Hello,

The story of Kimmy/Malevola continues! See [Primetime Adventures] The Heel and [Primetime Adventures] The Heel, episode 2.

Follow-up for Episode #2

Looking back over the second thread, I realized that I never did post my account of the second-episode events and game-usage. If you'll recall, this one was the Spotlight for Billy the gopher, who dreams of becoming a wrestler one day. So here's a rundown of the scenes.

1. After an opening interaction with Billy's mom, our hero gets his big temptation - a recruitment pitch from the Other Show, which we decided was called Wrestle America, run by a cunning older ex-wrestler named Walter.

2. We did a series of scene-lets at Wrestle America, which introduced Timmy the cautionary character - in other words, the gopher there, who in contrast to Billy our hero gets picked on something awful. It was also nice to establish that Billy the practice-wrestle

[Although it's a funny joke that the wimpy version of Billy is named "Timmy," and Billy's player is of course Tim, who happens to be a slender athletic guy like both of these fictional characters ... this has led to a terrible at-table tendency to use the wrong name by accident. Hazards of creativity.]

3. It all comes to a head in a showdown scene at Billy's apartment, which included the ever-useful Ralph Mazda character and a bunch of geeky guys too. Patty led the way in this scene, apropos to her 2, but it was important to me that Kimmy, the heart of the show, was there too. This seemed like a good followup to their coffee-shop scene in episode 1. Basically, they convince Billy to come back to Wrestlerama and decide to make him a wrester.

In my notes, I see the phrase "nice use of Hugh at his 1," which implies that Tod did something cool in this scene with his character, but I don't remember what. It might have been a cut-moment to Hugh trying to deal with a Billy-less office situation, which of course is now totally disorganized and chaotic.

We managed to resolve the commercial-shoot issue too, because the geeky guys at the apartment inadvertently demonstrated to Patty what makes a good wrestling-show commercial work.

4. The episode finished with the effective commercial, again with emphasis on Patty.

Overall, there was a bit less fanmail thrown around in this episode, and I found myself reminding people that after they made loud hooting noises or waved their fists in the air in response to someone's narration, they should back it up with the tokens. On the plus side, we did make sure to run the Currency of the game very strictly by the book, fixing a rules-glitch from last episode, which in practice hadn't made any difference, fortunately.

Stuff I really liked:
- Matt totally got into it especially after the first twenty minutes or so
- There were lots of montages, especially Walter's devil-speech, in which we were all just waving our arms around and contributing like wild people
- I think most people at the table latched onto a shared desire for Bill not to be such a damn wimp
- There was one solid Kimmy moment, just right for her "1" and to remind the audience that this is her show (reminds me of Barney Miller when he wasn't featured much - just one solid line that anchors the episode) - at Bill's apartment, she stops Ralph from abusing Billy and with just one phrase "That's enough," illustrates that Billy's choices in life are his to make

And on to Episode #3

After that, we had a couple-three weeks off from this game, as I went overseas for vacation. But now that I'm home, Saturday was third episode day!

System first: Patty and Bill at 1 each, and Kimmy and Hugh at 2 each. No Spotlight for anyone, and in fact, the first time I'd ever played a PTA session without someone in the spotlight. To clarify for our show, here's the big summary:

Episode 1: Patty 3, Bill 2, Kimmy 2, Hugh 3
Episode 2: Patty 2, Bill 3, Kimmy 1, Hugh 1
Episode 3: Patty 1, Bill 1, Kimmy 2, Hugh 2
Episode 4: Patty 1, Bill 2, Kimmy 3, Hugh 1
Episode 5: Patty 2, Bill 1, Kimmy 1, Hugh 2

At this point in our game, I see even more structure here than I did before. For one thing, Kimmy and Hugh have never directly interacted, so this show (#3) is perfect for establishing whatever tension or interrelation is going to happen for them. As I mentioned in a previous thread, I think these two characters are extremely well-matched as the leads, although whether romantically or merely dramatically will be up to us, later. More importantly, I see that episode #5 is basically a mirror for episode #1, with a focus on external adversity, which makes lots of sense. And of course, as mentioned before, #3 is clearly going to let the characters "be" and focus on external crisis as well. Hugh's Screen Presence 2 seems to be a good place for him to show "what he learned" as established in episode #1, and Kimmy's 2 seems a natural ramp-up for her upcoming Spotlight in episode #4.

Well, I'm the Producer, so I started it off - Walter, over at Wrestle America, is up to no good. Wrestlerama, you see, is somehow doing way better than predicted, and analysis shows they are simply, well, good. Walter muses. Getting and training better wrestlers is too expensive, entering into a mutually beneficial deal of some kind is too risky, and so the only option is to sabotage the show, then buy it out. Booo-haa-ha! Walter is quite evil. And he finishes the scene by referring to their trusty, as-yet-unsuspected spy ...

No Spotlight protagonist, so we just moved around to the left. What happened during the first half was mainly setup. Bill begins his first skits and matches as a wrestler, Kimmy experiences all sorts of difficulties coming off as a real Heel, the set of Wrestlerama is torn apart by a "mole hunt," the spy is observed many times making phone calls, and so on. Both Lance and Bill seem to be perfect candidates for the spy.

Now, I'm not sure whether this was due to no one having a Spotlight Guy, or to sunspots or whatever, but this first half of the session was way more "consensual storytelling" than usual. Not a whole lot of character identification at any level, not a whole lot of shifting into dialogue, a lot of reaching for conflicts rather than conflicts bursting upon us left and right. As a script, it was good story, with plot points, plausible conflicts, etc, but no participatory fire.

Tim unfortunately had some schedule conflicts and left right before this whole situation shifted dramatically ... when a poor roll put the show way into the crapper, Metal-Opera style. Now, you must understand that a couple of "make the skit good" rolls had tanked already, and everyone at the table had role-played pretty well that Hugh and Kimmy, in particular, were on the mark in trying to get the show back on track. I even threatened it with cancellation, and this was the roll that would save it, and everyone rolled against me (not common in our game) ... and they failed. The show was in dire jeopardy. This was crucial, because in terms of this roll at this time, none of us "wanted this to happen." If this had been ten years ago, I as GM would have fudged the success and put on my best "you made it!" act from behind my screen.

But without it, the experience of creating this episode would have limped along unsatisfyingly. Instead, here's where Maura and Tod got very invested in their characters and everyone at the table got very invested in saving Wrestlerama. The dice had shown us - guys, Walter may win!

I liked this episode best because of all the major Kimmy and Hugh stuff, based mainly on a (fictional) uncomfortable recognition and resulting emotional conflict and tension. Relatively early in the episode, Tod and Maura had narrated their characters' input into a conflict of some kind, and I suggested that the characters did a double-take upon realizing that they agreed. Later, after the turning point, Hugh had told Kimmy "pretend it's Lance" to get her motivated to be mean during a skit ... Kimmy loses her temper during the skit out of frustration and hucks a chair at Hugh in the screening booth ... and Hugh growls to himself, "Me ... I shoulda told her to pretend it's me."

Well. I'm leaving out something important. One of the reasons the show is in the crapper is that a fellow who'd dated Kimmy a few years back had given an interview about her, and she comes off in the account looking like a perfectly nice, reasonable, interesting person. All well and good if she had been running for office, but absolute box-office poison for the up and coming Heel that Malevola needs to be. The ex (well, not really an ex, just a date for a while) is Marty, and he seems to be a nice enough guy. They even try to do a skit where Malevola is supposed to take revenge on Marty, as a form of damage control, and that doesn't work either.

[Guys, remind me - did I win the "confront Lawrence" scene, or did I lose that one? I think that's the one with Maura's first blistering narration, where Kimmy (a) shows her inner Heel and (b) entirely to the benefit of the integrity of the show.]

Until it comes around to my turn, and I decide that ever since the "turn" in the session's intensity, Julie had been kind of low key ... so I toss the discovery of the spy (and identifying him!!) straight to Patty. Roll! And this time, I rack the adversity way up with a ton of dice, and everyone rolls against me, this time armed with buckets of fanmail based on the awesome role-playing in the last half hour. And they win!

Even better, Maura narrates. What happened: Marty is the spy, and the community of Wrestlerama, all internal strife forgotten, goes into action with a will. Kimmy/Malevola outs him on camera with an astounding monologue, actually getting Walter on the offending cel phone and challenging Wrestle America to a showdown, and ending by offering Marty to choose which orifice the cel phone will end up in. Roll credits. Kimmy's Spotlight looms for episode #4. Showdown with Wrestle America obviously slated for episode #5.

If anyone wants to try to reproduce or describe Maura's unbelievable performance in those last three rolls (I think she narrated all of them), go for it.

Best,
Ron

This is just a short comment, 'cause I'm between meetings. In Ron's retelling of our game session, he says, "Overall, there was a bit less fanmail thrown around in this episode, and I found myself reminding people that after they made loud hooting noises or waved their fists in the air in response to someone's narration, they should back it up with the tokens." First, it reminds me that I should have given Tod fan mail for his retrofit of cell phones over the archaic pay phone that was introduced earlier on. But outside of the actual game play, Ron's description of the excitement at the table, loud hooting noises or waved their fists in the air, is not how I remember our behavior. I mean, Ron's right, there was a great deal of communal excitement, but my recollection is that it was expressed through big grins, lots of eye contact, and other forms of verbal and non-verbal approval. Ron transcribes this interaction in what I consider spectator sport behavior which does not exactly fit my perception of the same interaction. I find this interesting.

Julie

Wellll, OK, sometimes you guys (we) do the fratboy thing. Maybe more than you perceive, maybe not as much as I seem to have implied.

After posting, I was thinking, I have no idea at all what situations or concerns will be involved in Kimmy's upcoming Spotlight episode. And as Producer, I really don't need to. I plan to frame a completely Color, non-conflict scene for the opening teaser, and leave all the conflict completely up to you guys. I'm looking forward to that.

Matt! Oh yeah - this is something I'd like some feedback on. According to the rules, a non-Producer may only propose a scene, and the Producer must (a) vet it and (b) actually do the framing (what it looks like, etc).

Um, we don't do that. Or we do it through such basic cues that we slice away or combine some of the steps, rendering the textual process unrecognizable. Basically, we merely throw framing rights to the next person whose turn it is, and the Producer is "just another player" in critiquing it rather than the eye of the hurricane.

I suppose that if push came to shove, we'd check the text and see that the Producer is where the Buck stops, but so far that hasn't happened (or has happened subtly enough for me not to notice).

How does this compare with your experience of the game? Do you really carry out the deal in which the player states who's there, what's the agenda, what's the focus, and then the Producer does the describing? It seems clunky.

We even tried it for about twenty seconds, simultaneously made annoyed faces, and went back to the way I've described.

Best,
Ron

Can I give you feedback? I've run a metric ton of Primetime with a lot of different groups (although mostly 1 shots) and the experience of doing so has really enamored me of the two rules which most groups seem to drift away ASAP -- the structured scene framing and the "next time on..."

Generally, how the structured scene framing works is this. The player whose turn it is says "I'd like a scene with characters X, Y, Z in location W" We kibbitz about that, people saying "I want my guy to be in the scene" or "I don't" or whatever. Then, I prompt "plot or character?" There is usually more kibbitzing. Then, I say "Okay, guys, I'm thinking about doing the scene like this. (turn to the active player) What do you think about that?" More kibbitzing. Then, I actually frame the scene by describing it, and we start play.

("I" here is me as a producer. I've only played in PTA... never? Something to fix at GenCon, maybe.)

This makes it sound like an arduous process, but in truth it only takes about 10 seconds.

I've found that this works much better with most groups than letting the player just frame the scene however they like. For one, it gives the producer some ability to sculpt a plotline out of the scenes, not necessarily with reference to any pre-determined "plot" in his head but just working with the materials available. For two, it gives a pause in the action (between the request and the framing) for other players to contribute and discuss which, given direct framing power, players often skip entirely.

For a group already used to highly collaborative play, this chafes. They have pre-established social rules around contribution and scene framing that make this seem uneccessary. And perhaps it is, for them. But for the uninitiated, I think that the structure provides some really nice support, and keeps things from being too "pass-around-story" (I say my idea, and now you say your idea), and more collaborative (our ideas combine into a single story.)

yrs--
--Ben

Okay. Not so much "hooting" as "outright laugher" and "enthusiastic addition of details," and not so much "fist-pumping" as "clapping hands" or "slapping the table" (or, the ever popular "laying one's head on the table and staying there until normal breathing rhythm is reestablished").

Anyway. I really liked how this episode came out. There was a lot less dialogue in the beginning of the show, but I think part of that was that we had very few scenes where Patty, Kimmy, Hugh or Billy interacted fairly exclusively with one another. My favorite scene was the opener after the credits, which Julie was just waiting to get under way. This one was with Patty, Julie's character, working out a new tag-team match with Lance, Kimmy, and Lydia using Gummi Bears. This was, initially, all that Julie supplied, but it wasn't long before we added (a) the fact that the GB wrestling match was being filmed as though it was a real wrestling sequence; (b) that Lance was angry because he couldn't be the red one; and (c) that once in a while, the wrestlers would demonstrate something they could do by actually lifting each other or something similar. And then Julie supplied a conflict. Lance discovers here and now that he'll be teamed up with Billy - and that he loses to Billy. Well - now's the time for Lance to be obstructionist. I think that this is where the "real" wrestling really took over from the GB wrestling, where Lance refuses to believe that he could be taken by somebody like Billy, and Kimmy is proving him wrong. I know that Tod wanted in before the rolls happened, so we picked the moment to have him walking by Patty's office in time to hear, "No, not the --!" and Patty's office door slamming shut. Hugh opens the door and the horseplay stops. Okay. Now conflict. Hugh is there, Patty is there, and Kimmy is there. Lance is opposing this fairly united front. There is no roleplaying specific dialogue as the united front wins, and Tod narrates the victory. So there's no dialogue, despite the fact that it's a perfect dialogue setup. But we had no setup from Lance, and without Lance to provide opposition there's not much we can do.

So it can seem like a blown opportunity for roleplaying and dialogue, but it was a great scene, which ends with Kimmy and Hugh looking at each other and realizing that they're arguing on the same side of a point, and that they don't know what to make of suddenly agreeing. And actually, now that I think of it, Julie provided a little dialogue in the coda to the scene, where Lydia is shown still sitting at the table playing with the Gummi Bears: "Lydia and Kimmy both jump on Billy!"

And I think that we won the conflict with Lawrence by one victory, and that it was the first conflict we won since the opening with Lance. If I remember correctly, with each loss we had, it just raised the stakes of the next conflict. The conflict with Lawrence was the blowout, though. Ron had set it up with Lawrence talking to Hugh on set. Lawrence was talking about how great this whole show was, and how wonderful all the people were, and about how this network maybe didn't have the resources to give this show what it deserved -- the budget, the timeslot, the coverage, whatever. Anyway, since it was on set, I put Kimmy in the scene. She's just walking past, and she's hearing the kiss-off in progress in that awful "It's not you, it's me" language. At this point, Kimmy has had just about enough niceness for this episode and joins in the conflict. Tod and I win the conflict, and I get to narrate.

Lawrence: You guys are just great, you know? I mean, it's such a smoothly running organization.

Kimmy: You're not.

Lawrence: I just wish all of our shows could run as well as this one.

Kimmy: You're not.

Lawrence: It all makes me wish we could really give you what you needed to be a big hit. But we're not looking in that direction, you know? I think that working in an organization like Wrestle America would really get this show to break out. Your talent would be real stars --

Kimmy: You're not! {Kimmy grabs Lawrence by the lapels and places him against the wall - two feet higher than Lawrence is used to.} You're not going to remove this show from the air, and we're not working for Wrestle America! Our place is here, and we've earned it. So take your little Italian suit, and your manicured nails, and your little assistant {Lawrence suddenly has a small blonde who carries his coffee and his phone} and get the hell out of here. {to the assistant} And you - get a life.

Kimmy's speech was largely by committee - somebody would suggest something, and I'd include it in my speech.

Let's see, that was Ron's scene, so it passed to Julie, who was once again sitting on the edge of her seat. "I want to catch the spy," she says. Since the whole spy montage was tied to a phone, Julie wanted to use the phone as the means of catching him. At first, it was framed as a scene where Patty's phone battery went dead while she talked to her daughter, and she had to use the payphone, and she'd catch the spy talking. This scene morphed into one where Patty, talking on her cell phone, is going to the conference room to ensure good reception while she talks to her daughter. Julie got it started, and I suggested the giveaway moment.

Patty: {talking on the phone} Honey, you shouldn't quit school... We can work around that part, and you'll definitely need a break for a bit, but you should not drop out... {sighs} I know what he said. But just because he says he wants to support you doesn't mean that it's a sure thing.

Spy: {offscreen, into a differnt phone} It's a sure thing, I'm telling you. The network guy is telling the producer about it now. Wrestlerama will be yours by the end of the day.

So Patty discovers the identity of the spy. How does she undo him? Julie gets that flash of inspiration again: "Patty tells Billy." Billy does the rest.

I think there was one last conflict, but I can't remember what the stakes were. The cast was re-shooting the skit that went awry before, where Marty, the guy Kimmy had dated and who had started this whole thing and turned out to be the spy, is supposed to present Malevola with the flowers he described giving Kimmy in the interview. Malevola is supposed to smash the bouquet and say something terrible to Marty.

The first time, the skit failed because there was too much Kimmy present, and not enough Malevola. Not so this time around. Malevola bites the blooms off the flowers that Marty gives her, lifts him off the ground with one hand, and pulls his cell phone out of his pocket. She calls up the last number dialed, and puts the earpiece next to the nearest microphone. "Walter here. Whaddaya got for me, Marty?"

"Marty has nothing for you!" Malevola tells him. I think Malevola calls him a total weasel, and something about being incompetent (I didn't say it at the time, but being unable to find his own ass with both hands and a map wouldn't have been out of place here). Walter's wrestlers are stupid and weak, and are poor wrestlers to boot. "Send over your women! I will beat them! Send over your men! I will beat them too! If you dare, come yourself - and I'll show you what real pain is like." Hugh suddenly takes to phone to say, "Walter, this is real. Take the challenge." Then Malevola crushes the phone, and holds it up to Marty's face. "There are two ways this can enter your body," she says.

CUT TO BLACK.

Now that I think of it, when did my character turn into the She-Hulk?

when did my character turn into the She-Hulk?

Ron Edwards wrote:
Ben, I think I should clarify - your description of the collaborative scene creation is exactly what we do ... except for the part about the Buck stopping with the Producer. For us, the Buck stops with the person whose turn it is. That's the difference. We do not do the "everyone shut up, Julie sets up the scene solo" thing.

Re: "destructive pre-play" -- That's been my experience, too, Ben.

I'm starting to get a little frustrated with your replies, Ben. Your feedback doesn't seem to be focused on how we are playing.

Matt, maybe you can help.

1. What the rules say.
2. What our group does - pretty much just like the rules, with lots of feedback, except that the person whose turn it is holds the Buck authority (if anyone).
3. What Ben is talking about - various things we're not doing that are neither #1 or #2.

I'd like to focus on the difference between #1 and #2. Ben, can you do that, in this thread? Matt, can you speak to this difference in terms of your experience of play?

Best,
Ron

Hey Ron:

If I'm getting it, it's something like this:


• the rules currently read kind of like "player names three things, and then the producer turns it into something akin to old D&D module boxed text."
• Your group follows this pretty close except for it's the player whose turn it is who does the talking.



Is that right? Lemme make sure I'm getting that right before i go any further.

I read Ron's "where the buck stops" not as who talks, but as who confirms content. So in his game, as I understand it, the "turn" player may suggest ideas for the scene, but so does everyone else. Then the "turn" player decides what will be included.

Does that mean the "turn" player narrates the information he or she chooses to confirm? It sounds like that's a default in Ron's game, but in practice the process is chaotic. The description reminds me of theater improv, where a group brainstorms situation and actor motives.

I think Ron's kind of play requires the players to understand which information to provide -- and to refrain from suggesting what might happen. I think this latter is the temptation that I've seen in many PTA sessions. In my experience, there needs to be a mechanism for separating the creation of situation and motives from the unfolding of events. Matt's rules achieve this in one way -- I think Ron's group has a set of rules that achieve it in a different way.

Hi,

Matt and Alan, you both have it exactly right.

Any comparisons with the way you guys use/play the game?

Best,
Ron

Ron:

Honestly, it was kind of an instinctual decision (which means maybe it's gamer baggage, damnit), but I can think of reasons why I'd like it that way.

One is to set up a nice rhythmic flow of exchange, so that you contribute your bits of information and step back so other people can jump in. If it's all in one person's hands, there are potential problems with rambling and meandering.

How long does it take, typically, for your group to get through the setup of a scene?

Hiya,

I think it's an important design and play consideration, so (unlike the 5 edges) I don't think it's baggage either. Stick with it, if that's what seems functional in your own play.

Setup takes ... um, I'd say only a few minutes, for us. Although I'm not always sure. We've been known to retrofit scene concepts extensively even after some character-heavy role-playing gets going. The most common retrofit is to establish that someone "was there" after the player suddenly gets invested enough in the scene for his or her character to be there. Sometimes we have them show up, sometimes we retrofit. This is only a hassle if it arises after the dice are starting to appear, and I tend to be a little hard-assed at this point and say, "If you aren't here now, then you're not."

Sometimes I think our approach is almost post-production rather than scripting + shooting. It's as if our dialogue were about cuts, montages, and editing, with the acting/directing being provided as we go. Kind of the reverse of a way a show is really shot (acting/directing first, editing later).

Best,
Ron

Hello,

I read over this thread after talking with some of my fellow players, and here's what I'm not getting.

Does anyone play PTA strictly following the textual rules for scene creation?

1. Person whose turn it is states three designated things (focus, etc; however they're phrased in the book)

2. Producer frames location, who's present, how it looks, what's going on, etc.

For instance, Ben and Matt, I cannot tell from your posts whether you do this. Do you?

Best,
Ron

My group sometimes does and sometimes doesn't. I made a little animated diagram of it!

http://www.lumpley.com/images/syspta.gif

When we don't play by the rules as written, we tend to badly and unhappily pre-play the scene.

-Vincent

Ron Edwards wrote:
Does anyone play PTA strictly following the textual rules for scene creation?

I've only played in playtests last year, with Matt as a player, but we did focus pretty much on the rules as you lay them out Ron. As Producer, I found the distinctions useful for preventing the turn player from just describing the key parts of the conflict, and so blowing the whole purpose of playing a scene.

Also, our players didn't grab opportunities to drive their agendas as much as I would have liked. That might be lack of familiarity with the PTA approach, or a lack of interest in the narrativist agenda. I'm always surprised when people don't grab the powers given to them by rules like PTA and protagonize their character (or the spotlight character). When I (rarely) get to play instead of GM such a game, I enthusiastically drive with those kind of mechanics.

Ron wrote:
For instance, Ben and Matt, I cannot tell from your posts whether you do this. Do you?

Best,
Ron

I do, with the addition of some kibbitzing from the other players.