Do you need to narrate?

[nitramwi]

Hi all!  Just started a wonderful game of PTA, and I have a serious question.

In conflict resolution, do you have to have one person act as a narrator?

Instead, I'd prefer to let the high card holder act as a Director, which seems a more PTA type postion
in the game.  The Directors position would be to monitor the other players, and make sure that the
results of the conflict match up with the cards results.  The intent is to allow my players more time
"in character", as that is their preferred mode of play.  We have had some bad experience with some
one trying another narratives game with us, and I would like to give them some time to develop the
current game before they start going more heavily into a narratives mode.

This seems to be working, for everyone is rather hyped about the game!  At the
same time, I'd like to hear some thoughts from those who have played PTA a bit.

:)

[Jon Hastings]

Hi nitramwi,

Welcome!

What your group is doing is similar to the way I've played: everyone chips in while playing out the resolution of the conflict, but the narrator has say over the final cut.  Around here, this is often phrased as the narrator having "buck-stops-here" authority or the narrator "rubber stamps" the resolution the group collaborates on.  For me, grooving on this collaborative aspect of PTA - both before and after the cards are drawn - is one of my favorite parts of the game.

-Jon

[nitramwi]

Thanks Jon!

I prefer calling this person the "director", or perhaps "editor"; it makes it
feel more like we are doing a TV series, together.  Besides, most of the
players have little experience with narrative games.  Slowly I'll break them in!

:)

[John Harper]

Hey nitramwi,

Yep, that's in fact what the rules intend for you to do. So, rock on!

I like the term "Director" for that job, too.