Hey, all, :)

Yep. Last Friday was the day when PtA suddenly came together for us!

If you want background info on this, go read this thread about our first session, show generation and the first part of the pilot, as well as this thread about the second half of the pilot, including an extensive discussion of the problems we ran into.

Ok, first, screen presences (and issue, for reminders):
Michael Addler - 2 - Greed (relf-explanatory, really... this guy just wants mo'money)
John Hacket - 2 - Self-worth (John is the Foundation main man's nephew, and he thinks others think of him as just the nephew, and not deserving to be on the H1 team)
Val Shiang - 1 - Attonement (Val blames himself for his father's death, thinking that if only he had researched more, his father would still be alive)
Rowan Geddes - 1 - Grief (Rowan's husband disappeared under mysterious circumstances, and once in a while, she looses it)

Second, what the episode was about:
1) Tracking down "The Soul of Ra", a diamond whose wielder gains mystical powers over life and death; and
2) Further setting up Michael's issue, for next week's Spotlight Episode.

Third, "next week on". It's amazing how much five little ten-second blurbs can guide an episode. It's like each of us knew when to call in each blurb, and episode structure and pacing that emerged was spot on.

Fourth, some very relevant things we did different:

A) The first scene. Rather than starting off with the team briefing, I took a cue from Charmed and other shows and made the first scene revolve around the Bad Guy(tm) doing his nasty stuff, with the diamond, using it to kill some dudes. The Protagonists weren't even there. As a consequence, throughout the episode, the players already knew exactly what they were dealing with, and they were already figuring out how the confrontation would work. This made for good stuff later (see I below).

B) Before I even rolled credits, I asked each SP2 player to call a light character scene, unrelated to the episode plot.
John's player tried to ask his uncle's secretary out on a date. I called a conflict: if you win, she says yes because she likes you; if you loose, she says yes because you're her boss's nephew. The player won, and it was very cool. The date ended up not happening, because team had to go track down that diamond, but the conflict made this fact interesting in and of itself, and useful later as well (see J below).
Michael's player called a scene around his girlfriend connection and his nemesis, who happens to be the boss's son and interested in his girlfriend, in a very dysfunctional manner. They were in the caffeteria. I had the girlfriend accidentally knock the nemesis's tray to the ground, whereupon said nemesis lifted a hand as if to hit her. The player had Michael intercept the punch. Conflict: if you loose, you're gonna loose it and bitch-slap him; if you win, he's gonna loose his balance and fall on a chair. Either way, he's having you fired. Odd stakes, you may think. Thing is, we were working up to a "next week on" blurb, so we knew Michael was gonna be fired, but we wanted to find out whether he was actually at fault or not. Again, the player won, and it was very cool.

C) Roll credits, briefing scene. Michael gets kicked out. He spends about 80% of the episode away from the team. Point of note: the round-robin scene framing made sure he would get just the right amount of screen time. Further coolness ensued throughout the episode, with his character scenes providing an interesting backdrop contrast to everyone else's plot scenes.

D) Investigation conflicts. Oh, boy, did they work well. First off, all the "clues" that existed were to be suplied by NPCs, rather than found. This gave me the opportunity to always have a counter-interest. Specific example: two guys were murdered in a hotel room. John's player wanted to know what the hotel manager knew, other than what the police had told them. Well, the hotel manager knew plenty, but he had been bribed to keep his mouth shut. Conflict: if you win, he spills his guts; if you loose, he spills his guts, but will later place a phone call to the guy that bribed him earlier, who turned out to be the Bad Guy(tm). The player lost, and this paved the way to the Final Confrontation, in a very smooth way.

E) Non-investigative conflicts. One "next week on" blurb called for a parking lot fight scene, where Rowan (who has 'college kung-fu champion' as one of her traits) got attacked by Minions of the Bad Guy. She was investigating at a club where another guy had been found dead. We already decided the club employees didn't have any new info to give, so we skipped it. We had the scene begin as the bartender is appologizing for not being more helpful. That in itself was cool. The we had the guys come at her. Conflict: ok, we know you're gonna win the fight, so what else do you want? I want to actually capture one, so I can find out who sent them. Right, that's the stakes, then. One player protested that loosing wouldn't advance the plot, but I figured that just the fact that they're there advances the plot, because now we know that someone is physically after the team, and everyone was cool with that.

F) Player-vs-player conflicts. I got over it. In PtA, I realized, I can enforce the level of conflict. John wasn't present in the caffeteria scene, whereas Rowan and Val were. Rowan's player called for a scene where she'd try to convince John to talk to his uncle on Michael's behalf. Michael says he doesn't know if he wants someone on the team who can't keep a handle on their temper. Rowan says that it really wasn't like that, he was protecting Veronica (the girlfriend connection). The whole discussion was framed very nicely by the way the earlier conflict had played out (see B above). I let the players argue for the better part of half a minute, then called a time-out and had them roll. If Rowan wins, John has to cave in and agree to talk to his uncle; if John wins, Rowan has to admit that John has a point. I didn't even roll producer dice. It was very contained and worked wonderfully! I can live with this. More on this issue in this thread.

G) One Bang. That's right, only one. But oh, such a cool one. Michael is in his office, packing up his stuff. His girlfriend calls him and says that if he apologizes to the boss's son, he might get reinstated. Michael insults the crap out of the guy, in a rather loud voice. This was a "next week on" blurb. One clerk overhears him, as she's on the phone herself. She says, 'don't worry, everything is set up, but now I have another idea, I'll call you back'. This was another "next week on". It was very cool, the way they merged together. So, this clerk calls Michael over and says, 'listen, some guys I know would love to have a solid contact within H1, and they'd be willing to pay big money'. Michael replies, 'didn't you hear, lady, I just got fired'. She replies, 'consider this further incentive to appologize to that idiot'. Now Michael's player looks at me and says, 'wait a minute, I have to choose between my pride and my greed', to which I add, 'and your loyalty to the team, that you'll be betraying in some way', and he goes 'crap, I hadn't thought about that, I need to figure out what I'm gonna do', and another player says, 'hey, good time for a commercial break', and we all go 'oh, yeah'! It was beautiful!

H) Fan mail was flying back and forth. The audience pool ended at 8, in contrast with 19 after the pilot. John's player spent 3 dice in one roll, then 4 in another. I ended the episode with 3 budget, the totallity of which were returns that I got back after the Final Confrontation. I'll get back to this when I talk about Creative Agenda.

I) The Final Confrontation. Remember when I was talking about the first scene? It played right into this. I saved 5 budget for it and made sure all the characters were there. (Michael actually joined the team just in time for this. How this came about was very cool and interesting as well, but it's extraneous detail. If you want to know about it, ask here and I'll add it in, but for now, it's sufficient for you to know that John ended up being instrumental in his return.) Anyway, here's what I said. You're all gonna get involved and we're gonna decide different stakes for each of you. And then, you're all gonna roll against these six dice I have in my hand. To Val's player, if you loose, you're going to agonize over how you should have read up more on this diamond and should have been better perpared for this. To Rowan's player, if you loose, you're gonna loose it and kill this guy. To Michael's player, if you loose, getting that diamond in your hands is gonna be what it's all about, and that'll be the final image in the scene. John suggested his own stakes. If I win, I want Michael to save the day, since he's back in no small part thanks to me, which will validate my worth to the team. Beautiful, isn't it? I had the Bad Guy point the diamond at Rowan, going for a kill, and then we rolled. John's player was the only one that won (having spent 4 Fan Mail), and he won narration as well. He had Michael shoot the diamond out of the Bad Guy's hand. The diamond flew through the air and landed in a trash can. Rowan's player suggested her high heel boots be used, and so she ended up stepping through the Bad Guy's throat. Val just kind of froze there. The final image was Michael feverishly digging the diamond out of the trash and staring at it, arms covered in refuse.

J) Final scenes. I just gave everyone full directorial power for these, and no conflicts were rolled. Val's player called for a scene in personal set (his appartment), where he's flipping through the pages of a book where we see a drawing of the Soul of Ra (the diamond). He is clearly distraught. Rowan's player called for a scene in her personal set (her office at the Foundation museum), where she's flashing back to the dead Bad Guy's eyes. She ends up sitting on the floor, crying. Another player has the camera focus on her one bare foot, then zoom out and fade to black. Also, remember John's date from earlier? (See B above.) Well, John's player called for a scene with his uncle's secretary, tying up that final loose end. That's it. Roll credits.

Fifth, Creative Agenda. This is me getting back to the issue of Fan Mail, like I said I would. Believe it or not, thinking back to how things played out and what Fan Mail was awarded for, this thing played out very Simulationist, with heavy emphasis on Color, seconded by emphasis on System. Yes, even with that one bang. Fan Mail was mostly awarded by 'Line of the Century' type stuff, with many dice also awarded for cool conflict and narration suggestions, but not because they were issue-ey, but rather because they were very TV-ey, and that's really what people were playing for. I can't vouch for the personal preferences of each of the players, because two of them I only met a few months ago, and we're just starting to get to know each other. (I got lucky in that they are Cool Dudes(tm), but that's not the point here.) My point is that, regardless of general preference, that's the CA that emerged from the various verifiable Instances of Play, and I was totally not expecting it.

Sixth and last point is after-game chat. A large portion was dedicated to finally naming actors to fill the part of the various protagonists and support casts. One player said this might help visualize stuff. So, throughout the next couple of weeks, we'll be gathering some pictures and mayeb throwing a page together. I'll post here if that happens. The rest of it was spent discussing how the game had gone. Mostly, everyone had a lot of fun, it really gelled well for us. Two of the players still had some trouble getting into character. One of those is the same one that didn't jazz too well to begin with, if you'll recall my very first PtA post (links at the top). He dislikes the concept of commercial breaks, which, he finds, break the immersion, and he still has some trouble recognizing this as role-play, though fortunatelly he has no trouble recognizing this as utter fun, so that's good enough for me, for now. Things may change when hs Spotlight episode comes up. I'll post here when that happens as well. One of the other two players, though. said 'you know, I was really disappointed with how the pilot turned out, but this time, I got into the character, I actually role-played'.

So, that's it! I was looking for something different, and I finally found it. I think that as long as I get to alternate between this and traditional RPGs, I can go on playing for another twenty years!

Thanks, Forge!

Cheers,

J.

Congratulations, J, that's pretty darn exciting.

I felt like we might have been throwing too many differing opinions at you in those past threads, but it looks like you took all those ideas, customized them, and found your own way of driving the action.

Of the changes you made, I'd be curious which ones seemed to have the most impact. My guess would be establishing stakes for conflict resolution, because it sounds like you set up clear, interesting stakes for just about every conflict. Did you ever name stakes, and then adjust them when it seemed the player wasn't really engaged by them?

Finally, for what it's worth, I think Sim PTA, in the form of "Let's put on a show," is a solid way to play. Besides, if it turns out the show is about a particular Premise later, you and the players will have that much more experience with establishing cool Color to drive that along. And either way you all sound engaged.

Hmm. Some of that seems very odd, including some of the stuff that you're all exited about. That said, I can't really put my finger on why. Maybe somebody else can. I think there might be some drift happening here. Which is fine, because it seems that you've gotten things to work out.

He dislikes the concept of commercial breaks, which, he finds, break the immersion, and he still has some trouble recognizing this as role-play, though fortunatelly he has no trouble recognizing this as utter fun, so that's good enough for me, for now.

J,

I can't thank you enough for going through all of this. Your initial posts of problems had fascinated me - I didn't step up b/c it looked like you were getting plenty of advice from folks with more experience, but it revealed a lot of things that helped me grok the system better. And now, I can see how it paid off; which is something I've sometimes found missing in advice-threads. Thanks a million.

Ahoy, :)

Ivan, yeah, cool stuff, wasn't it? :)

Andrew, there were two things that really made a difference. One was careful control of conflicts, as you said. The other was careful attention to how players called scenes. Once I understood what all the advice was driving at, it became a feasible exercise. (This is including all the conflicting points of view, by the way, which were very helpful in getting me to understand everything.)

Also, note that I said feasible, not easy. :) I was dead tired at the end of the session. But it was a good kind of tired! :)

Mike, only one player failed to find immersion on a level that he's satisfied with it. All the others were really into their characters. The difference seems to be that they all recognize that 'character' seems to have a different meaning here, and one of them just didn't gel well with that different meaning. I'd withhold further judgement on this point until that player's character increases his screen presence. (Should be about a month, since we're playing every other week.)

Also, to answer your specific question, they all speak in the first person, except when they win narration, of course, whereupon they speak in the first person about themselves and in the third person about other characters and NPCs (as opposed to turning to the player and saying "You go over to the trash can to get the diamond out"). I don't find this all that revealing in and of itself, though, as in the past I've seen some of these players use first person PoV used for basically every stance in the book. (Yes, even director. "I get sick and start sneezing", for instance.)

When that one player pointed out those drawbacks, one other player replied with the 'I actually role-played' bit that I put in at the end. I too was fully into the game world, except for things like commercial breaks, the difference being that this gave me a welcome opportunity to take a short rest from what I found to be extraneous activity, so I didn't find it all that jarring. In other words, I think PtA is fully capable of providing immersion. It's just that how a player goes about 'finding' his character under the numbers is going to be a necessarily different process.

Thoughts?

Cheers,

J.

(Yes, even director. "I get sick and start sneezing", for instance.)

Hey, :)

Hmm... Too many questions, so, point by point, with appologies. :)

Mike Holmes wrote: Do they drop out of first person to talk about things like the character's state of mind in the middle of a scene? "My character feels that he's under a lot of pressure here." That sort of thing?

Mike Holmes wrote: Do players say to each other, "Hey, have your character get offended about that, howsabout?"

Mike Holmes wrote: When playing a game like PTA I never "get into" a character. They're just my tool for telling my part of the story.

Does that seem odd?

Mike Holmes wrote: How did the players feel about the "immersion level" in the session before this one?

Mike Holmes wrote: Or was that one player having immersion problems with the earlier session in terms of immersion as well?

JMendes wrote: this thing played out very Simulationist, with heavy emphasis on Color, seconded by emphasis on System. Yes, even with that one bang. My point is that, regardless of general preference, that's the CA that emerged from the various verifiable Instances of Play, and I was totally not expecting it.

Hooray!

Glad you guys had fun.

Hey, :)

ricmadeira wrote: did you thought up that “loyalty or money” situation before the session or did it come up in the heat of the moment?

Hey, that was my sugestion, not Ana's! :P

Okay, after this thread I just had to get in it so I finaly registered and here I am! :)

I'm that player who's still having some trouble with PTA!
I play Val Shiang, etc etc, that info is already here on JMendes' posts...

I really think Mike Holmes is somewhat right on is impressions about my issue (didn't want to call it a problem, because, as JMendes said already, I do had fun at the sessions, a lot of fun on the last one specially!)

Mike Holmes wrote: Here's a better question. Do they drop out of first person to talk about things like the character's state of mind in the middle of a scene? "My character feels that he's under a lot of pressure here." That sort of thing? Or would that seem jarring to anyone?
(...)
I'm not going to go so far as to claim that doing this is superior for the mode of play in question, but I will say that such play can faciliate things a lot in certain circumstances in certain ways. When playing a game like PTA I never "get into" a character. They're just my tool for telling my part of the story.

That was actually pretty clear. IMO.

The character seems more like a tool and that's still some thing I have to learn how to use in a different way.

I'm enjoying the game but much more in a "watching a TV series" kinda way and much less in a "roleplaying" way. I understand it's just another style of roleplay but I still have to get used to it!

Valamir wrote: My theory, however, is that only a fraction of the practicing Immersionists actually prefer immersion. Mostly they are just more comfortable and familiar with immersion and haven't really explored other options thoroughly enough to be able to judge which they prefer. Sort of like someone who's only ever eaten Chocolate Icecream claiming that Chocolate is their favorite...hard to say for certain until they've given some other flavors a try.

Hi,

J, I'm glad to hear our suggestions really worked out in practice.

Ralph, your theory seems to be supported by an observation raised in our German RPG forum. We were agreeing that roleplayers who have been GMing for a long time often find it easy to adjust to player empowerment and the like. Now, there might be GMs that actually immerse into setting and NPCs and run the game on a strict "cause and effect" base. But most GMs I know prefer different techniques that are generally the same as used by players in, for example, PtA. It would seem logical that GMs feel more comfortable with it because it's familiar to them.

BOrg, I read from your first post that you basically shy from beeing faced with essential decisions for your protagonist. You'd rather just have him in a more static situation. Consquently, Val isn't set up for a lot of conflict. His issue could well be used for just displaying a state of beeing, rather than for character developement.

Frankly, I don't see any reason why this should be a problem. Sure, it's not narrativist. But who cares as long as it promotes functional play? Your Spotlight Episode need not contain any bangs if you feel unconfortable with that. It could as well just illustrate Val's grief more deeply. The episode plot could be designed to support and reflect that. On the other hand, you might want to give the whole bang and narritism thing a try. It's fun, you know.

- Frank