Mod ideas: Quality of Success/Failure, Fan Mail Trait Use, Fan Mail Awards

[Sindyr]

Would these mods work, or cause problems?

Quality of Success:  The more you beat the GM by, the more complete your success.  Win by 0 cards (by having most hearts, or lowest card) = barely successful; win by 1 card = significant success, win by 2 cards or more = complete success.  Likewise, failure can work the same way: Lose by 0 = barely, lose by 1 = setback, lose by 2 = utter failure

Example:  Billy is trying to get his Dad to respect him more, to stop treating him like a boy and to start treating him like a man.  Here are the possible outcomes:
Lose by 2 or worse:  "Son, I am very disappointed in you.  When will you grow up and stop acting like a child?"
Lose by 1:  "Son, I know you are in a hurry to grow up, but you're just not ready yet."
Lose by 0: "Son, give it time - if you don't force it, it will come."
Win by 0: "Son, good job - you are heading in the right direction."
Win by 1: "Son, I am so proud of you - good job!"
Win by 2 or more: "Son, you have left behind the boy you were for the man you are, and I couldn't be more proud."

Thoughts?

Fan Mail Trait Use:  A small mod - right now as I read the rules, any red card that comes from Fan Mail directly returns as budget, but spending a Fan Mail to gain an extra Trait use does not turn into Budget if it comes up red.  I wonder if it wouldn't be better and more straightforward to simply say that ANY card that comes up red that was gotten with Fan Mail (whether directly or through Trait re-use) goes back into the GM's budget?

Fan Mail Awards:

I am still entirely convinced that the current Fan Mail system needs modification.  The problems I would want to solve include:
- fostering resentment if one feels one is being underawarded for one's cool plays because one is not the popular one - creating interplayer discord.
- player collusion in the face of a threat to all, such as going into a major showdown scene soon, so they begin awarding each other FM like mad
- player collusion pre-game to award out evenly all FM, because 1) they care about the outcome of their conflicts and 2) they are smart enough to use the mechanics of the system to their advantage

Now, personally, I *want* the players to care about the outcome of the Conflict.  What makes *any* narrative game engaging is three things:
a) there is drama
b) there are outcomes to that drama, that the players favor or disfavor
c) the actions and choices of the players can affect the likelihood of the outcomes that they favor or disfavor

If you don't have the above three things, you do not have an interesting and compelling experience, IMO.  If you *do* have those three things, you have a situation in which tactical play becomes the primary method by which the rational and intelligent player tries to interact with the game.

This demonstrates the problem that the current Fan Mail distribution system presents me.  Here is a thought for a replacement system:

At the end of the episode, the GM gives each player a score.  Let's say that Alice gets a 3.  This means that *next* episode she gets 1 Fan Mail awarded to her at the start of each of the first *three* scenes.  If Bill only gets a 2 this means that next episode he gets 1 Fan Mail at the start of the first scene, and one more at the start of the second.

Now, I would love feedback specifically on what the minimum, maximum, and average GM award should be.  I would also love feedback on the criteria that anyone feels would be good to decide the rating each player gets.  Also, what rating should the players start with in the first episode?

(Perhaps a rating of 1-5: 1 for being there, 1 for MVP (let the players vote on this one?), 1 for character growth, 1 for special success, 1 for player contributions?  Or maybe 1 for being there, 0-2 for overall player contribution, 0-2 for compelling character play?)

I am slightly open to ciritcisms of the idea in general, if well and thoroughly presented, but mostly only if alternative ideas are also presented that removes the current system of player-distributed resources.

Thanks all.

[Matt Wilson]

A small mod - right now as I read the rules, any red card that comes from Fan Mail directly returns as budget, but spending a Fan Mail to gain an extra Trait use does not turn into Budget if it comes up red.

Did I really say that? WTF?

[Sindyr]

Perhaps its more of an implication - I would copy and paste the relevant bits here but the pdf doesn't seem to permit it and there doesn't seem to be a way to post images here.

In brief, under Spending Fan Mail p32 of the pdf it says you can spend Fan Mail directly for additional cards.  If these come up red, they go back to the budget. 

On page 8 of the pdf, it says that traits are used a number of times equal to the Screen Presence - any use of a trait after that number has been reached must be purchased with fan mail fo each additional usage.

While buying an additional use of a used-up trait may give you an extra card, if it wasn't a different act mechanically, then why would you include it when you can spend aFan Mail for an extra card without even dealing with your traits?  Therefor, the key difference must be that while you spoke of the chance for the GM to win back budget when spending FM for cards directly, you included (as far as I can find) no such limitation otherwise.  In fact, as I recall, when using your traits to get extra cards, the GM does not get the chance to add t his budget.  Therefor, the rule that permits you to spend a Fan Mail to use a used-trait again would be expected to be used as it normally gets used - no chance for added GM budget.

In fact, the game would potentially be better off (and less confusing) to remove the idea that Fan Mail has anything to do with traits at all, and just have 1 Fan Mail buy 1 card, which if it turns up red, goes back to the GM as budget.

Why even have Fan Mail used to re-use spent Traits? 

Confused, me.

Also, there a lot more in the first post on this topic that I made I am hoping for constructive thoughts on.

[FredGarber]

As to the 'broken' Fan Mail mechanic?
In my opinion, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the players, in order to achieve their stakes, awarding FM as much as they can to each other, in order to spend it all thereafter on extra cards/ trait refreshes, whatever.

In my view, as the Producer, my role is not to promote MY stakes over the players.  I do not lose if they get what they want.  I'm going to repeat that, because it is so fundamental to the way I play, either as Protagonist or as Producer : I do not lose if another player gets what they want, I only lose when I propose something lame, and the cards give it to us.

So if the players spend a lot of Fan Mail, get a bunch of red cards, and narrate favorable outcomes for each other, and direct the story the way they want it to go? How is that not "Teh Awesome" ?    Isn't that why we all sat down, to make an episode of this show together? Player Collusion is exactly what I want.  I want my players to Collude like crazy.

As to a player who is stuck never getting FanMail?  This is social interplay made manifest in the game.  What is he proposing, and why do other people think it's not cool?  Do they just forget to spend FanMail?  Is his character out of sync with the rest of the protagonists?  I should maybe think like a real TV show producer, and try and increase my ratings.  If the character isn't getting any Fan Mail, retool it.  In the fiction of an imaginary TV show, the more FanMail that my show receives, the 'better' my show's ratings.

[Sindyr]

As to the 'broken' Fan Mail mechanic?
In my opinion, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the players, in order to achieve their stakes, awarding FM as much as they can to each other, in order to spend it all thereafter on extra cards/ trait refreshes, whatever.

In my view, as the Producer, my role is not to promote MY stakes over the players.  I do not lose if they get what they want.  I'm going to repeat that, because it is so fundamental to the way I play, either as Protagonist or as Producer : I do not lose if another player gets what they want, I only lose when I propose something lame, and the cards give it to us.

So if the players spend a lot of Fan Mail, get a bunch of red cards, and narrate favorable outcomes for each other, and direct the story the way they want it to go? How is that not "Teh Awesome" ?    Isn't that why we all sat down, to make an episode of this show together? Player Collusion is exactly what I want.  I want my players to Collude like crazy.

Cool - on the other hand, if the players are gonna collude and make sure that they each receive one FM per scene, why not just simply have the GM hand that out?

Didn't see you reply to the idea of GM awarded Fan Mail above - what did you think about it? (Not the general idea, but the specific implementation described above.)

As to a player who is stuck never getting FanMail?  This is social interplay made manifest in the game.  What is he proposing, and why do other people think it's not cool?  Do they just forget to spend FanMail?  Is his character out of sync with the rest of the protagonists?  I should maybe think like a real TV show producer, and try and increase my ratings.  If the character isn't getting any Fan Mail, retool it.  In the fiction of an imaginary TV show, the more FanMail that my show receives, the 'better' my show's ratings.

Or it may just be that he is proposing exactly the same stuff as the people who are getting the rewards.  For example, it is easy to imagine a group of 3 players - 2 of which are best friends with each other and the other one doesn't really hang out with the other two when not gaming.  It is quite understandable that "somehow" the best freinds may tend to award each lots of FM, and the 3rd guy might be stuck with the short end of the stick, through no fault of his own.

The good thing about GM awards is that while human dynamics affect all award judgements, the GM is in a somewhat better place to be aware of and counter-act to them.

Another thing:  what do you think about the Quality of Success idea above?  In specific?

[Eero Tuovinen]

The quality of success thing seems to me like it'd work without problems for a group that liked that sort of attention to detail. Might be too much trouble for what it's worth in this game the way I and apparently several other people play - PTA in our hands tends to be a pretty aesthetic instrument where we lavish plenty of attention on the visuals and rhythm of an individual scene. In that context we don't really want the rules to constrain us too much in pacing play; it's enough for the rules to tell us the direction we should go next, but not a speed limit. Also, ambiguity doesn't work in television, you need to be able to wrap things up and provide concrete issues for characters; having a character only kinda-sorta triumph is not so good when you want resolution. Ambiguous outcomes that are needed at the beginning of stories are mostly handled by not making them conflicts or just making the conflicts small and ambiguous in the first place. It seems something of a hazard to leave a pacing issue (which this ultimately comes down to) up to the cards.

As for fan mail and traits, I never used the rule about spending fan mail to use traits. What's the point, isn't the outcome exactly the same (another card for the conflict) anyway?

And finally, brokenness of fan mail; I'm not seeing it, and I suspect that I know why: you're projecting negative issues on a system that is normally only used in a positive and cooperative atmosphere. I can understand how somebody might consider this a design flaw, but the fan mail mechanics simply are not intended to work with the sort of scenarios you project. Two friends excluding a third in distributing fan mail is a perfect example of the sort of callous, shallow behavior that is the very antithesis of the sympathy and interest that should permeate a functionally creative group; if you're just interested in sucking up to your girlfriend, say, instead of giving your attention, interest and fanmail to good ideas, the whole point of the system is already lost - the fan mail rules are nothing more than a concrete way for the players to show their appreciation for each other's ideas. We can talk about how this can go wrong until we're blue in the face, but that doesn't change the fact that the application of the system already went wrong the second you chose a play dynamic where the fan mail was not distributed according to this criterion. Simply put: if the group cannot play in the mindset of earnest cooperation that the game presumes, then all those rules that expect such cooperation will of course fail.

In reality, of course, it's pretty difficult for a minority of the game group to start doing their own thing with the fan mail mechanics, as the peer pressure keeps an individual honest. Only a major breakdown in goals and expectations will make the system go awry, but that's true of most rpg rules systems. Anybody who's experienced a D&D adventurer group that doesn't want to go to the dungeon knows that a game simply can't operate if the group is not on board with what the game presumes as the baseline agenda.

Practically speaking my own strategy for playing with a group that doesn't have the commitment to drama creation that PTA expects... I wouldn't play PTA with them, truth be told: there are other games out there that allow players to be more self-centered, tactical or victory-oriented without messing up game mechanics. If I had to play something PTA-like and nothing else would do... I think that your system is a bit too inflexible, in fact; the GM could just take on the fan mail distribution duties himself, but otherwise play the game exactly according to the rules. Perhaps even remove the fan mail pool and just award 1 fan mail each time a player participates creatively in a scene and 2 when he does something that makes the group go wow. There are games that work like this, such as Sorcerer, and it works just fine; the key is for the GM to realize that he is there to interpret the group's communal appreciation, though, and not his own alone.

Still, there's probably little that I or anybody else can say to convince you on this point. You either have to believe your own impression over the designer's, or play the game as is and look carefully at what works and what doesn't, and why.

[Sindyr]

Yeah, I wasn't really asking whether other people thought the existing Fan Mail system was broken - since I do, and I am good with that, I was already on to the next topic:  whether or not one is OK with the Fan Mail Distribution in the book, how do you guys think my replacement system for distributing Fan Mail would work?  Any numbers you think would work with it?

In other words, I was hoping for feedback on the proposal for the alternate system, not on what prompted me to want one.

Thanks.

[Matt Wilson]

Yeah, I wasn't really asking whether other people thought the existing Fan Mail system was broken - since I do, and I am good with that, I was already on to the next topic:  whether or not one is OK with the Fan Mail Distribution in the book, how do you guys think my replacement system for distributing Fan Mail would work?  Any numbers you think would work with it?

In other words, I was hoping for feedback on the proposal for the alternate system, not on what prompted me to want one.

Thanks.

Have you played the game yet? Your concerns about fan mail sound like they're based in hypothesis rather than actual play.

[Eero Tuovinen]

Hey, if Sindyr wants to mess about, more power to him. Not going to ruin the game for me, whatever he does. I'm pretty fond of my own suggestion, above: don't overcomplicate it unnecessarily, having the players only gain rewards during the next session seems too long a wait for it to rewarding.

As for the system you suggested, I find it problematic in that it seems to give out too little fanmail, and it clumps the gains strangely to the beginning of the session. If I tried something like this, I might just tie it to commercial breaks: whenever there is a commercial break, give the players a couple of points of fanmail. Same amount to everybody perhaps, so as to avoid having anybody feel bad about it. Assuming a 4-act structure with three commercial breaks... I'd go with 3 points per player per act. Of course this is really dull and predicable, but I understand that to be pretty much the point here; security comes with predictability.

[Sindyr]

Ah, I explained the alternate system badly, I'm sorry - it's doesn't clump the awards at the start of the session.  Let me try to explain better:

At the end of the episode, each player gets a rating/score from the GM.  This rating should be a number that on average equals the average amount of fan mail one would expect to get using the old system.

Let's say that would be a "3".  If you get rated a 3, then *next* episode, at the start of *each* scene you get a point of Fan Mail, up to your rating.  So if you had a rating of only 1, then yes, your only Fan Mail would come at the start of the episode, but if you had a rating of 3, you could expect to get a point of Fan Mail at the start of the first three scenes - well into the middle of the episode, if an episode has 4-5 scenes on average as has been suggested.

Perhaps to better model the pattern of the old way slightly, we could use a somewhat more complex chart of when to award Fan Mail:

Fan Mail: Scene you get one at the start of
1 FM : Scene 3
2 FM : Scenes 2 and 4
3 FM : Scenes 2, 3, and 4
4 FM : Scenes 1, 2, 3, and 4
5 FM or more : Every Scene until end of Episode or until you get all you should.

That way it's more distributed if part of your thought was that you thought that getting your 3 FM one at a time at the start of the first 3 scenes wasn't spread out enough.  However, I do want to make the case a little for *not* spreading it out too much, which is that it *is* spread out *some* already - we aren't just dumping 3 FM on the player at the start of the episode, and that as a player, I would rather have my FM come to me *not* spread out, but sooner rather than later.  I was thinking the whole "a rating of X means getting one Fan Mail at the start of the first X Scenes" idea would be a workable and fairly simple drop in alternate rule.

Here's a big concerns of mine:  how much Fan Mail does the average player get per episode in the normal way?  Please don't reply with "it depends on the players and how much they inspire the other players to give them FM" - I *know* that, but obviously it's not random.  I need to figure out the guidelines for the award as given out by the GM and I want to have roughly the same chance for players to expect about the same amount of Fan Mail as in good PTA game.

Question: How common is it for a player to do something cool, and get multiple FM for it?  That is, if a player does some really spiffy narrating and another player gives him a FM token, is it common for the third (non-GM) player to chime in and also give the narrator a FM token?  Or is it usually the practice that when a player in a group awards FM to another player, the third player tends to *not* "pile on", because the thought at the table is that one can only give out on FM per player per scene, and the narrating player has already been rewarded, so the third player refrains from "piling-on" to be able to reward a different thing later in the scene?

The answer will help me try to calibrate the award guidelines for my GM-distributed FM system.  Of the cuff, we know that at *max* the players can only hand out Y tokens every scene, where Y is the number of players.  If the episode is Z scenes long, that's a max of Z*Y tokens awarded per episode.  If all players were equally "cool" and appreciated, then they should tend to expereince the same amount of FM rewards.  Therefor, in such a group, the max award per player where all player are equal would be (Z*Y)/Y, or Z, the number of scenes in the episode.

Therefor, if all players are equally "cool", they should each expect a number of FM tokens from 0 to Z.  If one player is "cooler" than the others, he would expect to see that range raise somewhat - say from (Y-1) to Z*(Y-1), or probably closer to Y-1 up to (Z*(Y-1)/1.5)

Anyways, that's the kind of math I am turning over in my head, but before I take it further, I guess I need to know how common or normal it is for a player to get multiple (more than one, anyway) tokens in a single moment of award?

Thanks.

[Sindyr]

Yeah, I wasn't really asking whether other people thought the existing Fan Mail system was broken - since I do, and I am good with that, I was already on to the next topic:  whether or not one is OK with the Fan Mail Distribution in the book, how do you guys think my replacement system for distributing Fan Mail would work?  Any numbers you think would work with it?

In other words, I was hoping for feedback on the proposal for the alternate system, not on what prompted me to want one.

Thanks.

Have you played the game yet? Your concerns about fan mail sound like they're based in hypothesis rather than actual play.

Matt, this is not directed at you - but it is directed at the prioritization of "actual play" or analysis:

You may not have seen my other posts around the Forge, but it cannot be understated how much I despise and have contempt for the idea that one cannot think through a situation before experiencing it.  I find the idea that one cannot meaningfully understand, analyze, or discuss a subject prior to or apart from experiences in the subject utterly false, and quite naturally bridle when some suggests otherwise.  I considered it a stake in the heart of game design and game philosophy when the Forge admins in their infinite wisdom closed the RPG Theory forum, neatly gagging all discussion of pure game theory.

In short, the cleanest and most accurate analogy I have found for focusing on experience to the extent of disallowing, disenfranchising, or muting those who either have note had the opportunity for the expereince or have some other legitimate reason to priortize thinking ahead of doing for the moment, is this:

Should people who do not have children of there own be forbidden to vote on issues that affect children?  After all, if you *want* to vote on these issues, all you have to do is go out and have yourself a couple, right?

I find that kind of opinion reprehensible.  And I *know* I am coming at the whole "actual play" in a passionate way - but that's just because I think a grave wrong is being perpetrated.

Now let me be *crystal* clear - I am in NO way saying that first hand experience is either wrong or unhelpful, far from it.  One excellent source of data is either the accounts of those who have first hand expereince, or one's own first hand experiences if one decides to get some.

However, the great wrong that gets done here is devaluing all other data sources - such as simple analytical thought.  For example, if I am considering a game in which the GM rolls a six-sider each time the outcome is in question, with a 1-3 being success and a 4-6 being failure, with no chance for the players to affect the outcome of the dice roll or its application, I do not have to *experience* the "actual play" of that came to find it unsuitable, or even to critique it and offer constructive criticism.  Likewise if instead of drawing cards in PTA, the players just picked a number from 1-5, and that is their score in that conflict, with the expectation that from time to time they ought to pick a low number just to make things "fair" - I do not need to experience the use of those rules either.

Actual play, and play testing are valuable tools, but that's all.  And being both very time consuming and limited opportunities, one needs to use them extremely effectively.  One needs to use playtesting and actual play only *after* much thinking has been done to shape the "test" for maximum success.

Unless one has 24/7 access to gamers willing to help (living with your gaming group?) and unless your time also has no value (unemployed but independently wealthy or living withone's parents?)

My time is limited and valuable, and my gaming opportunities are also not endless.  Therefor I prefer to get it right as much as possible *before* sitting down at the table.

And I am well aware of very much that is hated by those that run the Forge, and many that are left participating here.

To answer your question more directly, Matt, no I have not played the game as written.  The few limited opportunity I have to play PTA I want to be as successful as possible - therefor I am quite persuaded to suss out the mechanics and make possible mods before the first game session.

On the other hand, if the rules as written are really fine and functional, then rationally one could expect to be able to defend or promote them analytically, without needing to reference actual play.  At least that's my position.

I am not saying that the rules as written can't work, **with the right group of people**.  But I like games that work without need to have a particular special group of players.

In any case, I do appreciate your help as we lurch towards our first play session.  I have been looking forward to trying PTA for some time.  And tonight will be our start.  Thanks.

[Judd]

Syndr,

I have played PTA with groups of people at numerous cons who had never met each other and never met and PTA ran well, out of the box.

I have played it at a bachelor party where me and Jeff were hired because the gamers were fans of our podcast but had never played an indie RPG before and while it wasn't as wildly successful as it could have been, it worked.

I have taken PTA to the local games club and played with strangers who had never heard of indie RPG's or the Forge, just thought it sounded fun.

I have played a complete season at home with my buddies.

For a while PTA was me and my friend's con game of choice and there are issues that can come up.  Mostly, what we have found, is that everyone at the table has to enjoy television shows.

But the problems you hypothesized about fan mail, about players handing it to one another in order to face a threat just hasn't happened across hundreds of gamers and dozens of tables.

Hope that helps,

Judd

[Sindyr]

Judd, thank you for sharing with me your experiences - I appreciate it.

Any thoughts on the questions I have asked re: the alt system?

Anyone? Thanks.

[Eero Tuovinen]

For what it's worth, Sindyr, I don't mind your stance on theory, but I find it mildly amusing how we fail to convince you that there is some validity in the design of a game we've been playing for literally hundreds and thousands of hours, combined. You're not exactly alone in being addicted to messing about with houserules, so I do think that pretty much the only explanation for why you're the only one here who sees the fan mail system for the obviously unbalanced thing it is is that you're trying to make the game do something it doesn't do in normal operation; apparently we're just not being very satisfying in our explanations of how and why the game is supposed to work.

As for normal gains of fan mail... I'd say that a typical quiet player gets 3-5 points per session, while a dominantly participating one will get 5-10. I wouldn't be that worried about this matter in your stead, though - the fan mail in PTA is a pretty flexible resource, the game won't be hurt much by giving out slightly too much or too little. The game already features lots of differences in how players spend the fan mail, which normally counts for more in the feel of resource scarcity than how it is gained. I'd imagine that if you ended up giving out too much, the players would just blow it more readily in smaller conflicts. It's self-correcting in that way.

[Judd]

Would these mods work, or cause problems?

Quality of Success:  The more you beat the GM by, the more complete your success.  Win by 0 cards (by having most hearts, or lowest card) = barely successful; win by 1 card = significant success, win by 2 cards or more = complete success.  Likewise, failure can work the same way: Lose by 0 = barely, lose by 1 = setback, lose by 2 = utter failure

Example:  Billy is trying to get his Dad to respect him more, to stop treating him like a boy and to start treating him like a man.  Here are the possible outcomes:
Lose by 2 or worse:  "Son, I am very disappointed in you.  When will you grow up and stop acting like a child?"
Lose by 1:  "Son, I know you are in a hurry to grow up, but you're just not ready yet."
Lose by 0: "Son, give it time - if you don't force it, it will come."
Win by 0: "Son, good job - you are heading in the right direction."
Win by 1: "Son, I am so proud of you - good job!"
Win by 2 or more: "Son, you have left behind the boy you were for the man you are, and I couldn't be more proud."

Thoughts?

With narration going to the high card, this kind of success quality tracker is just not necessary.

At best it will provide constraints where none are needed and at worst will just muddle up an already new process.

Your fan mail reward hack is taking what works so well in PTA and shooting it in the knee.  Players being able to give tangible mechanical applause and attaboys to one another at the table is a powerful and subtle thing that should not be taken from the game.