[PTA] the player versus player conundrum

[forlorn1]

I'm sure this has come up before, but a quick scan of the last few pages of topics in this forum don't show any recent threads so I'll ramble on...

I ran a supers PTA game recently that ended up in with alot of 3 way stakes setting to resolve what amounted to player versus player conflicts.  I've done the orthogonal sakes thing before and handled it, but after the game the conversation turned to why we didn't just do "player #1's cards"  versus "player #2 cards", and resolve it.  I didn't have a good answer other than "that's the way the rules read, and I've always played it", which is a lame response.

so really it boils down to the questions of
- why do PvP  that way?
and
- what other things have people done to handle that situation.

Jeff

[Matt Wilson]

Here's the simple answer: because even in a protagonist vs. protagonist conflict, everyone can get what they want.

The complicated answer I might not be able to pull off at work in a hurry, but you have to always think about the above in terms of the issue. What were your PVP conflicts about?

[jefgodesky]

In the Fifth World, I use a lot of stake-setting that I learned in PTA, so the same issue comes up. Sometimes it feels wonky, but other times it really gets to a deeper question that the story really needs to get to. So, ostensibly, we just both want to beat each other up. But orthogonal stakes force you to dig deeper. Why do you want to beat each other up? One guy wants to impress his girl; the other wants to prove his strength. Now you've got good stakes--stakes that drive at the issues behind the fight, instead of just the physics of the fight itself.

If you're playing a game that stays at one level, that can get difficult, though. It can ratchet you out of the flow of play and into a brief analysis of your character and situation. But I've had other experiences where we're already dealing with the story at that level, and it comes naturally without breaking that flow. So, in my own case, I shift the question a bit: instead of, "Why can't we just fight?" I ask, "How can we keep the game flowing at the level of our issues and motivations, rather than the appearances?"