Topic: Questions on Revised PTA
Started by: Lisa Padol
Started on: 8/29/2005
Board: Dog Eared Designs
On 8/29/2005 at 1:31am, Lisa Padol wrote:
Questions on Revised PTA
I picked up a few copies of 2nd ed PTA at GenCon and emailed Matt a couple of questions which he said to post here. (Note that my experience with PTA is a) one 10 minute demo at GenCon 2004, b) reading 1st edition about 3 times, c) one magnificent session at DexCon 8, and d) reading 2nd edition PTA.)
How viable is a 5 session arc with 5 players? 8? 10? 12? Come to that, how viable is a 9 session arc with more than 8 players?
Is there any limit to the number of personal sets per player? To the number of uses of each set per session?
In general, I agree that a scene where the character makes out a shopping list is a bad scene, but I can think of a couple of exceptions. One is from one of Steven Brust's Jhereg books, which opens with a laundry list. Succeeding chapters show how the protagonist, who is an assassin, damaged each item on the list. I'd probably do this as a shot of the list as the opening credits -- or the closing credits -- rolled. Also, some kinds of lists are very amusing. Think of the Mayor's list on Buffy. (Get haircut. Become invulnerable. Meet with PTA.)
Appendix, p93 -- shouldn't the producer have 4 cards in that example -- the free one the producer always gets plus 3 for the budge spent?
Car chase -- I'm a little confused about whether there are 2 flips for narration (after 1st and 2nd flip), 3 (narration after each flip), or 4 (narration after each flip plus a final narration based on the high card overall).
p. 105: The formula for the budget contradicts the earlier one. The earlier one follows the standard order of operations, multiplication before addition. Which was your intent?
If a conflict is between 2 or more player sides, can the producer spend cards on any of the sides, or must the producer always be her own side?
I presume any conflicts must involve the producer?
Can players play cards on the producer's side?
Is an Ace high or low?
I also miss the spiral binding, allowing me to halve the size of the open book, but the perfect bound seems strong enough. I presume perfect bound is more cost efficient?
Hopefully, sometime in the upcoming month, I'll actually get to play PTA with my group.
-Lisa
On 8/29/2005 at 12:24pm, Matt Wilson wrote:
Re: Questions on Revised PTA
Okay, here goes.
Appendix, p93 -- shouldn't the producer have 4 cards in that example -- the free one the producer always gets plus 3 for the budge spent?
Yes. Pretend that the producer has opted to spend 2 budget in this case.
p. 105: The formula for the budget contradicts the earlier one. The earlier one follows the standard order of operations, multiplication before addition. Which was your intent?
The formula on p. 105 is wrong. The one in 'creating a series' is correct.
How viable is a 5 session arc with 5 players? 8? 10? 12? Come to that, how viable is a 9 session arc with more than 8 players?
The only situation you'll have to contend with is multiple spotlights in one episode, in which case you should do them as two-parters. I have no idea how play would be in general with 10-12 people involved. I haven't had a good experience with a large group in any kind of tabletop game, but your experiences may differ.
Car chase -- I'm a little confused about whether there are 2 flips for narration (after 1st and 2nd flip), 3 (narration after each flip), or 4 (narration after each flip plus a final narration based on the high card overall).
Narration in a multi-flip conflict goes to highest card for each flip/phase. See p. 95 and also p. 100.
Is there any limit to the number of personal sets per player? To the number of uses of each set per session?
Players get one personal set per protagonist. You can use it as much as you want, but you can expect the other players to get bored of scene after scene happening in the same place.
If a conflict is between 2 or more player sides, can the producer spend cards on any of the sides, or must the producer always be her own side?
Player cards are always compared to the producer, even if the protagonists are in some way opposed.
Can players play cards on the producer's side?
Only players whose protagonists are not in the scene, and only by spending fan mail.
Is an Ace high or low?
I think in the examples I have it as a high card, but it doesn't have to be. Just agree ahead of time with the rest of the players.
I also miss the spiral binding, allowing me to halve the size of the open book, but the perfect bound seems strong enough. I presume perfect bound is more cost efficient?
Coil binding is actually less popular. That's the main reason I chose perfect. I only sold about 40 books that were coil bound, and that was because the perfect-bound ones weren't going to be finished in time.
On 8/29/2005 at 12:30pm, demiurgeastaroth wrote:
RE: Re: Questions on Revised PTA
That stuff about multiple flips sounds interesting, plus the clue to a change in budget calculation. For those of us with 1st edition, are these tantalising changes/expansions going to be available in a pdf? ISTR that idea being floated a while back.
I ask, because my pilot episode is next Monday (we've done the setting/character creation).
On 8/29/2005 at 1:27pm, ricmadeira wrote:
RE: Re: Questions on Revised PTA
Darren wrote: That stuff about multiple flips sounds interesting, plus the clue to a change in budget calculation. For those of us with 1st edition, are these tantalising changes/expansions going to be available in a pdf? ISTR that idea being floated a while back.
The changes are all outlined in http://www.dog-eared-designs.com/pta-changes.html ...or so I thought until I read this "multi-flip" thing which I'm not sure what it is. :-)
Also, there will be a PDF ( http://www.dog-eared-designs.com/pta-buy.html ), which will free to anyone who buys the book... I think that also includes persons who bought the 1st edition, but we better let Matt Wilson confirm that.
On 8/29/2005 at 2:17pm, demiurgeastaroth wrote:
RE: Re: Questions on Revised PTA
It was that multi-flip thing that made me wonder, too.
On 8/29/2005 at 2:56pm, Lisa Padol wrote:
RE: Re: Questions on Revised PTA
Matt wrote:Car chase -- I'm a little confused about whether there are 2 flips for narration (after 1st and 2nd flip), 3 (narration after each flip), or 4 (narration after each flip plus a final narration based on the high card overall).
Narration in a multi-flip conflict goes to highest card for each flip/phase. See p. 95 and also p. 100.
Okay, so, the sequence in a 3-card multi-flip conflict is as follows:
1. First flip. Winner of flip determined, narrator determined, narration follows.
3. Second flip. Winner of flip determined, narrator determined, narration follows.
3. Third flip. Winner of flip determined, narrator determined, narration follows.
Correct so far?
4. Overall winner determined.
Correct?
Is there also a 4a -- Overall winner of narration determined, and one final narration for the conflict?
-Lisa
On 8/29/2005 at 3:12pm, Chris Goodwin wrote:
RE: Re: Questions on Revised PTA
The multiflip thing was talked about... umm... I thought it was here but I'm thinking it was on one of Matt's blogs.
On 8/29/2005 at 3:14pm, Matt Wilson wrote:
RE: Re: Questions on Revised PTA
1. First flip. Winner of flip determined, narrator determined, narration follows.
3. Second flip. Winner of flip determined, narrator determined, narration follows.
3. Third flip. Winner of flip determined, narrator determined, narration follows.
Don't do any narration until the whole conflict has been resolved.
There is no uber-narrator.
And re: Ricardo's comment, yes, anyone who ever bought the book ever gets the pdf, regardless of edition. Just don't hold your breath waiting for it, because I have school starting up in a week.
I'll explain the new 'chase' rules in another thread.
On 8/31/2005 at 1:15am, avram wrote:
RE: Re: Questions on Revised PTA
Matt wrote:
Don't do any narration until the whole conflict has been resolved.
Wow. That is very, very not what the description on page 100 looks like it says.
On 8/31/2005 at 1:34am, John Harper wrote:
RE: Re: Questions on Revised PTA
Yeah. Matt... are you sure about that? I thought you were supposed to narrate after each flip (based on high card showing for that flip).
On 8/31/2005 at 1:55am, Matt Wilson wrote:
RE: Re: Questions on Revised PTA
John wrote:
Yeah. Matt... are you sure about that? I thought you were supposed to narrate after each flip (based on high card showing for that flip).
Quiet, you. You don't even have the book yet.
(Arguing with me about the rules to my game. Sheesh. Artists. They design the cover and think they run the place...)
For those who don't have the book, page 100, first paragraph, says "Julie and Danielle win the stakes." The preceding two pages spell it out with little pictures of cards and everything. We haven't gotten to narration yet, and it's very clear who has won.
Then - then - begins a section called "Narration," which explains how it's narrated, with high card per flip gaining the narration rights for that flip. Just like in other conflicts, you play the cards, then do the talking.
Therefore, do what the book says, and everyone will be happy as pie. Or don't, and post mockingly that you changed the rules, and I'll be powerless to stop you, and you may very well still be happy as pie. Everybody wins. But only if there's mocking. No mocking, no pie.
On 8/31/2005 at 2:03am, John Harper wrote:
RE: Re: Questions on Revised PTA
Damn you Wilson! You expect me to actually read your precious book? If it wasn't in the back cover copy, I don't have to care.
So, you play all the cards and find out who won. Then you narrate for each exchange, starting at the beginning of the conflict and moving to the end. Got it.
And make it apple pie, please.