[PTA] Deep in the Blue

[Jason Morningstar]

Last night Clinton, Remi, and I began a five-episode PTA season called Deep in the Blue.  I'm Producing.  We agreed over the week leading up to our first session on a few things:  Protagonists are undercover narcotics cops, in contemporary Cincinnati.  Flouting reality, I decided that the Queen City is dominated by a pair of vicious Asian gangs (the Tiny Rascal Gang and the Bad Boy Crips - look 'em up before you chuckle at the names), with subordinate elements including traditional Crips and Bloods, as well as some unaffiliated Russian mafiya and a hispanic gang as well.  Oh, and hillbilly white supremacists in Kentucky.  The criminal power structure is stabilized along traditional red/blue lines, but both are in the process of flooding Cincinnati with crystal meth and the whole thing is about to explode in a satisfying and awful way.

Clinton is playing a Vietnamese-American family man, deep undercover, running a bodega on Bond Hill.  Remi is playing a young Cuban-American firebrand exiled from the Miami police force.  Hopefully they can chime in with some more character and scene stuff as it relates to actual play, but what I want to talk about is how our recent improv theater experience powerfully affected this session.

We had agreed to take the setting and situation absolutely serious, aiming for an HBO-style show with swearing and blow-jobs and people getting shot in the head and snorting crank.  The episode built slowly, but half-way through the tension increased dramatically, both in-game and metagame.  As producer I was trying hard to push the character's buttons, and that turned into a bunch of situations in which they perceived no options.  For example, Remi's guy was tasked with infiltrating the Tiny Rascals Gang through their minor subordinates, the Flacas.  In order to win their trust, he had to rat out the Bad Boy Crip meth lab that Clinton's guy had agreed (under duress) to allow to operate above his bodega.  It all ended in tears, as you can imagine.  I could feel that both players were really focused and intense - there was a scene where their characters were hiding in a dumpster from a bunch of Crip thugs sent to maybe kill them, and Clinton and Remi played out an entire scene in whispers and pantomime unbidden.  It was pretty cool to watch - they were completely in the moment, dare I say ... immersed? 

There was actually a ton of pantomime going on - handling cell phones, guns, Vietnamese sandwiches, bags of weed.  I felt that my own characters (Vietnamese crime bosses, Aryan Brotherhood thugs, Mexican tough guys, straight arrow beat cops, Clinton's character's wife, gay night club owners, etc) were well realized and interesting.  We were listening to each other and agreeing - really avoiding conflicts in many cases (there weren't too many) and just going along with suggestions and threads initiated by each other.  All of this I attribute to being soaked in improv for the last six weeks. 

We had a lovely time.  It was completely different from anything we've played together.  I hope Clinton and Remi will add their thoughts and impressions so we can start a dialogue about how and why this game is turning out to be so different.

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Ok, first, a dramatic statement:

This was definitely in my five best roleplaying experiences ever.

We were worried if we'd be able to keep up the seriousness. We were all seriously hyped up from our Sunday night improv performance and all jittery. We dove right in, though. The first scene was my bodega getting held up, and it was so tense that my shoulders hunched up and I fell into a hushed voice immediately.

Jason's not using the immersion word lightly. It was total awesome immersive roleplaying. I could see right into my character, Frank Trang's, head and loved it. We used a technique I really liked in this game, the "time-out." Whenever I needed to discuss how a scene was going, or what I should do, with the rest of the group, I'd throw up my hands in a T-gesture and call a timeout to talk. Calling the time-out and then calling back in resulted in a pretty noticable difference between "in-game" and "discussing-game," which was powerful.

The other techniques which I noticed from improv included agreement: we tried very hard not to nullify each other's contributions to the game's environment. If a dude pulled up with a gun, that was that, and then I'd add to it. Mechanical conflicts were called over actions, and not over environment. In a two, maybe two-and-a-half, hour session of play, we had about six conflicts, which seemed light for us, but not light for the game. It was actually perfect dramatic pacing, in my opinion. I did also see a lot of pantomime, like Jason said. I remember distinctly when the Aryan dude asked my character for a bag of chips pantomiming reaching behind the counter, catching myself, and reaching in front to pull off a bag and hand it to him. And man, that dumpster scene was fucking intense.

Jason did something great which I've got to give him props for: every scene contains two options: the bad one and the much, much worse one. This was hot. Some of my scenes included: shooting a guy who robbed me or losing face by letting him go; letting a meth cooker rent my room upstairs or bucking the crime lord I'm trying to get in good with; letting my son work in a dangerous neighborhood around thugs or losing my connection to him; and promising to get rid of my covert partner or again bucking that crime lord - really, getting shot in this case. It was super-hot and made me make very tough decisions. The tough decisions while immersed was serious narrative play. Don't let anyone tell you immersion and narrative play don't go hand-in-hand: thinking like this guy who has put three years of his life into making a connection, while having to choose between loyalty to a partner or success at his job - man, that's some prime rib of hard decisions.

[Eric J-D]

Wow!

Thanks Jason and Clinton for posting this.  Having just finished watching season 2 of The Shield, I've got a very strong sense of the intensity of the game you describe.  It sounds absolutely amazing.

I wish I could ask some PTA related questions but I don't have PTA (yet).  However, this stood out in Jason's post:

As producer I was trying hard to push the character's buttons, and that turned into a bunch of situations in which they perceived no options.

From the description of what follows and Clinton's followup post, I take it you obviously mean the good kind of "no options" wherein the players can see that regardless of the course of action they're only going to find themselves presented with another intense conflict.  It's a case of which devil you want to lie down with, right?

Anyway, I'm envious.  I can't wait to read more about play as it proceeds.

Eric

[Jason Morningstar]

Oh yeah, there were plenty of options but none of them were good.  At one point we had a time-out to discuss the fact that the episode was clearly driving toward a particular conclusion - both officers on opposite sides of an emerging turf war - which none of us had expected.  We made sure that was OK, but at that point any other option would have been forced and unsatisfying. 

[Storn]

I've used the "time out" sign to indicate metagame discussion for a couple of years now.  Very useful.

Sounds awesome.  I so want to try PTA.

[Eric J-D]

Oh yeah, there were plenty of options but none of them were good.  At one point we had a time-out to discuss the fact that the episode was clearly driving toward a particular conclusion - both officers on opposite sides of an emerging turf war - which none of us had expected.  We made sure that was OK, but at that point any other option would have been forced and unsatisfying. 

Now you know that those last two sentences are nothing but a big tease.  <grin>

Am I right in thinking that the Episode ended at the point at which it was becoming clear that the officers were going to be on different sides in this turf war?

If so, then you all need to get together again and play this out so that we aren't left hanging, dammit!  Consider this some real live fan mail to all of you.  This sounds just wonderful.

Out of curiosity, could you share with us a bit more about this improv experience you had?  Not just the way it entered into play--though I'd of course be interested in that--but some particulars about some of the principles you learned from the experience, etc.

Thanks.

Eric

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Now you know that those last two sentences are nothing but a big tease.  <grin>

Am I right in thinking that the Episode ended at the point at which it was becoming clear that the officers were going to be on different sides in this turf war?

Yes! We worked it out so that we didn't actually hate each other, and I think we're both still committed to the mission of bringing these two fucks down - while we're both now members of rival gangs. Which is so awesome. I can't wait to throw down a firefight between the two of us, trying not to hit each other.

Out of curiosity, could you share with us a bit more about this improv experience you had?  Not just the way it entered into play--though I'd of course be interested in that--but some particulars about some of the principles you learned from the experience, etc.

The principles are all pretty simple stuff that we're using. Here's a few I noticed:

Agreement is more fun than conflict.

Ok, RPGs are full of conflict, and it's good. Improv's a different beast in this way. But - agreement up until conflict is awesome. In the first scene, Jason had a thug come into my store, and Jason said, "He sticks a gun in your face." A few weeks ago I might have said, "Whoa, hold on! I want to catch him before he does that." I'd feel threatened, y'know? But I said, "Yes, he sticks a gun in my face and I slowly slide my hand under the counter to get my gun." I agreed to what he put in the SIS, and conflict came from there, not from what we were allowed to put in.

When a problem's solved, the scene is over.

This is a simple, yet big one. Basically - ride out problems. Keep them in the air. Add details. Talk about them. Have lots of dialogue. When you finally draw those cards to solve the problem, you're ending the scene. So don't until you've built up to a fever pitch. We didn't talk about this in the game, but I saw it happening a whole lot.

[Jason Morningstar]

Another principle culled from improv:

Support each other

Make it your job to make the other guy look good.  Frank Trang isn't going to look good if I hand-wave off his family obligations.  Hugo Valle isn't going to look good if I ignore the fact that he's gay.  Sometimes supporting the other guy is stepping down to give him a solo scene.  Sometimes it is backing his play.  Sometimes it is utterly fucking him over.  When you trust and expect each other to help rather than hinder, things just rage. 

[John Harper]

This game sounds hot. Obligatory PTA remark: I would totally watch this show!

Anyway, I'm glad to hear that your improv class is spicing up the gaming. I haven't taken an improv class, but I would like to. Still, the techniques you're talking about are things that are actually in the PTA rules. So, folks reading along at home: you can get this kind of white-hot play even if you're not all cool and improv-y like these guys. It may take a little more practice to get into the flow and suppress some gamer instincts, but the methods are right there in the book to help you along.

[Nicolas Crost]

Yeah, the game sounds great. I hope my PtA-Game, which will start next week after a really hot set-up session last week (and which I probably should write an actual play report about) will at least partly rock as much as your game did.

I just wanted to comment real quick on the "Agreement is more fun than conflict."-thing: I think this is very true. And I think it also ties in with some other improv-rule: You've got to feel comfortable. You have to like what you are doing there with those people you are doing it with. You have to trust one another.

And I guess there's two points in your game reinforcing that feeling of trust that lets you accept and not block each others input. First, the personal relationship. I think, that you, Clinton, could really trust Jason not to screw you over in that "gun in your face"-scene (which also ties in with "Support each other" - if you know the others are there to support you and not to confront you, it's much easier to trust them).

But (in my mind) there also is the mechanical point: PtA's mechanics made you feel more comforteble accepting Jason's input. In many other RPGs the fact that your character had a gun pointed at his face would have put you at a great disadvantage regarding a later conflict (loosing initiative or what have you). But in PtA this set-up does not have any effect on the mechanical resolution. You knew you would draw the same amout of cards, regardless of the previous build-up of the conflict.

So, the point I want to make is the following: PtA ist great for building up the comfort an trust you need to accept the other players input. Since you know that, when the cards hit the table all odds are down to screen presence, traits, budget and fan mail, you don't have to feverishly watch out for input by the other players, that might perhaps later on put you at a disadvantage. You can simply accept their input to the conflict build-up. Which absolutely supports the process you described: agree, agree and add, agree - build up tension - then clash in a hard and short conflict - end scene. So, as John already pointed out, PtA really supports some improv-techniques. Great game!

[Jason Morningstar]

We had our second session last night and it went very well. 

I have to say I don't really feel like a GM when running PTA - it's more like being a resource person, available to poke things with a stick when necessary, introduce new characters occasionally, and reflect the desires of the other players.  To prep for Deep in the Blue I read up on Cincinnati so that I had enough internalized to throw off quick, convincing asides, like "sure, meet me down at Fountain Square" or "It's a little locksmith shop in Clifton Heights" without breaking stride.  I had some over-arching ideas about a drug war, and who was on which side, but nothing too specific.  I made up lists of names for the eight or so groups that would be introduced (important because I can't really fake a Cambodian name on the spot) and made notes next to them as they came up.  "What was the shooter's name?  Uhh...Quang Noc Tung."  And suddenly Tung gets a few descriptive details and becomes part of the story.  By the end of the second episode half my names had been used and a web of connections had been exposed.  My favorite prep-work payoff came from something I found by accident and totally had to use:  Frank Trang, Clinton's protagonist, asked for the jacket on a particularly nasty Aryan Brotherhood meth dealer he was forced to deal with.  He got the call from CPD records:  "Yeah, he's been around.  Spent some time in the 377th Military Police, Army Reserve based here in Cincinnati, a rotten unit, remember those two guys who got drummed out for maybe beating people to death in Afghanistan?  He's one of 'em."

In play we had a slow and somewhat rough start, I think for two reasons.  First, I wasn't pushing any particular conflict.  There were just characters being introduced to see what the protagonists would do with them, and neither Remi or Clinton was biting.  No big deal.  Second, Remi's protagonist is an outsider with few local ties, so pushing relationships is harder with him.  Not any more!  At one point he expressed some frustration, and Clinton suggested that Remi try to move Hugo Valle, his protagonist, either deeper into the gang or further away from it.  Keith Johnstone, improv pundit, would call this "breaking a routine" and it worked like a God-damn charm - Remi set up a very awesome power and dominance conflict with the leader of the gang he had infiltrated and lost brutally, narrating his own degradation as only Remi can.  Suddenly his character had some serious relationships and a lot of great options. 

It was a more low-key session (screen presence 2 for Remi and 1 for Clinton) but set up some fireworks for the next time we play.  Holy shit, is it going to be hot.  We engineered it so that Frank Trang's 13-year-old son, who idolizes the Crips, is now working in a Bad Boy Crip-operated restaurant and is totally going to be recruited by their skeezy underboss, Pin "Titty" Chu.  Hugo Valle is deep in a Tiny Rascal-affiliated Mexican street gang and his nemesis just sent a goon squad from Miami to kill him.  The Cincinnati meth war is heating up big time. 

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Note: When Jason says "low-key session," he means: a session in which Remi's character had a full-on firefight at the post office.

This was a great session, and it was a relationship-building session, even with the firefight. My character's finding his breaking point between trying to be a good cop, a friend to gangsters, and a father - a triangle of pain if there ever was one. His son now works for a gangster; his son also knows he tipped off other gangsters (his cop partner, but the kid doesn't know that); and he's going to have to make some hard decisions.

An observation about PTA: the ability to set up conflicts so both outcomes are really great, and not necessarily directly about what's in the scene is fun. For example, I had a conflict with my wife about whether my kid gets to have an after-school job in this post office where I know gangsters will be. I knew the story would be better if he did have a job there, but I wanted a conflict. So, even though I was arguing against the job, I set up the conflict with Jason as "I win: my wife knows I still care and has sympathy for how hard it is to be in my position, but I give in on the job to show I care. I lose: my wife's pissed, thinks I don't care, and possibly finds solace in the arms of a Mexican gangster." So we got to have the argument, I wear her down with passive-aggressive speeches, she knows I'm a good man with too hard of a job, the kid gets the job, and I get a back massage. Story on!

[Jason Morningstar]

Note: When Jason says "low-key session," he means: a session in which Remi's character had a full-on firefight at the post office.

Remi's guy also set a single-wide on fire with a woman inside it.  That's how we started the session, actually.  Classy.

[Emily Care]

I have to say I don't really feel like a GM when running PTA - it's more like being a resource person, available to poke things with a stick when necessary, introduce new characters occasionally, and reflect the desires of the other players....

What a great description of Producing. You really have to let go yet be proactive & responsive.  The amount of power players have in PtA makes it easier yet trickier.

Second, Remi's protagonist is an outsider with few local ties, so pushing relationships is harder with him.  Not any more!  At one point he expressed some frustration, and Clinton suggested that Remi try to move Hugo Valle, his protagonist, either deeper into the gang or further away from it.  Keith Johnstone, improv pundit, would call this "breaking a routine" and it worked like a God-damn charm - Remi set up a very awesome power and dominance conflict with the leader of the gang he had infiltrated and lost brutally, narrating his own degradation as only Remi can.  Suddenly his character had some serious relationships and a lot of great options.

I'm going to remember this.

best,
Em

[John Harper]

Okay, maybe I was wrong. Every good improv technique is not in the PTA book. :)

Sounds like your improv class is really paying off, gaming wise. Thanks for sharing the techniques with us.