puts his sword away? You better believe everyone is leaning forward and holding their breath when the cards go down.

[Darren Hill]

So, that only leaves one of my original questions unresolved.
Um, actually I realise looking back that I didn't ask for help with that explicitly, though it came up in both this and Lisa's thread. Basically, how to avoid the syndrome of scene requests becoming scene framing.
First, I have to get to grips with proper agenda declarations.
Now that I think about it, the discussion that makes up the main thrust of this thread does help out here too.
I mentioned a scene in which the engineer reqested: "I'm in the engine room, repairing the engines." Rather than resort to the conflict system there, I should have looked for some way to bring his issue to bear, and could certainly have said, "okay, you repair the engine - you're good, that's the kind of thing you do." I could then have introduced something into the scene to bring pressure to bear onto his issue or to complicate the repair operation in a way that it was clearly not his performance that was inquestion. But in a remote location with not too many people about, it's not easy to see how to do that. I think then I run the risk of following Lisa and her "what do we do now" problem.
Any suggestions for this sort of thing?
Can anyone post actual scene requests and a brief description of the scenes that followed? I've looked at actual play reports and haven't noticed a lot of that. Also, I'm interested to know how much interaction between players and producers there might be between scene request + producer framing, and the conflict.

[Blankshield]

Darren, I'm about two hours away from starting the pilot episode of The Belt.  I'll try my best to include the stuff you're asking about in my play notes and the AP followup.

James

[Darren Hill]

Thanks, James.

[Rob Donoghue]

Not so fast. First: How do the players feel about this conflict? Are the players in conflict about what should happen to the prisoners? If they aren't, then it's easy. The players agree to the fate of the prisoners (dead or not) and then set their own stakes about something else:

Ok, again, jarring, if only because the rules pretty much explicitly state"The stakes are what the protagonist really wants out of the conflict" (p. 61)  and that seems to be a horse of a different color.

Not that I object to an alternative - my players love to be able to decide that they want something _bad_ to happen to the character, or otherwise act contrary to the character's goals and interests, and similarly would be more than happy to hash things out based on player priorities, but that really seems liek it would be me tweakign the rules to suit my sensibilities, and, as I've said, I'm trying to drill down to a precise understanding so that I can at least try doing it by the book before I muck with things.  And by the book seems to say that stakes are based off the what the character wants, which cuts off a lot of stuff that would interest me a, but there it is.

I would genuinely like to be wrong on this one, so clarifications are welcome.

-Rob D.

[John Harper]

About the engineer scene:

Yep, you (or the player) could have just said, "The engine is fixed."

If you make it a conflict, you're saying, "What if I fix the engine? What if I don't fix the engine? What happens then?" If the player is looking at you with glittering eyes and is fingering the cards, desperate to put those questions on the line, then go ahead and set up a conflict. But I get the impression that this engine-fixing was a task-resolution hold-over from other gaming styles. In that case, skip it.

And if that was the point of the whole scene, you can skip the whole scene too. Very few TV shows include "engine fixing" scenes that are actually about the fixing of an engine. Think about Han and Leia in the Falcon's engine-room thingy. That scene was not about the engines!

I'll talk more about "what do we do now" in another post.

[John Harper]

Rob:
The stakes I used in my example are about what the protags want out of the conflict. They also serve the interests of the players, which matter more than anything else.

The rules don't say, "The stakes should be about what the protagonist really wants out of the conflict, and the interests and wishes of the players don't matter one bit." The interests and enjoyment of the players come first. The characters are not where the buck stops! Setting up a good scene, with a good, interesting, enjoyable conflict in it -- with interesting stakes all around that mesh together -- all of that trumps "what the protag wants." If you start with "my protag wants X" and lock it down with no input and cooperation from the other players in the conflict, then yeah, you can end up with some screwy situations.

Just to be clear: My example is not an alternative approach. It's the style of play advocated by the game, starting on page 8. Now, I admit that Matt isn't as explicit about stakes-setting as I have been here. Mostly because the idea that players would set stakes that were utterly incompatible (and then stick to them!) and not cooperate and negotiate before flipping is crazy moon-speak to Matt.

So: Say what your protag wants and invite comments about that. Listen to what the other protags in the conflict want, and make comments. Talk about the Issues involved. Talk about what this conflict means. Discuss some possible action that characters might take in the conflict. Discuss possible outcomes and speak up if anything is off-limits for you. Then look at the whole mess. Does it make sense? Is everyone happy with it? Do the stakes and possible outcomes hold together? Tweak this and that. Once everyone is ready, flip the cards and find out what happens.

It seems like a lot to do. But after a few games of elaborate cooperation like this, most of the steps will fly by invisibly. But you have to start somewhere.