[PTA] Beginner needs help...

[relaxingnap]

Hi everyone, I am returning to rpg's after being heavily into them as a teenager 25 years ago. I've been looking around alot and checking out different games, and am very interested in Prime Time Adventures.

I'm still a little confused about how the actual role-playing goes. What I would love help with is if Matt Wilson or someone who knows "how the game is really supposed to run" can point me to a podcast or audio of an actual play session.

A lot of the actual play descriptions I've found on The Forge don't seem to give enough detail, and the podcasts and audio of actual play I have found seem to be embroiled in debates and disagreements about how to play "right." I read some of the discussions on this forum, especially between players struggling for power over the narrative versus co-creating the narrative, and really appreciate the depth the game seems to offer if you do it right.

I think I understand some key stumbling blocks -- such as understanding what an Issue is, and how Stakes work in a conflict -- but audio of actual, 'doing it right' gameplay would really help.

I've worked as a professional actor and am currently in an improv class, as well as being a writer. PTA could be a tremendous tool for my creativity, and I'd love to unleash this on some of my friends who have never played rpg's before. I just want to make sure I have a good grasp of the mechanics before I host a session.

Thanks for your help!

-- Will Hall

[Matt Wilson]

Hi Will:

The improv/writer background ought to give you a good setup for this game. I took a lot of the stuff in the "jobs to do" section from my experience with improv in the early 90s.

I don't know of any recorded sessions, sorry, but I'm happy to answer as many hypothetical or actual play situations as you want.

[Theo]

If you want to listen to an actual play session, The Game Master Show (www.thegamemastershow.com) did one not too long ago, followed by their review of the system, where they note that they realized they'd done a few things 'wrong', but they worked out well anyway.

- Theo

[relaxingnap]

hi folks, thanks for getting back to me. i was just at a local game story playing a drop-in card game with a friend. so it seems i am getting closer to the role playing world.

I have to say that I've told two friends about PTA, and just the description has them excited. So at some point soon we'll probably get a game going. Congrats on writing a very cool game.

reading through the rules and looking on the net, I'm getting a bit clearer on the pitfalls about play and the proper way to do it. It's clear to me for example that framing character Issues is really key, as is understanding that Stakes in conflicts are abstract, and don't pre-set the detailed narration, which is left to the high card player narrating the conflict.

So whoever's turn it is sets the Focus (plot or character), Agenda (broad story purpose of the scene) and the Location. The other players can all call out suggestions and discuss what would be cool, but it's the player whose turn it is who has final say and sets the scene.

Is this, and at the end of conflicts, basically the only time that other players call out and make recommendations on how the narration should go?

The Producer then takes the info as determined by the player setting the scene, and describes an opening scene, perhaps with npc's doing some actions. Again, the non-Producer players can make suggestions as this is happening, but the Producer has final say? Is that right?

So let's say my hypothetical example is a series combining The Prisoner TV show with Grant Morrison's Arkham Asylum. The players are all superheroes and arch-villains on Arkham Island, with different alliances, heroes facing their dark sides and villains with the potential for either revenge or redemption, with a background conspiracy unfolding of who or what is really behind the Island, confused allegiances, and the potential of uniting against the Island. Player characters would include two rival superheroes, a super villain, and an Island Nurse. NPCs include all sorts of other heros and villain (who may or may not be who they seem), Asylum doctors/nurses/staff, and a mysterious Number Two bureaucrat. Other NPC's might be a police commissioner with intermittent communication with the island, new arrivals, and a man claiming to be a former secret agent.

Player 1's turn says the scene is Plot development. The agenda is to establish some basic info about Asylum Island and how the superheros get there. The location is at a table with a chessboard in the Asylum Island cafeteria.

Question - Does the Agenda that the player sets have to specify what players are in the scene? So in this example, a correct Agenda would be "Batman and the Head Island Nurse establish how the superheroes arrive on the island." Or does it not matter - can the Producer then specify who is in the Scene if the player didn't?

So the Producer then creates an opening shot. For example "An overhead longshot through a skylight with rain and thunder. Late at night, a lone light inside. The camera cuts to a bat-gloved hand moving a chess piece, and then pulls back to show a haggard and beaten-up Batman playing chess with a calm and collected Head Island Nurse."

Or does the Producer have to leave all protagonist action to the players? So a more correct opening shot would be, "An overhead longshot through a skylight with rain and thunder. Late at night, a lone light inside, the camera moves closer to Batman and the Head Island Nurse at a chessboard." The Producer's job here just to get things going? Because they are not really adding much?

I guess what I am asking is Should the Producer try to not add any narrative content to the Player's scene Agenda, e.g. that they are playing chess not just sitting at a board?

Then the rules say:

Once a scene has been created by a player, a scene is 'played out' with the contributing players having characters in the scene say and do things. The producer will play the part of supporting characters, and the other players will take charge of their protagonists.

So say the Batman player is narrating. The Head Nurse is also a player. So both of them are in the scene. So how exactly does it go now? Each player has control of their character, plus the Producer controls NPCs. The other players, assuming they don't spend Fan Mail to enter the scene with their character -- do they call out suggestions and give ideas of what should happen? Does each player only have control of their character, otherwise it goes to a Conflict, or can the players assert action on each other and agree that they accept it? If Batman says "I am playing chess with the Nurse," he has brought the Nurse into action - do they have to agree? Do they players discuss?

I guess what I am asking is, Does it go something like this:

Batman player: I'm groggy, I've been drugged. My hand trembles as I move the chess piece, but I checkmate the Head Nurse, and growl, OK so I played your game, Nurse, now you play mine,. How did I get here?
Nurse Player: I stand up and light a cigarette and say, "Impressive, even semi-drugged you can still beat a rated player with some exotic moves. I should ask you the same question Batman. Why do you think I'm here? I woke up drugged myself 8 years ago..." We look at each other.
Batman: I am surprised and start to speak and-
Producer: An Orderly comes in and interrupts, giving the Nurse a cross look as he drags Batman from the chair and across the room towards his cell. Batman tries to struggle, but though his mind is clearing, his body is still weak from the drugs, and he is easily subdued.
Producer calls cut as the scene has ended.

(This is an example without conflict, I'll get to that in a second.) The Agenda has been met, because now the plot has established the superheroes are drugged and kidnapped somehow, and that the Nurse claims to have arrived there similarly.

But my question is, say the Nurse doesn't go along with playing chess, would prefer to just be sitting at the table, because in the players mind the Nurse and Batman would never be intimate or friendly. What then?

Also, what if the other players want to call out, "He wasn't drugged, he went in voluntarily because of some finished business with an old rival." or "Batman is upset because he has been unmasked! The whole Island thing is about revealing the alter ego of the Superheroes." Or do other players not call out suggestions when the role-playing is going on?

So in my example, the roleplaying is 'realtime;" there is no player deliberation. Could it go otherwise? What if the Batman character set the scene with the Head Nurse. Then it goes like this:

Producer: Camera zooms to Batman and Nurse at Chessboard.
Batman player: Are we playing an game or are we just there symbolically?
Other player not in scene: Make them play chess and Batman bets with the Nurse.
Nurse player: No let's just play chess, Batman wins, but he's drugged. He's been kidnapped.
Batman: Ok. and the Nurse tells me how she got to the Island too right?
Nurse: Yes, and Batman and the Nurse realize they might have a common interest.
Producer: No, right when they start to talk about that, an Orderly interrupts and drags Batman away.
Other player not in scene: Yah that's cool, then its like the Asylum staff are up against the Asylum creators.

This certainly seems like a 'writers conference' that is going to instruct the role play. 'Realtime" role-playing sounds more right, except that, How do other players contribute ideas and suggestions? Or does that collaboration only happen when Scenes are being established and in the Narration after conflicts?

It seems like no real Stakes or Interest would be there for a Conflict in this example, right? Unless say, the Nurse character calls Conflict at the moment Batman says they are playing chess instead of sitting at the chessboard together? Or when the orderly NPC comes in, Batman could call Conflict, and set the stake as "Batman continues to challenge the Nurse for information." Since Batman's Issue is Siding with Justice Not Vengeance, his doesn't seem like a very good Conflict. Success might mean he knocks out the Orderly and he and the Nurse continue their conversation?

A different conflict could be between Batman and the Nurse. Batman's stakes are Learn The Situation and Stay In Control, the Nurse's Stakes could be Reach Out To Batman Without Betraying the Island. Batman's success might be to continue asking questions, failure might be punching the Nurse and threatening (since his issue is being good not vengeful). The Nurse's success would be to tell more details making more common cause before the orderly arrives, Nurse's failure would be the Orderly interrupts them and Batman says something mistrustful of the Nurse.

I guess what I am asking in general is to get a very clear sense of how the role playing goes in PTA. It goes back to this question of Narrative Authority being important in story games -- being clear who has it and how the game generates it.

Or my confusion might be because other players are coming from other RPG experience, and like I said I haven't role-played in 25 years. When I did we were very Gamist, rarely expressing anything more than survive and loot impulses (what can I say I was 13).

Well thanks for your patience with a noob trying to figure this out. I want to avoid trying to figure it out as we go with players who have never role-played before... If they have fun with it I'll have people coming back, but if I am flipping through the rules and scratching my head about how to proceed I might end up frustrating people.

I had really hoped that a "good" example of PTA "the way its supposed to be played" could be found in an audio mp3 or podcast or something. You see how these questions are just so basic they could be answered pretty easily by me just eavesdropping on a game...

-- Will Hall

 

[relaxingnap]

I'm going to try to get in on a PTA game at the upcoming indie game meetup in a couple of weeks here in portland, and if i do i hope to get a better sense of things. if anyone has any thoughts from my example that could be really helpful too, as eventually i want to put together a game for my friends. thanks! - will

[Moreno R.]

Hi Will!

Is this, and at the end of conflicts, basically the only time that other players call out and make recommendations on how the narration should go?

No. Basically everybody should give suggestion to anybody at all times, if he/she think about something cool. It should not be overbearing or a dogpile on the player who get the suggestion, but at the same time he/she should really never be alone while having to thing something on the fly. And it should always be clear that they are only suggestion, to be ignored or accepted at whim, without any social pressure to accept them.

The cases you listed are the one where somebody _has_ to tell something, so are the ones where people usually has more need of suggestions, but they are not the only ones.

The Producer then takes the info as determined by the player setting the scene, and describes an opening scene, perhaps with npc's doing some actions. Again, the non-Producer players can make suggestions as this is happening, but the Producer has final say? Is that right?

Yes. With the fixed elements given by the player, the producer have then final say over the framing of the scene. He/she should not force other people's characters without the player's consent (so, the producer should not frame another player's character inside a strip joint, if the player say that the character would never go there, for example) and should respect not only the letter of the player declarations but their spirit, too. But apart from this, has final say.

Question - Does the Agenda that the player sets have to specify what players are in the scene? So in this example, a correct Agenda would be "Batman and the Head Island Nurse establish how the superheroes arrive on the island." Or does it not matter - can the Producer then specify who is in the Scene if the player didn't?

By the book, the players shouldn't say who is in the scene. Usually they does, and the producer respect their wishes, but he isn't obliged to do so. And he can always add more people.

By the way, I would have some issue with that formulation of the scene agenda. I would accept a "Batman and the Head Island Nurse talk", leaving the subject of the talk to them, or I would take the information about the abductions as a given (maybe given in a montage scene during the start credits, like in the Prisoner), leaving them free to talk about what they want.

Why? Because it's usually really boring to play a pre-scripted scene, where you already know what you have to say to each other.

So the Producer then creates an opening shot. For example "An overhead longshot through a skylight with rain and thunder. Late at night, a lone light inside. The camera cuts to a bat-gloved hand moving a chess piece, and then pulls back to show a haggard and beaten-up Batman playing chess with a calm and collected Head Island Nurse."

Or does the Producer have to leave all protagonist action to the players? So a more correct opening shot would be, "An overhead longshot through a skylight with rain and thunder. Late at night, a lone light inside, the camera moves closer to Batman and the Head Island Nurse at a chessboard." The Producer's job here just to get things going? Because they are not really adding much?

I guess what I am asking is Should the Producer try to not add any narrative content to the Player's scene Agenda, e.g. that they are playing chess not just sitting at a board?

The Producer simply ask. He can have already an idea and ask the player if they are all right with it, or he can ask them what they character would do in this situation. After a while playing the game, when the people begin to understand that they can always protest if the framing don't respect their vision of the character, the Producr can stop asking, sure that the player will stop him if they don't afree on the framing of their character's action

So, the producer can simply frame the ambient and say to the player "what are you doing there"? Or He can already start them in action (playing chess) but then if a player say "Hey, Bill, I would never play chess with her" he should be ready to change the framing. The framing is always a producer choice, but "aggressive scene framing" is NEVER meant as a way to step on the player's toe, it's only a time-saving rhythm-keeping measure.  (for a good explanation of what you can do with aggressive scene framing, I suggest this thread: Scene Framing

So say the Batman player is narrating. The Head Nurse is also a player. So both of them are in the scene. So how exactly does it go now? Each player has control of their character, plus the Producer controls NPCs. The other players, assuming they don't spend Fan Mail to enter the scene with their character -- do they call out suggestions and give ideas of what should happen? Does each player only have control of their character, otherwise it goes to a Conflict, or can the players assert action on each other and agree that they accept it? If Batman says "I am playing chess with the Nurse," he has brought the Nurse into action - do they have to agree? Do they players discuss?

"Yes" to all of those. The player can say that he is playing chess with the other character, but the other can say "no". It was only a suggestion, even if it was not spelled like one. It's a collaborative environment, where people talk all the time, above and over what the character are saying.  Different groups will have different tastes about this, some people will prefer to talk in character as much as they can, other will prefer a more descriptive approach. It doesn't matter, the rules works in any case, if people respect each others and give suggestions. And no charactyer can be forced to do something his/her player don't want without a conflict.

You have to be careful to don't let this agreement carry over to conflicts, though. The game can become boring if people debate with each other the results of character's conflicts. When there is a character conflict, stop the debate and go to the cards!

I guess what I am asking is, Does it go something like this:

Batman player: I'm groggy, I've been drugged. My hand trembles as I move the chess piece, but I checkmate the Head Nurse, and growl, OK so I played your game, Nurse, now you play mine,. How did I get here?
Nurse Player: I stand up and light a cigarette and say, "Impressive, even semi-drugged you can still beat a rated player with some exotic moves. I should ask you the same question Batman. Why do you think I'm here? I woke up drugged myself 8 years ago..." We look at each other.
Batman: I am surprised and start to speak and-
Producer: An Orderly comes in and interrupts, giving the Nurse a cross look as he drags Batman from the chair and across the room towards his cell. Batman tries to struggle, but though his mind is clearing, his body is still weak from the drugs, and he is easily subdued.
Producer calls cut as the scene has ended.

(This is an example without conflict, I'll get to that in a second.) The Agenda has been met, because now the plot has established the superheroes are drugged and kidnapped somehow, and that the Nurse claims to have arrived there similarly.

But my question is, say the Nurse doesn't go along with playing chess, would prefer to just be sitting at the table, because in the players mind the Nurse and Batman would never be intimate or friendly. What then?

Then, they DON'T play Chess. The Producer has to choose another scene (the easiest way is by far to simply ask the nurse player "what will she do, instead?")

Also, what if the other players want to call out, "He wasn't drugged, he went in voluntarily because of some finished business with an old rival." or "Batman is upset because he has been unmasked! The whole Island thing is about revealing the alter ego of the Superheroes." Or do other players not call out suggestions when the role-playing is going on?

The suggestions can go all over the time, all over the role-playing, always. They just have to do so without disturbing or interrupting (it's easy what you get the mood of the game. The suggestion can be non-verbal, with gestures, they can happen during pauses..  it's not really much different from a normal conversation when you want to say something without interrupting other people. People do it every day)

So in my example, the roleplaying is 'realtime;" there is no player deliberation. Could it go otherwise? What if the Batman character set the scene with the Head Nurse. Then it goes like this:

Producer: Camera zooms to Batman and Nurse at Chessboard.
Batman player: Are we playing an game or are we just there symbolically?
Other player not in scene: Make them play chess and Batman bets with the Nurse.
Nurse player: No let's just play chess, Batman wins, but he's drugged. He's been kidnapped.
Batman: Ok. and the Nurse tells me how she got to the Island too right?
Nurse: Yes, and Batman and the Nurse realize they might have a common interest.
Producer: No, right when they start to talk about that, an Orderly interrupts and drags Batman away.
Other player not in scene: Yah that's cool, then its like the Asylum staff are up against the Asylum creators.

This certainly seems like a 'writers conference' that is going to instruct the role play. 'Realtime" role-playing sounds more right, except that, How do other players contribute ideas and suggestions? Or does that collaboration only happen when Scenes are being established and in the Narration after conflicts?

The problem in your examples is that, in both cases, there is a script that the players have to follow. In the first case the players already know it (how? The producer did tell them? How did the players know what they should have said in that scene?), in the second, they discuss it before playing.

I suggest that, in real play, both cases are the same (in the first one you simply cut away the discussion scene), and both are boring to play as written, because the players have to follow a script. NEVER, EVER, make the players follow a script

So, let's see how it could be played. The Producer is the one who decide the backstory, after the pitch or character creation phase. So, if the Nurse player wanted to be kidnapped 8 years before, he/she should say so during the pitch or character creation. If he/she leave that information unresolved, it's the producer's job after that to flesh out anything the player's didn't decide beforehand.

Let's say that all the backstory that you have revealed in that scene was decided during the pitch. Then, why play it? It's already known history to everybody at the table. It's a rerun, there is nothing new there. Say, as a producer, that the show has a montage scene during the credits where people can see Batman drugged and taken to the island, let's say that the Nurse character can say that that she was kidnapped 8 years ago whenever she want, and let's star a scene with another agenda!

In this other scene, people should IMPRO what they say, exactly as in done in every role-playing game from D&D onward. The scene agenda is these as a guide to help them give a direction to their role-playing (it's easier if you already know before going there that a scene is romantic or is a confrontation), but it's not a straitjacket that force them to go on a railroad. The other players should be SURPRISED by what happen, exactly as a the people watching TV. This doesn't mean that they can't suggest what happen, but the suggestions should be something like "kiss him! Now!" or "hit him with that brick", or "producer, it wouldn't be funny if the father enter now?", they should live in the  moment. Not "why don't you start following this script I wrote for the next hour?"..  Booooring!!!

It seems like no real Stakes or Interest would be there for a Conflict in this example, right? Unless say, the Nurse character calls Conflict at the moment Batman says they are playing chess instead of sitting at the chessboard together? Or when the orderly NPC comes in, Batman could call Conflict, and set the stake as "Batman continues to challenge the Nurse for information." Since Batman's Issue is Siding with Justice Not Vengeance, his doesn't seem like a very good Conflict. Success might mean he knocks out the Orderly and he and the Nurse continue their conversation?

There are two different "school of thought" about conflicts in PTA: the first one say that conflict have to be between characters, and be based on character's intentions. In that case, you don't have a conflict about playing chess: you don't want to play, you don't play, it's as simple as that. But there is a strong character conflict when the orderly "drags batman from the chair". Batman would never go for that!

So, the conflict is between batman and that orderly. But what about the character's issues? Don't you have to try to frame conflicts about character's issues? Yes, but not every conflict will be like that in a story, and, in any case, you can always turn a conflict in a character's issue question, by choosing the right stakes.

What can happen in the scene? Batman can stun the orderly. Batman can impress the nurse. Batman can steal a pen from the orderly during the fight. Batman can flee the room. and much more.

But you can't get EVERYTHING winning the stakes. CHOOSE ONE! Choose the one you care the most about. ALL THE REST, IS UP TO THE NARRATING PLAYER.

So, if the Batman character want to flee the room, more than anything else, THAT is what it's directly at stake in the conflict, and the high card narrator (for example, the nurse player, if he/she did spend fan mail) can say that Batman is too weak to fight the Orderly, that he is being pummeled by the orderly, but the nurse take the chess board, break it on the orderly head stunning him and say to Batman "Flee! Flee, I will delay them".  (this could have been narrated only by the Nurse Player because it's a PC, not a NPC)

The second "school of thoughts" accept even conflicts about PC characters choices, so in this case, "do I flee or do I let myself be drag away without fighting?" could be a conflict.

For more about these two way to play PTA, see this thread: [PTA] Players wanting their PCs to fail?

[relaxingnap]

Ah thanks this is helpful, i will look at those two threads. I have a sense I am trying to describe in words something that is more of a feel to go for in actual play. Your points about not scripting the players beforehand being boring is very important. It feels like this is getting clearer, I appreciate the help. Indie game night is in a week and a half and I'll get some hands on experience before running my own game. - will