Hello!

Currently in the prep period of a new show, and I've got some questions about Conflict Resolution.

It seems clear that when there is only one Protagonist in a conflict, he and the Producer roll against each other, higher number of successes achieving their Intent. The Producer may spend Budget to increase his pool. The involved Protagonist may enact Traits and spend Fan Mail to increase his. The players outside of the conflict may then spend fan mail to support either the Producer or the involved Protagonist (as well as bid for a chance of Narration).

However, when there is more than one Protagonist involved in the conflict, it becomes less clear to me, mainly because of the line: "If more than one Protagonist is involved in the conflict, each player should compare his or her dice results separately with the Producer." (p. 49: Step Four: Roll the Dice and Read the Results)

My original thought was that multiple players in the conflict just added their successes together when comparing against the Producer. The above line seems to contradict that thought. However, the example only shows a conflict involving one player (The other spending Fan Mail to influence the roll).

If the Protagonists must compare pools separately to the Producer, this creates some interesting dynamics:

1) Would outside players (assuming they wanted to support the Protagonist Intent rather than the Producer Intent) then have to choose which involved Protagonist their Fan Mail goes to support?

2) Can an Involved Protagonist spend Fan Mail to support another Involved Protagonist's pool in the conflict, or only his own? (In case the Intent was really important, and the player realized his Fan Mail would be more effective augmenting the Screen Presence 3 character with a Trait active rather than his own Screen Presence 1 when trying to overcome that climactic Budget 5 scene.)

Thanks for the Help!

Matt Holy

Matt:

Thanks for posting. That's a good question.

Traits have to apply to your protagonist, but fan mail can go wherever you want it.

I'll post more later today, but I'm on my way out the door at the moment.

Hey Matt:

Here's some more "behind the curtain" reasoning for you.

The reason each player compares dice separately with the producer in a conflict is that each protagonist is generally going to want different things. Seasoned gamers tend to think of fights when they consider how conflicts work, so I'll provide an example with a fight.

Let's say Preston and Lauren, in the Bridgewater game, are facing off against a whole squad of no-good thugs.

First, what's the point of this conflict? What purpose does it serve? TV shows that don't suck generally don't have fights just for the purpose of having fights. If the fight is just a fight, then of course they win, and the conflict is about something else. I mean, they're thugs. Who loses to thugs?

So if that's not what's at stake, then what is? Well, what's the scene about? Is it a plot scene or a character scene? Let's say it's a plot scene. So what's at stake should connect the protagonists to the plot.

Maybe these thugs are serving to delay the protagonists from reaching the evil professor in time. If Preston's player rolls higher than the producer, then Preston manages to get past the thugs in whatever manner the narrator decides. If Lauren's player rolls higher, then she also manages to reach the professor in time. But it could be that only one player rolls higher, in which case maybe Lauren says "you go after the professor, I'll take care of these guys."

Make sense?

Cool. That's kind of what I was hoping, the situation where one Protagonist could achieve his Intent, while the other(s) might not.

And then I'm assuming that Intents can be different for the Protagonists in the same Conflict. Maybe Preston wants to save the Professor, but Lauren really does just want to beat up the thugs. The Success/Failure then could be Preston pulling Lauren away from the fight, "We don't have time for your Vendetta. The Professor needs us now, don't lose your head again." With Lauren losing face, trust, etc. in Preston's eyes.

Thanks again!

Matt Holy

Matt or someone, help me out here.

First, are we basically saying there's no way that protagonists can cooperate and use their combined abilities to achieve a common goal? I can understand the mechanical limitations of this (Producer can roll at most 6 dice; 3 Protags with SP 2 each match that without having to spend anything extra), but a lot of adventure shows come down to crucial moments of cooperation. And a lot of dramatic shows, like Gilmore Girls will have scenes in which the apparent conflict is protagonist v. protagonist, but the real conflict is "can these two people get past this and restore their relationship?"

It sounds as though the only way you can really increase the odds of another PC succeeding is to spend fan mail to give them dice. That's a good tool, but shouldn't two PCs with appropriate traits be able to somehow work together?

Second, if someone spends fan mail to gain additional dice, these additional dice are just "given to" whoever involved they want, right? That seemed to be what we were saying here, but in the example in the book (p. 49) John's die of fan mail, although declared to be "helping" Brea, seemed to be compared separately, though it's hard to tell because he failed.

It might help me to see some examples of the dice rolled and the interpretations of results. Protag A rolls 2 dice + 1 for fan mail, B rolls 1, C rolls 4, Producer 4, show the dice results and what that means for each involved person and the scene as a whole.

Thanks in advance on this.

Azri

Hey Azri:

First, are we basically saying there's no way that protagonists can cooperate and use their combined abilities to achieve a common goal?

Second, if someone spends fan mail to gain additional dice, these additional dice are just "given to" whoever involved they want, right? That seemed to be what we were saying here, but in the example in the book (p. 49) John's die of fan mail, although declared to be "helping" Brea, seemed to be compared separately, though it's hard to tell because he failed.