Hi all,
name's Norbert, I'm 34 and into roleplaying since I'm 14 years old. I've been a GM all my roleplaying live. We started diceless roleplaying with Amber, and this kind of play quickly infected all our other games -- so, basically, we've been playing diceless since 1991.

We've played lots of movie-style roleplaying adventures, among them Hong Kong action flicks, mystery movies and high fantasy. All these games were played as diceless freeform. We've been using film/TV language (angles, voice-overs, backflashes, etc) since 1991, so I think I can say we're accustomed to this kind of play.

Being a very open-minded group, we're always trying new concepts and keep those we like and that worked for us. After reading lots about PTA, I decided to give it shot and ordered it.

Unfortunately, it didn't work too well in our group, and the following review tries to anaylize why.

1) Character Creation
This is one of the real strengths of PTA. Being diceless roleplayers, my group especially liked the description-heavy character creation. The idea of the Issue, the central conflict within each character, is a very, very useful idea, so this is definitely something we will adopt for our future games.

2) Story Arc
This is where it gets tricky. During play, it happened twice that the spotlight character's players couldn't give their best because of problems in their private lives. So, the stars of the episodes weren't really acting convincingly.

3) Scene Framing
The approach of round-the-table scene framing sounded good, so we were eager to try it. It may be a problem for diceless, freeform roleplayers like us, but it turned out to be quite restrictive. There are two reasons for this:
a) Player immersion in PTA seems to be not as deep as in our diceless games. This could be the result of the players explicitly having the task to frame the story in cooperation with the producer. In our 14 years of diceless freeform roleplaying, the players' voices always had as much weight as the GM's. The difference to playing PTA is that in our games, this cooperation in telling a story was handled instinctively. It didn't take long even for new players to grasp this concept.
b) Sometimes, players just can't give their full potential, and sometimes, even the most active, cooperative player wants to lean back and consume what is presented by his fellow players and the GM. In PTA, every player sort of has to frame a scene, even if he doesn't feel like doing so.

4) Dice
Okay, so this is really only a problem for diceless players ;)
Diceless play is ingrained so very deeply in our minds that rolling dice felt very strange, awkward even. We also felt that player immersion (for dramatists the single most important aspect of roleplaying) was seriously decreased every time we rolled (or had to roll, according to the rules) dice.

To make a long story short, there is one idea in the PTA book that we will exploit shamelessly: the idea of the Issue. All other rules are too rigid for us and didn't give us the feeling of freedom we have when we're playing diceless freeform.

However, I honestly think that Primetime Adventures is an ideal tool to show traditional roleplayers that there's a much freer version of their favorite hobby. Maybe it can convince wargamers to tell good stories. The potential is definitely there.

I think you were trying to use PTA in a different way than it was designed for, and that's why it wasn't clicking. The game is not designed for deep immersion in a character.

You might want to look at the thread [URL=http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=14818][PtA]Heritage - POP Goes the Hood!![/URL], which describes a recent success with PTA. The issue of player immersion comes up as well, which is why I'm recommending it.

You mentioned that your group has been playing diceless together since 1991. I think this means that as a group, you have a lot of unspoken assumptions about the way RPGs are supposed to work and, well, they don't match up with the way PTA works.

Selene Tan wrote: I think you were trying to use PTA in a different way than it was designed for, and that's why it wasn't clicking. The game is not designed for deep immersion in a character.

You mentioned that your group has been playing diceless together since 1991. I think this means that as a group, you have a lot of unspoken assumptions about the way RPGs are supposed to work and, well, they don't match up with the way PTA works.

Hey Norbert:

Thanks for the feedback. I'm glad you posted.

I've never played much diceless, if at all... can't remember if I have. But I'm aware of the disconnect players with your preferred style have with the game. It's not for everyone. Still, I'm really glad you were willing to give it a try. Thanks for that.

I'm wondering how your style compares to Vincent's and his friends. If I recall they have played a with very freeform style like yours for many years, but they have also been enjoying Primetime Adventures. What do you suppose the difference is?

V? You out there? Got any thoughts?

I think Amber and PTA are pretty much at opposite ends of a spectrum.

I've been thinking about Tony's Amber game I was in (which was discussed in the Actual Play thread here), and how that game totally got snagged in the distinction between task-resolution and conflict-resolution, with a second big conflict revolving around people's comfort with the GM using fiat to cover gaps in the rules.

The reason I was thinking about it, is that this conflict wouldn't have lasted more than a few minutes in a PTA game: we'd have picked a conflict, set stakes, and rolled, and things would have continued in an interesting way, no matter who won the conflict.

So it doesn't really surprise me that PTA feels "wrong" to you. I'd be interested in learning more about your game, if you've got a log posted anywhere. (I read German, if that's an issue.)

Hi Norbert, Matt,

I'm sure Vincent will have some good insights. I'm in his rpg group, N. We've been playing using a co-gm'd improvised system game since '99 and did a lot more tabletop freeform back to about '92. The intuitive collaboration you talk about sounds very familiar to me.

The emphasis in our games has been on joint world & situation creation, with gm's (if any) taking on certain aspects of the plot or world. Immersion per se hasn't been an explicit goal, though it's been an aspect of play for certain. Do your players generally take multiple characters or flesh out setting elements? Was shifting into director stance (ie framing scenes) an issue in general or was it that everyone was expected to do so arbitrarily, rather than when they were inspired to do it?

PtA is a fantastic bridging game, as you said. It's ideal, I think, to introduce folks who aren't used to sharing narrative responsibilities to the whole concept. What it is also, however, is very focused on finding & addressing conflicts & issues. There's not a lot of room to noodle around, playing out the discussion between your character and their dresser as you get ready for a trial you're overseeing. Or long in-character discussions about some aspect of magic theory as seen from your characters' eyes. I felt that ceiling when I first started playing the game, and had conversations with Joshua about extending the collaborative framework out to include that kind of slice of life exploration. I'm quite fine with it now, however, as I've gotten used to and learned to appreciate the sharp focus of this game.

Dice we dropped completely for a while from our improv play, but have been using more of late to excellent effect. This probably made it much less jarring for us.

Now, I don't know if those are the kinds of things you experienced. Amber sounds quite different. I'd be curious to hear more about how you play.

Best,
Emily Care

Hi Danny, Emily, Matt,
thanks for your replies!

Unfortunately, we don't have any game logs in digital form. Our Amber logs are thick volumes of inspired gaming knowledge ;) -- but we only have them on paper.

Emily Care wrote:
The emphasis in our games has been on joint world & situation creation, with gm's (if any) taking on certain aspects of the plot or world. Immersion per se hasn't been an explicit goal, though it's been an aspect of play for certain. Do your players generally take multiple characters or flesh out setting elements?

Was shifting into director stance (ie framing scenes) an issue in general or was it that everyone was expected to do so arbitrarily, rather than when they were inspired to do it?

PtA is a fantastic bridging game, as you said. It's ideal, I think, to introduce folks who aren't used to sharing narrative responsibilities to the whole concept. What it is also, however, is very focused on finding & addressing conflicts & issues. There's not a lot of room to noodle around, playing out the discussion between your character and their dresser as you get ready for a trial you're overseeing. Or long in-character discussions about some aspect of magic theory as seen from your characters' eyes. I felt that ceiling when I first started playing the game, and had conversations with Joshua about extending the collaborative framework out to include that kind of slice of life exploration. I'm quite fine with it now, however, as I've gotten used to and learned to appreciate the sharp focus of this game.

Now, I don't know if those are the kinds of things you experienced. Amber sounds quite different. I'd be curious to hear more about how you play.

Hi Danny, Emily, Matt,
thanks for your replies!

Unfortunately, we don't have any game logs in digital form. Our Amber logs are thick volumes of inspired gaming knowledge ;) -- but we only have them on paper.

Emily Care wrote:
The emphasis in our games has been on joint world & situation creation, with gm's (if any) taking on certain aspects of the plot or world. Immersion per se hasn't been an explicit goal, though it's been an aspect of play for certain. Do your players generally take multiple characters or flesh out setting elements?

Was shifting into director stance (ie framing scenes) an issue in general or was it that everyone was expected to do so arbitrarily, rather than when they were inspired to do it?

PtA is a fantastic bridging game, as you said. It's ideal, I think, to introduce folks who aren't used to sharing narrative responsibilities to the whole concept. What it is also, however, is very focused on finding & addressing conflicts & issues. There's not a lot of room to noodle around, playing out the discussion between your character and their dresser as you get ready for a trial you're overseeing. Or long in-character discussions about some aspect of magic theory as seen from your characters' eyes. I felt that ceiling when I first started playing the game, and had conversations with Joshua about extending the collaborative framework out to include that kind of slice of life exploration. I'm quite fine with it now, however, as I've gotten used to and learned to appreciate the sharp focus of this game.

Now, I don't know if those are the kinds of things you experienced. Amber sounds quite different. I'd be curious to hear more about how you play.

Hi all,
I just wanted to let you know that I'd very much like to give PTA another try. Hopefully, my group (at least the bolder types) will agree. I still see the tremendous potential of this game. Plus, having played immersive all our roleplaying lives, the change of focus as presented in PTA is something of a problem to us; but I'm sure that once we have the hang on it, it'll be pretty much fun to play.

I'll keep you informed :)

Greetings from Bavaria,
Norbert