This was my first session with PtA. The show "FLUX!" was a combination of 30's hard-boiled detective fiction and the pulpish science fiction of the era. The players were detectives who specialized in crimes involving flux, a new scientific breakthrough which allows for all sorts of sci-fi gadgets.

The players
-------
— A hard-boiled detective in the Micky Spilane mold. His issue was alcoholism.

J- A rebellious adventurer daughter of a wealthy family. Her issue was independence from her family and the world of privilege and compromise it represents.

A- A scientific genius/ Texas cowgirl. Her issue was the sexism of the scientific community.

The story
------
The characters investigate the theft of a focused magnetic field generator (sort of a tractor beam) from a laboratory. After investigating the lab and following various red herrings, the PC's focus their attention on a lab scientist with gambling debts. J's character runs into her ex-fiance while at dinner vamping a witness for information and lost an attempt to save face. A's character is lightly chided by a senior male scientist for defying gender roles. When interviewing the gambling scientist, the party is attacked by the gangsters. The PC's capture a gangster, discover the gangsters plans (involving using the generator in an act of high seas piracy) and foil the plot.

Post Mortem
------
The Bad
1) There was a lot of confusion between the players and myself between scene requesting "I want a scene that focuses on my issue" scene framing "This is where the scene takes place and what will happen in it" and the actual scene "l cold cock the gangster with my pistol". Players would segue from scene requests to scene framing. Players would keep using third person "author" language and avoid actually starting scenes. It effected pace negatively. This was mostly my fault, I don't think I explained the difference between requesting and framing well enough.

2) Players were uncomfortable taking narrative control. J and M actively requested more control of the narrative on my (the GM's) part. J and M clearly requested exploration of the GM developed situation. J-"I like having rules, so I can break them." M-"I don't want to break 'your story'".
This sounds to me like a classic clash of creative agendas, with J & M as simulationists chafing under the naritivist structures of PtA.

3) Players did not actively work to explore their issues. I had to actively work to engage the players on their issues. Players instead acted to further the action adventure story. This lessened somewhat as the game went on, and the players became more comfortable.

The Good
-----
1) A, who is usually a quiet, non participating social gamer, was, by her own admission, unusually active in this game. Clearly, the round robin scene passing structure of PtA had something to do with this. Also, the games fan mail system allowed her to be an active participant by being an audience for other players. A, in particular, was giving out fan mail for addressing issues long before the other players were.

2) By the end of the game, all players were very comfortable suggesting color details in third person. This made for much better scenes, particularly the climatic fight scene.


The Verdict
------------
1) There is a clear creative agenda clash between J and M and the games structure. J and M were commendably clear about what they want in a game, and it seems to be simulationism. Although both A and J have productively addressed theme in games I have GMed, I think my group needs a game which allows them to NOT address theme when they don't want to, and PtA is not that game.

2) This game does a terrific job in engaging social gamers. There are things this game does that I will defiantly do again (scene passing, fan mail)

3) This game teaches the Lumpley Principle like no other game I have seen before. That, in and of itself, made it worth the money. I hope that the third person color suggestions that players made will continue in other games I GM.

Hey, Kingston, :)

Cool post. The problems you described are somewhat akin to the difficulties I encountered when I ran PtA for the first time. (Links below.)

I would like to disagree with you that the structure of PtA is inherently narrativist. Sure, it supports narrativist CAs very well, but I happen to think it supports a wide number of Sim CAs just as well. Plus, and this is a bonus, it allows for very satisfying hybrid play.

M's comment may indeed be a CA expectation clash, which is widely different from an actual at-the-table dysfunctional CA clash. My experience with this is that players will grasp what PtA expects of them very quickly, provided you yourself are willing to try a few different things. (Again, check out the links below.) Now, whether they like their new understanding or not is another point entirely.

J's comment, I don't understand. I don't know exactly what he means by 'rules' and 'break'. Could you expand?

Lastly, I strongly agree with your verdicts 2 and 3, but I disagree with your verdict 1. Again, my experience, characters with Screen Presence 1 in an episode hardly ever address premise throughout that episode, for instance.

Anyway, links:

[PtA] Heritage - Good fun, some problems, a call for help - This first one just introduces our show and has our initial impressions of the game.

[PtA] Heritage - Fun, but oddly unsatisfying play - This one is where some setbacks were discussed in detail, lots of incredibly helpful hints here!

[PtA] Heritage - POP goes the Hood!! (warning: long) - This one shows the results of applying the help given above and discusses different CAs in the context of PtA.

Anyways, hope you stick with it. :)

Cheers,

J.

Thanks for all the usefull links. I will surely check them out.

J's comments about rules and breaking I understand to be a rejection of author stance. I like other people to make the world (rules), so I can interact with it (break said rules).

I am planning on running a session of The Shadows of Yesterday with this same group next session, then deciding between the two systems. I chose TSoY partly because of a nostalgia for the genre, partly because the keys give a lot of player leway about the kind of game they want to play. Choose key of unrequited love and it's nartivist. Choose key of glittering gold and bloodlust and it's AD&D.