Just played 7 sessions. Questions: Producer Role, Player vs. Player

[jenskot]

We just completed a 7 episode series of PTA as part of the Gotham Gaming Guild.

After the first session and reading this forum, we realized we had drifted the game rules as follows:

1.) Producer declared stakes immediately after the players declared their stakes.

2.) In some cases of conflicting Player stakes, if Players beat the Producer, they then compare their cards to each other (using the standard Player vs. Producer rules). 

We then played the next 2 episodes minus our drifting. But we didn't have fun. We switched back to using our unintentionally modified rules and the game was great. Why? The Producer played a much more active and creative role. And pushed us. After naming our stakes, the Producer putting down 5 chips didn't really feel threatening. But having them spend 5 chips and declare all the awful things that would happen if we failed completely drove the drama through the roof. And we fought harder.

We tried and loved Paka's suggestion of focusing on stakes that dealt with cost. So in cases of PvP, we often switched the focus of the stakes to be parallel and deal with cost. This sometimes works, and when it did, worked well. But often we had to artificially force and re-write the scene up to that point to make that work. And we often had to negotiate the actually costs and make compromises using player pressure outside of the rules to guide and focus us.

I would prefer not to drift rules where possible. Especially when I do not understand why things were designed the way they are. My question is, why no upfront Producer stakes and no perpendicular Player vs. Player stakes?

[jenskot]

Also, I should add. Part of what led to our confusion is I have spoken to at least 2 other NYC groups that have played PTA and others at Forge Con this weekend who drifted the rules the same exact way we did. But no one realized that they had drifted anything. Am I totally off on the drifting issue and actually playing as designed?

Also:

1.) If I pay Fan Mail to give someone cards for their conflict, do they have to accept?

2.) If I pay Fan Mail to give someone cards for their conflict, and those cards win Narration, may I narrate?

3.) When someone wins Narration, do they literally narrate everything and speak for everyone? Or do they just direct what happens and let everyone speak for their own characters?

Thanks so much!

[John Harper]

Hey John,

It was so good to meet you and do some gaming at Forge Midwest.

First, no, you're not drifting. The exact thing you're doing is covered in PTA (2nd ed.), starting on page 100 (under "Bridgewater--Romantic Rivalry"). First, you compare to the producer, then the other protag you're in conflict with.

Now, the other questions:
1) No.
2) Yes.
3) No. Everyone gets to participate in the narration phase. The Narrator is just the "buck stopper" if you will. Some groups like to add lots of actor-style roleplaying to the narration phase, guided by the Narrator to judge when it's done.

[Matt Wilson]

That's not quite right. If you pay fan mail to get cards, they're yours, not anyone else's. You may be applying them to someone else's conflict, but they're still your cards. If you really want someone to win, you pay, and that's how it is. They can't reject cards you paid for.

[jenskot]

Thanks guys!