Okay, so, Avram, Beth, Josh, and I played 2 pilot eps of PTA this past weekend, with me as the producer both times. When 2 or more people have their characters act as a team against the producer, as opposed to a multi-sided thing, they can really cream the producer. Were we playing correctly?

I don't have a problem with the system if we were -- this may be intended as a feature of the system. But whether characters act alone or together influences my decisions on budget, and my decision influences their decision on whether to draw extra cards for traits and fan mail.

We're also having occasional fits and starts framing stakes correctly, but I think that'll come with time. Still, if there's a thread on this, point me to it?

The reason we ran 2 pilots was that the game we ran on Monday we'd hoped to have another player, Matt, join us for, but at the last minute, he couldn't. No harm, no foul, no guilt -- I'd been told that the thing to do was to give a player who, like Matt, knows he's got an erratic schedule, a character who is an Also Starring role. That character doesn't always show up, and always has a screen presence of 2 when he does show up. No spotlight episode, but no, um, footlight episode either. I was told that this was in the official rules, but I did not actually find it there. Did I miss it? Again, I'm okay either way, and I'll continue to use this variant.

Are we intended to use one deck or two? Ben used two different decks so that we could tell the fan mail draws from the rest. I brought two decks, but no one else wanted me to use them that way. Instead, we put the d6s we used as budget/fan mail (I brought my dice bag, but forgot the poker chips) on top of the fan mail cards, and I used the second deck as a deck to switch to when we ran out of cards in the first deck. That is, we went through all the cards, putting used cards face up on the bottom, then switched decks and shuffled the old deck.

-Lisa

When 2 or more people have their characters act as a team against the producer, as opposed to a multi-sided thing, they can really cream the producer. Were we playing correctly?

I'd been told that the thing to do was to give a player who, like Matt, knows he's got an erratic schedule, a character who is an Also Starring role. That character doesn't always show up, and always has a screen presence of 2 when he does show up

Are we intended to use one deck or two?

I used the second deck as a deck to switch to when we ran out of cards in the first deck.

You actually ran out of cards during a conflict? Holy crap. How many players did you have? Were you spending tons of fan mail?

Matt wrote:

When 2 or more people have their characters act as a team against the producer, as opposed to a multi-sided thing, they can really cream the producer. Were we playing correctly?

I don't know what you mean by 'as a team against the producer.' Can you explain? In the rules there's no way for players to gang up.

See page 103 for suggestions about 'guest' players. That's the only official stuff in the book.

Wait -- are we supposed to shuffle the deck after each conflict?

Lisa wrote:

Let us say that Keruton, Mist, and Firemaker are all fighting a Really Nasty Demon, aka RND. This is the pilot episode, so they all have 2 cards for screen presence. I'm ignoring fan mail and traits to keep the example simple.

I decide to spend 3 budget, so I get 4 cards.

What's at stake is "Does the RND get away?"

Matt wrote: I suggest you take a closer look at pages 61 and 62 of the new book, the part about stakes. "Can I stop the RND" is acceptable stakes for one protagonist, but each protagonist should have his or her own unique stakes in the conflict.

Hooray! You've got it. Produicer has one draw of cards and compares against each.

Last bit, re: supporting other protagonists. You can only spend fan mail to do so. Not traits.

Matt wrote:
Last bit, re: supporting other protagonists. You can only spend fan mail to do so. Not traits.

mneme wrote:
I'm going to play dumb for a moment.

The PCs are fighting a RND.

Player 1 says "if I win, my stakes are that we defeat and banish the RND."
the GM says "if I win, the demon temporarily enslaves the PCs."

I am player 2.  My PC is on the scene.  My goals are more or less the same as those of player 1, and I have one fan mail and three unchecked traits.  What are my options regarding the conflict?  My PC is not on the scene?  How do my options change, if at all?

Also, conceptually, is the conflict between the players or the characters?  Or is this a relevant question?

Matt wrote:
The trick, if your overall goals are the same (e.g. defeating the demon), is to come up with personal stakes that you can win or lose regardless of what happens to the demon.

Okay, the light bulb's gone off. I now understand how the rules are supposed to work, and, when we have the next Keruton session, we'll try using the actual rules, as opposed to what we guessed were the rules.

I am still kind of boggled by the lack of a mechanical team up. I mean, it would seem that if all the characters want to accomplish the same thing, e.g., keep a demon from escaping, as that seems to be our default example, it should be possible to work together or to have the same goal or to aid each other, apart from fan mail. But, quite clearly, this is not how the rules are intended to work. I am trying to figure out what the correct question is, and I not sure I have it yet.

Why aren't the rules intended to work that way? I'm trying to come up with a television example. Hm.

1. A fight scene where, for the audience, the big question is: Do the heroes take down the nasty? Yes, there are interesting character notes, but this is a Plot Scene. Mechanically, I would have thought that either there was a gang up, or there was a partial gang up (e.g., one character as the focus, the others aiding with traits and fan mail), or there was no gang up, but everyone had the same stakes. Clearly, this is not the case, and I am trying to get why this is so. That is, I understand the rule. I am trying to make another light bulb go on, this one about the whys and wherefores of the rule.

2. All the ships in Star Wars trying to blow up the Death Star. I'm not sure that's such a good example, though, since the only player character is Luke, IMO.

So far, I can only think of fight examples. Even "Keep X from leaving the room" or "Persuade X" I can see -- that is, one person uses intimidation, one person uses persuasion -- this lets you frame the intent and stakes differently. But, hm..

Okay, we want to convince the Captain to authorize a new purchase. The computer AI says that it will make the ship more efficient. The human head of security says that it will make the Captain look good. Yes, you can do this as two different things, but it would seem logical that the head of security is supporting the AI. That is:

Captain: We don't need the extra expense.

AI: It will increase our efficiency by 82%.

Security: And the increase in efficiency will make you look good, sir.

Producer: Ah! We have a conflict.

So, folks, how would you guys run this one?

-Lisa

It's not obvious, but the way PtA's rules works, when multiple protagonists are involved in the same conflict against a Producer, their chance of success is greater than when they are alone.

This is because only one player needs to succeed for the team to win the larger goal.

Let's say that Prot. A and Prot. B are fighting a demon. Prot A wants to prove himself a worthy demon slayer, while Prot B wants to cope with his rage against the supernatural death of his father. Both have their personal stakes, but also, both are fighting the demon - so [putting aside thier personal stakes, if either wins, the demon will be defeated.
Now, if everyone bids the same number of cards, everyone has (roughly) a 50% chance of winning. (I've used this number because it makes the calculations easy - in practice, the numbers will vary, but the principle remains true).
Prot A v Demon: 50%
Prot B v demon: 50%

Probability tells us, then, that the chance of the team (Prot A + Prot B) beating the demon is actually 75% - because both have to fail for that not to happen.
So, by teaming up, our players have increased their chance of winning - even though there are no explicit rules to support this.

Just my 2c:

A fight scene where, for the audience, the big question is: Do the heroes take down the nasty?

Okay, we want to convince the Captain to authorize a new purchase. The computer AI says that it will make the ship more efficient. The human head of security says that it will make the Captain look good. Yes, you can do this as two different things, but it would seem logical that the head of security is supporting the AI. That is:

Captain: We don't need the extra expense.

AI: It will increase our efficiency by 82%.

Security: And the increase in efficiency will make you look good, sir.

Producer: Ah! We have a conflict.

So, folks, how would you guys run this one?

Darren: Good point about teaming up! I hadn't noticed that. That's cool.

Marco: Yes! Well said.

Here's a handy guideline (which will not always apply, but is useful when first playing, I think): The PTA conflict resolution system does not usually resolve "Can I do X?" It resolves "What happens when I do X?"

So: Everyone fights the big bad demon. The slayer has her stakes: "Slay the demon." Simple enough. The slayer's bumbling boyfriend has a different stake, though: "Help the slayer slay the demon." And the slayer's wise mentor has yet another stake: "Make sure the kids don't get hurt."

Everyone rolls, and we find out what happens. The narrator uses all those outcomes to construct the narration. So, the boyfriend rolls a failure. In the narration, he does all kinds of heroic things, but they just don't help. The mentor rolls a success. In the narration, the mentor throws himself between the kids and the demon, taking the brunt of the attacks and nearly dying. But the kids are safe. Finally, the slayer rolls a success. The demon is slain. In the narration, the slayer pursues her goal single-mindedly -- attacking the demon without so much as a glance to her friends.

All those things that just happened (outcomes + narration) give us story fuel for what comes next. We don't just find out whether the demon is dead or not. We create springboards for the boyfriend's insecurity. For the mentor's pride in his slayer, or shame at her callousness. For the slayer's realization that demon-slaying is sapping her humanity. And a hundred other possibilities. That's what the show is about.

So, we don't just resolve, "Is the demon dead?" We take the status quo, twist it, and create a new situation that must be addressed. Wash, rinse, repeat.

MarcoBrucale wrote: This very specific example is mentioned in the rulebook. In the context of the stories PtA is designed to generate (television serials), this question arises very rarely or not at all. I mean, 99% of the times the fight is there either to provide the show's 'franchise' or to stress some kind of character issue. How many times did you really doubt that the heroes *of a serial* would prevail in a fight with the week's bad guy? So IMveryHO, the rules are incredibly appropriate for the genre, in a subtle and elegant way.

John wrote: Here's a handy guideline (which will not always apply, but is useful when first playing, I think): The PTA conflict resolution system does not usually resolve "Can I do X?" It resolves "What happens when I do X?"

So: Everyone fights the big bad demon. The slayer has her stakes: "Slay the demon." Simple enough. The slayer's bumbling boyfriend has a different stake, though: "Help the slayer slay the demon." And the slayer's wise mentor has yet another stake: "Make sure the kids don't get hurt."

All those things that just happened (outcomes + narration) give us story fuel for what comes next. We don't just find out whether the demon is dead or not. We create springboards for the boyfriend's insecurity. For the mentor's pride in his slayer, or shame at her callousness. For the slayer's realization that demon-slaying is sapping her humanity. And a hundred other possibilities. That's what the show is about.

So, we don't just resolve, "Is the demon dead?" We take the status quo, twist it, and create a new situation that must be addressed. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Lisa wrote:
How about this:

Slayer: I want to kill the demon.

Boyfriend: I want to stick his head on the wall.

Now, the question I was asked was: Doesn't the second goal depend on the first? What happens if Boyfriend succeeds and Slayer fails?

James is right. But I'll answer your first questions, Lisa.

What if the Boyfriend succeeds and the other two fail? The Boyfriend's goal was "Help the Slayer slay the demon." He succeeds. So he does indeed help her. The Slayer failed, though, so she doesn't slay the demon. Can you imagine how those statements can be reconciled in narration? That's another key to playing PTA.

Here's one way: The Boyfriend helps so much, he basically delivers the demon to the Slayer's feet. All she has to do is make the final blow. But instead she stalks off, embarrased to be helped by a mere mortal.

The questions about the lion situation are way too hypothetical. PTA is played by people who are constantly negotiating with each other to steer the game. There's NEVER any need to construct weirdly contradictory goals in conflicts like that. Also, "I stick his head on a wall" isn't much of a conflict, anyway. I mean, who cares? Why are we even rolling for that? If the lion is dead, you just do it. If not, you don't. How about coming up with some stakes that matter, instead?

Your questions give me the impression that you think all stakes-setting is sacrosanct. As if each player can just say whatever they want and get that as stakes. But that's not the way the game is meant to be played. Setting goals in conflicts is a negotiated process, with an extended free-and-clear phase in which everyone can discuss the goals and make changes. If you set up a conflict with goals that seem troublesome to you for any reason, you can ask to modify them until everyone is happy.

You don't draw cards until all the goals and conflicts and possible outcomes make sense and are interesting to all the players involved.

This will keep you out of 99% of the problems you're imagining.

John wrote:
You don't draw cards until all the goals and conflicts and possible outcomes make sense and are interesting to all the players involved.

Rob, to answer your post, I'm going to have to talk about things which can sometimes push a person's buttons. I hope you know that I have the utmost respect for you and any negative tone you might pick up in my post is not meant as any kind of personal attack.

So, how do you set stakes that everyone can live with? You talk about them until everyone agrees to them. This is something that you characterize as a "debate" that will stall the game and ruin everyone's fun. Something like a drawn-out attack-of-opportunity debate in the middle of an exciting D&D combat. You're thinking of this stakes discussion as "not the game" -- a distraction to the real play.

But this is not how PTA works. The negotiation of stakes *is* part of the game. Talking about what's at stake, and why, and what really matters to the players is easily 50% of the game play. It's not a distraction. It's important.

Stakes-setting is not a chance for everyone to hold tight to their own ideas and bitterly defend them against all arguments. It's a time for everyone to be open about what they're interested in (or not interested in), and cooperate with the other players to help everyone else get the stakes they want, too.

In most games, resolution is something to be minimized. You want to get the rolling over with as quickly and smoothly as possible so you can "get back to the game." PTA is not one of those games. Resolution is a big, central activity. It takes time. It takes the care and attention of all the players. Resolution is the best, most powerful time to hit character Issues. You're talking about what's at stake and why that matters to your protagonist. This is critical stuff! The game is about this.

That's why Matt suggests only one conflict per scene. They're not quick little "Did he do it?" checks that you make by the dozen in other games. And conflicts are certainly not a time to try and "get your way" at the game table. They're a turning point in the story of the protagonist (whether large or small) that we, as players, care enough about to focus on by setting stakes and negotiating and drawing cards.

PTA is cooperative, inside and out, top to bottom. Players cooperate to establish scenes, set up conflicts, suggest narration details -- the whole nine yards. They do not "debate" their points of view and try to win arguments about how things "should" go. To be totally blunt, if that's the default approach of a game group -- hostile debating, reluctance to back down or negotiate, mistrust -- that group cannot play PTA together. (I'm not saying that's your group, Rob, I'm just making a general point).

So, to answer the question again: how do you set stakes that everyone is happy with and that don't contradict each other and that generate Issue-driven, thematic play? You talk about it before you flip the cards. You negotiate. You cooperate with the other players. No, the rules do not teach you how to cooperate without arguing. You have to know how to do that already.

It's actually very easy to do. Gamers have to cooperate on some level to play any game together. Imagine a D&D game in which one player refuses to go further into the dungeon. They have their character sit down and refuse to budge. "Nope! This is as far as I go!" And then everyone "argues" to try and get them to change their mind. Yikes. But this doesn't happen. And in the rare, screwball cases when it does, D&D doesn't have any answers for how to handle it, either. It's not a system issue. It's a social contract issue. Will you, as a player, agree to cooperate enough with the others so the game can be played?

The difference is, in the vast majortiy of games, this cooperation is unspoken and invisible -- until it is suddenly missing. Then we get hour-long debates about attacks of opportunity. But in PTA, this cooperation is explicit, and spoken -- before every scene and before every draw of the cards. Your "cooperation-fu" is put to the test.

Again, this is not for everyone. Not appealing to all gamers is not the same thing as "broken." PTA has very clear systems for resolving conflicts and constructing thematic stories. It asks the players to employ certain techniques -- and it is explicit about these techniques -- namely, cooperation.

Jeez... this is rambling. I think I've made my point, so I'll end now.

(edit: typo)

Holy Crap.

Ok, I had been assuming that the Producer had some sort of stakes in a scene, or that there were implicit anti-stakes, and maybe the problem is that I'm crazy, cuz now I can't find anythign to support that.

Someone clarify for me, suppose the example from the core book was just Roxy trying to ipress her friends.  Her stake is that she impress them.  She fails. What happens? 

Similarly, suppose that both characters lose in the example.  What happens then?

-Rob D.

Though I think that it is a potential subject for serious debate whether or not cooperation is a technique or the absence of one, I'll dodge that and say we may disagree on the necessity of rules past a certain point of open negotaion. :)  Which is cool and, thankfully, may not even be germaine depending on the answers to my questions.

-Rob D.

Blankshield wrote: Then the demon is dead, with his head on the wall but the slayer didn't kill it.  Maybe the boyfriend got lucky, maybe there was an Angel in the wings, maybe the demon is the kind that dies at 2:07 AM on Tuesdays.  The exact details are up to the narrating player, but as long as the folks that got stakes get 'em and them that didn't don't, it's all good.

Some of the things on Buffy that told us the most about her character was when someone else did her job for her.  Sure, she's all "I don't want to be the slayer, blah blah blah" but just watch how she reacts when someone beats the big bad without her...

John wrote: The questions about the lion situation are way too hypothetical. PTA is played by people who are constantly negotiating with each other to steer the game. There's NEVER any need to construct weirdly contradictory goals in conflicts like that. Also, "I stick his head on a wall" isn't much of a conflict, anyway. I mean, who cares? Why are we even rolling for that? If the lion is dead, you just do it. If not, you don't. How about coming up with some stakes that matter, instead?

Your questions give me the impression that you think all stakes-setting is sacrosanct. As if each player can just say whatever they want and get that as stakes. But that's not the way the game is meant to be played. Setting goals in conflicts is a negotiated process, with an extended free-and-clear phase in which everyone can discuss the goals and make changes. If you set up a conflict with goals that seem troublesome to you for any reason, you can ask to modify them until everyone is happy.

You don't draw cards until all the goals and conflicts and possible outcomes make sense and are interesting to all the players involved.

This will keep you out of 99% of the problems you're imagining.

Lisa wrote:

Blankshield wrote: Then the demon is dead, with his head on the wall but the slayer didn't kill it.  Maybe the boyfriend got lucky, maybe there was an Angel in the wings, maybe the demon is the kind that dies at 2:07 AM on Tuesdays.  The exact details are up to the narrating player, but as long as the folks that got stakes get 'em and them that didn't don't, it's all good.

Some of the things on Buffy that told us the most about her character was when someone else did her job for her.  Sure, she's all "I don't want to be the slayer, blah blah blah" but just watch how she reacts when someone beats the big bad without her...

Oh, I like this!

I do see one problem, and that is that first, or even fifth-time PTA players are not necessarily going to get this mindset right off the bat. This is the sort of thing I want to flow easily. With that flow, the sessions can kick ass. Without it, we're still enjoying ourselves, but we're sitting around the table going, "Um, wait, I don't think this is the way it's supposed to work..."

Again, keep the examples coming, please! I am following the examples, but have not yet made the jump to enlightenment.

Yes, Lisa! Stay on target... stay on target...

Seriously, I'm glad my responses are helping you out. This kind of gaming is hard. I was there at the coffee shop with Matt, week after week, when he was first hammering this game out, and I thought I understood it back then. I ran several series of PTA and still didn't "get it", because I wrestled the game to work inside my comfort zone.

Only after lots of TSOY, Trollbabe, and Dogs -- and then a serious read of PTA revised -- did the lights really come on for me. This kind of gaming is just plain different from what I did for all those decades before. And man... I can't get enough of it now.

Rob wrote: Someone clarify for me, suppose the example from the core book was just Roxy trying to ipress her friends.  Her stake is that she impress them.  She fails. What happens?

Rob wrote: Similarly, suppose that both characters lose in the example.  What happens then?

Ok, just drilling further because this is a major shift in my understanding.

When I establish stakes, how much (if any) of the establishment of the stakes is spent on the consequences of failure?

Given Tom, at the bar, lookign a the liqour, woudl it be more apt to say Tom's stakes are:

A) To walk away from the liquor and see to helping his son with his grief
or
B)  To walk away from the liquor and see to helping his son with his grief or stay and drink himself into a stupor of forgetfulness, neglecting those who need him.

I've always assumed B, but the thing about my recent rereading is that it seems to indicate tha that answer is A, and the consequences are entirely in the hands of the narrator who could decide that failure meant staying in the bar,  getting in a fight and ending up in the hospital, since that fulfills the reuirement of him not succeeding at his stakes.

If I am now understanding it correctly, that changes a lot.

-Rob D.

The answer is 'A'.

But! But! This is important: Tom's player can always (and should always) talk about actions that Tom is taking in the conflict. Before, during, and after the cards are flipped. Tom's player never, ever has to shut up and listen to the narrator. The narrator is where the buck stops, that's all. Tom's player must always speak up for his own interests. During narration, when I start describing the barfight, and Tom's player doesn't like it, he is (IMO) required to tell me so. "Does it have to be a barfight? I was hoping for something more serene and sad here. Maybe he takes out his phone, carefully turns it off, and pours out another shot." And the narrator just says, "Yeah! Like that."

PTA is explicit about who has authority over a certain aspect of the game. But the general principle, established from the very beginning of the book, is that the players are cooperating, suggesting, and communicating at all times. The narrator stops the buck when it comes to describing the outcome of a conflict. But she must listen to the other players and craft the narration to suit. She is never the only person speaking. Page 65: "The entire group participates in the narration...."

All that stuff John just said.

Blankshield wrote: Lisa, if you're having a hard time getting stakes worked out, try this quick rule of thumb: every protagonist's stakes must be about their issue.  I know that the rules only recommend keeping the issue in mind when you're doing stakes, but if you require it for the first few conflicts, I think you'll get stakes that are more diverse and gets you into the groove faster.  Ask "Yeah, it's cool that Zander wants to help Buffy kill the demon, but why?  And don't just say 'cause he's her friend'."

Hope that helps.

John wrote: Seriously, I'm glad my responses are helping you out. This kind of gaming is hard. I was there at the coffee shop with Matt, week after week, when he was first hammering this game out, and I thought I understood it back then. I ran several series of PTA and still didn't "get it", because I wrestled the game to work inside my comfort zone.

Only after lots of TSOY, Trollbabe, and Dogs -- and then a serious read of PTA revised -- did the lights really come on for me. This kind of gaming is just plain different from what I did for all those decades before. And man... I can't get enough of it now.

Ok, feeling closer, but still not there.

If I go into a scene with stakes and actions, and I succeed, it seems reasonably that the narrator then narrate success based on my actions.  Ok, as an example, let me take the end of Buffy's second season.  The scen might be about killign angel and stoppign the world from being sucked into hell, but the stakes really seem to be somethign more like whether or not Buffy is capable of killing the man she loves, and the action is to fight him to the death.

If Buffy's player wins, I expect the narrator to respect both the action and the stakes, so that Buffy fights Angel and kills him.  I woudl expect the narrator to feel free to bring in external twists, like Angel getting his soul back at the last minute, but I would not expect him to do something like "and then Tuxedo Mask arrives and saves Buffy and defeats Angel, and holds his battered body on place for buffy to kill, which she does!".  Ok, it's a totally lame example on many, many levels, but something less extreme may happen, like the narrator feeling it would be much more poetic for Buffy to kill him after a round of sex inspired by the fighting.

Now, I completely, completely, completely understand that this can potentially be negotiated, but the fact that this would be the narrator ignoring the player's stated action (or more specifically, disconnecting the action from the stakes) seems like a bad thing to me.  But I'm not sure how that's explicitly addressed.

Now, this is more problematic when Buffy loses.  Specifically, there is nothing that suggests whether or not the Narrator should respect the character's stated actions and their implications with regards to the stakes.    To swing back to Roxy, if her goal is impressing her friends, failure only means she doesn't impress her friends.  Her getting embarassed (The logical inverse) is, mechanically, not more likely than her getting, I dunno, jumped by prohibition era ninjas or whatever people think is cool.

So my questionis this: are implicit consequences, either are a narrative inverse of stakes or a logical extension of actions, something the narrator must respect, or do they have no more weight than any other shouted suggestion in the negotiation melee?

-Rob D.

Rob wrote: Now, I completely, completely, completely understand that this can potentially be negotiated, but the fact that this would be the narrator ignoring the player's stated action (or more specifically, disconnecting the action from the stakes) seems like a bad thing to me.  But I'm not sure how that's explicitly addressed.

I had the same worry as Rob (still do, slightly), but I found it helped to think of it like this.
The narrator is the GM at that moment - he has final call. Now, if I were GM, and a player said, "ah, but you haven't taken this into account - I would do this," as GM in a more traditional game I would naturally take that onboard, and make a decision over whether that was reasonable or not. Usually it is. In a traditional game, the GM is expected to have final call, but is adapting his descriptions all the time to take player input into account.
So, it's not "the narrator narrates the outcome and the final buck stops with him," it's "the narrator is the GM, and must take into account and incorporate anything reasonable that people put to him, and then render a final narration."
I don't know if that helps you Rob.

Yes. Well said, Darren.

So first, I'm just going to state that there is a complete absence of fear regarding control of the character.  The fear of tuxedo mask is the fear of lameness, and possibly some fear of arbitariness, and doesn't really deserve more discussion than that.

Here's the thing, I look at synthesis with the narrator acting as a filter, taking that which is presented (and his own ideas) and producing a whole, trying to balance respecting people's ideas with an interesting narration, much the same way a GM does, with a freedom to pick and choose from the buffet of ideas presented.

Now, when you say something like "There is no way, according to the rules, for the narrator alone to have Tuxedo Mask swoop in and save the day" I can only infer two possible things - either the narrator has been temporaily considered to be removed from the group (since his idea can't be used) or that the narrator may only use ideas which the entire group agrees on.  Since the former is kind of out of left field, I'm assuming you mean the latter, which seems more aggregation than synthesis to me, though that would explain why you describe the discussion as a negotiation (and why I don't).

So, I'm gonna call back to the booth here for some clarity on synthesis, and specifically, whether the Narrator is obliged to use all, some or none of that which is suggested or discussed.

-Rob D.

(And corrolary question: What can they use which has _not_ been suggested?)

-Rob D.

The word "alone" is the key to my comment, Rob. The narrator cannot introduce Tuxedo Mask without the real consent of the other players. Or rather, he could -- but if he does so against the cries of objection by the other players, then he is not acting in the spirit of the rules. See what I mean?

Your last two questions mystify me, I must admit. You already know the answers, right? I mean, "everyone contributes, and the narrator has the final say" plus "the players cooperate to make a good episode" is really all I can say. No one is in a position to tell you -- concretely and absolutely for every possible case -- what a narrator can and cannot say. You know what "cooperation", "negotiation" and "synthesis" are. Do you really need it spelled out further?

Yes, but....

Because my goal is to play explicitly by the rules, rather than in a way I merely consider to be good play, I am really trying to find out what the rules are, so that I can keep that agreement with myself.  I think, to some extent, the confusion has been because I;m really not askign how to run the game _well_, I'm asking what the rules do and do not say.  In the case of this example, I;m not worried about Tuxedo Mask actually happening in my game because, well, no one's that big of a  dip, but I am worried about not knowing where the line that seperates the rules from goos play stands.

So the question is not should the narrator introduce tuxedo mask, but rather can they?

And it seems they can.  And that's no bad reflection on the game.  In fact, it makes it far more a game I would be interested in than one where the narrator is more strongly bound by the ideas of the players because part of the reason I want to play with these people is so they can surprise me.

So the question of what the narrator can and can't do is one that's suggested by the assertion that the narrator can't introduce Tuxedo Mask.  If they can't, there must be a reason.  But since they can and merely shouldn't (which I don't think there's any disagreement on now) th questions are moot..

Well, except, I now am back at not having a satisfactory answer for the previous question.

When I, as a player, set my stakes and  describe my action, there are a handful of things which the eventual narrator must include: How the takes are won or lost, appropriate behavior, and any traits included.

Now, with that in mind, stakes are declared positively (at least as described).  They are something the player will get or not.  Thus, Roxy lays down that she will impress her friends.  If she wins, because it is one of the things that the narrator must do, he will describe her impressing her friends.

Now, if she loses, I think the general response is that she not only doesn't impress her friends, but she actually does something inverse to that, specifically embarasses herself in some way.  The thing is, because the stakes are only declared positively, the narrator is free to do any number of other (presumably interesting) things provided he makes sure to use any traits, act consistently with the characters, and makes she she doesn't impress her friends.

The upshot of this is that the player has explicit, rules supported control of the direction the story will go if they win their stakes, but has no such authority regarding what losing their stakes means, which seems an odd split to me. 

So I'm wondering if the negative consequences can be stated as part of the stakes (So that Roxy is lookng to impress her friends and not embrass herself).  It _seems_ like not, but there's enough flex that I'd like to know.

Now, just to clarify, this is purely a rules question.  I think in most situations the Narrator will take their cue from the stakes anyway, but since the goal of this is to play by the book, not the way I feel it should be played, I want to make sure which way the rules fall.

-Rob D.

First of all: the totality of the PTA book is "the rules."

All that stuff about cooperation? Those are rules. Not "suggestions" or guidelines, but rules. As in, "when you play this game, you do X."

In light of that, I think you can see that "playing by the rules" means everyone tries to cooperate. In PTA, you can actually say, "Hey, the rules say we're supposed to be cooperating on this. Can you cut me a little slack?"

The concrete rules are:
- Scenes are for important moments in the story (never for "what my guy does now")
- Conflicts are interesting, important turning points in the story (never task resolution)
- Stakes are what the protagonist wants
- Cooperate with the other players (yes, this means: don't fight tooth and nail to protect your precious ideas from outside influence*)

Use them all together.

In this context, your concerns about the "scope" of stakes, and how much you can cover (negative/positive outcomes) just don't make much sense to me. Because "how much you can say" is written on the faces of the people in your game. The book says that stakes should be what the protag wants. But the specific way that your group says their stakes will be determined by what the group accepts, from moment to moment.

I truly cannot tell you specifically what is okay to say or not say for every set of stakes you will ever create. Sometimes, it will make sense to you and your group to be very simple and vague ("I make it there in time") and let narration color the rest. Other times, you will be more specific ("I make it there in time, without putting so much as a scratch on my new car."). You know what's okay by looking at your fellow players and communicating with them. If they're nodding along with you, then fine. If they're scowling and going, "How come you're saying so much now?" then you should dial it back.

Rob wrote: I think in most situations the Narrator will take their cue from the stakes anyway, but since the goal of this is to play by the book, not the way I feel it should be played, I want to make sure which way the rules fall.

I don't mean to be all yes-but, but well, Yes, but....

I don't think there's any question about how stakes will get kicked around in play, my question was one of how far the definition of the bounds of Stakes go.

Look, maybe we're not in agreement on a core principle here.  I look at the rules and I see that there are a core handful of explicit elements, such as the three musts, the nature of scene framing, how to write up protagonists, how to use fan mail, and stuff like that.  I also see there's a lot of implicit stuff, which are the loose core principles (get along, have fun and such) which but which there is no explicit enforcement or framework for.  The best example from this discussion is what the narrator must or must not do - the narrator has explicit guidelines (the musts) and implicit ones, like how he choses to take everyone's input into account, if at all - he should listen and take people's suggestions into account, but if he has an idea he's really taken by, he can run with it, ignoring input in favor of this, without violating his explicit responsibilities.

Now, implicit is this is my assumption that this split is important, and perhaps this is where we disagree.  I get the sense that it's the implicit elements of cooperation and everyone pitching in to create a whole that are what excite you most about the game.  I may be wrong in this, but it's the vibe I get.  If that's true, focusing on the distinctions between explicit and implicit is silly, because the explicit exists solely to serve the implicit, and all can be derived from there.

For me, at least, the explicit bit is what I'm interested in, because it is what separates PTA from any number of exercises I have less patience for.

Now, in this particular case, there is an issue I find interesting and important, and that is the threshold where the player surrenders sovereignty over they character and their character's story.  Now, I'm a big believer that players do like to have a sense of ownership of their characters, and that sovereignty is a big part of that, and PTA challenges that, right off the bat.  But it leaves some concessions, most notably in the form of my ability to define the stakes for my character.  I can listen to people, take ideas, do whatever I want, but ultimately it is MY decision, and when I win, the narrator must respect my contribution, rather than merely should respect it.

Does the difference between "must" and "should" matter, especially if the outcome is going to be the same 99+% of the time?  Even if the GM didn't explicitly have to respect the stakes, they'd pretty much do so anyway, so why is that a concern?

In my mind, it matters.  Even if the result is the same, the result based on "must" allows the player to keep more of a sense of control of their character rather than a (fairly transparent) illusion of control.  This is what keeps this from being improv or an involved writing exercise, the lingering RPG element of character ownership.  And, frankly, it helps the player care about the character rather than simply intellectually respect what the character is doing.

Now, that control is not necessary for a fun time.  Plenty of people can let it go without a second thought, and plenty of really great games can come of it , especially if they're more jazzed on what happens than any specific tie to the character. But that's not what I'm looking for.

There's a ton of opinion in that last bit of stuff, and I want to be clear that that's the case because, honestly, if you disagree strongly, then we've probably got too strong a disconnect to work past.

Now, with all of that to explain what i think is important or not, does the question "Can stakes imply their negative consequences?" make more sense?  As it stands, the narrator must give you the outcome you're looking for when you win your stakes, but they only must give you something else when you lose (though clearly they _should_ give you something dramatically appropriate).

If the answer is yes, then players have a little more control over their characters (which I find desireable).  If it's no, they don't, and there's a spilt that I'd be curious to hear the design reasons for, though it would not be first game to tie player control to success/failure.  Simple as that.

-Rob D.

First, let me correct an error:

Rob wrote: he should listen and take people's suggestions into account, but if he has an idea he's really taken by, he can run with it, ignoring input in favor of this, without violating his explicit responsibilities.

Rob wrote: Now, with all of that to explain what i think is important or not, does the question "Can stakes imply their negative consequences?" make more sense?

And we seem to be back to "Can't" vs. "Shouldn't" and I'm equally baffled at the fact that that  distinction is just not making sense to you, so I suspect we won't be reaching any practical conclusions at this point.

-Rob D.

Because, Rob... "can't" is meaningless in this context. Let me give you an example:

The player "can" say stakes that imply their negative consequences. Then the player "can" declare himself King of Spain, flush the cards down the toilet, and run around the room naked.

None of which is germane to the discussion of how to play the game.

There is no "can't." This is why I asked you what the book says. Does the book say you can't set stakes that imply their negative consequences? No. It does not forbid it. It just says, "Say what the protagonist wants." So... can you? OF COURSE YOU CAN. Is it against the rules? Not that I can see. We have the same book in front of us.

Should you? My last five responses in this thread have answered this question. Thoroughly.

I think that covers the bases. Anything else?

Man, now I'm confused. What is this thread about?

There's nothing in the rules that says the narrator or producer have to do what you say or even listen to what you have to say. Why wouldn't they, though? Why would you play this kind of game with someone who didn't?

Because not every disagreement is about stamping on people's idea.  The Narrator may have a perfectly solid idea, but a player may not feel like they're keeping control of things thet feel they have the right to. 

If I , as a player, win my stakes, the direction of things is already laid down.  The Narrator has to go with my stakes, it' sone of the musts.

If I, as a player, lose, then I can get what I need, but only as part of a negotiation.  It may be a friendly open negotiation, and I fully anticpate the players all coming to an understanding in an amicable and reasonable way, but it is ultimately a negotiation.

If I'm a player, the appeal of the win is that I get it out of the way early on.  I get to lay the groundwork for the critical trust before the negotiaton.  That's pretty cool, since it leaves me feeling like the character's in my hands.  It's ironic that a small amount of control is what frees me up to relax and let go on thoe other issues.

When I lose, I don't have anything like that, and that's a problem if only because I like losing.  That's where the cool stuff happens.

So when I ask if the negative implication/inverse outcome of stakes can be declared as part of the stakes, and thus treated like they are when I win, I'm really asking "hey, can I make losing as cool as winning?" (and I mean it in a rules sense - obviously I can makes it happen outside the scope of the rules, but I'm trying to get the rules on my side.).

So, well, that's why someone would ask. :)

-Rob D.

Matt wrote:
There's nothing in the rules that says the narrator or producer have to do what you say or even listen to what you have to say. Why wouldn't they, though? Why would you play this kind of game with someone who didn't?

Darren wrote:

Matt wrote:
There's nothing in the rules that says the narrator or producer have to do what you say or even listen to what you have to say. Why wouldn't they, though? Why would you play this kind of game with someone who didn't?

Because, since there's nothing in the rules that says the narrator or producer have to do what you say, the players (and narrator, and producer) might not realise that they are supposed to take that into account - especially if unfamiliar with this kind of play (and since PTA is pretty much in a league of its own, that's most people). Fan mail is there as a reward for doing things you as a player (and subject of other player's narration) like, but there's no explicit declaration that the narrator should not do things the players like.
It's been mentioned in this thread that this sort of thing is implicit - no argument there, but it should be explicit.
"Why would you play this kind of game with someone who didn't?" Because without those explicit declarations, it's not entirely clear what kind of game this is. This thread - or the last page or two of it - is exactly about: what kind of game is it?

Rob, I'm seeing a lot of "yes, but..." from you, and re-statement of your questions. But I'm not seeing any indication that you have read and understood my posts. It would be very useful to our conversation if you could give me that much.

Your last post, for example, does not indicate that you have read my last two posts. I understand why you would ask your question in the first place. And I have answered your question three times now, apparently without much effect.

Here, I'll do it again:
Yes, you can say stakes that imply their negative consequences. Whether or not you should do that depends on what the other people in your group like. Which pretty much makes that "can" statement meaningless, as far as the real world goes.

Is that clear enough? Are you understanding me? Are we making any progress here?

Lisa: I'm trying to NOT say "isn't it obvious?" I'm trying to actually explain what's in the book, and the underlying principles of play. If I ever say (or have said) "it's obvious" please call me on it.

The problem is, I feel like you're saying yes to a question I'm not asking.

As far as i can tell, you are saying "Yes, you can do it, insofar as you can do anything with the consent and agreement of your group" which is not the answer to the question I'm asking because, well, of course I can do that, be it ith PTA or nealry any other game.

If you have said that yes, by the rules, the implict or explict negative consequences receive the same protections (i.e. they are treated as a must) as thhat which the protagonist wants, then I have simply missed it, an I apologize.

-Rob D.

I've been watching this thread from a distance up until now, but as I've been reading it and my 1st edition PTA text, I noticed something that may be helpful to the discussion. It strikes me that a lot of what's getting bandied about in this thread as stakes is a little sloppy, because it's crossing over into territory covered by what PTA calls intent.

To review, a conflict in PTA has two parts: intent and stakes. Intent = what the protagonist is trying to do. Stakes = what is gained or lost depending on the outcome (this latter is verbatim from 1st edition p. 47). I don't know if this has changed in the revised edition, or whatever. But if it hasn't, than negative consequences are already implied by default when you set up a conflict.

So, let's hit up Rob's initial example: He posited a father in a bar who has a son that needs help with his grief. One proper phasing of this conflict is: Intent = I'm trying to drink myself into a stupor and ignore my responsibilities to my son. Stakes = My relationship with my son.

That's it. What's interesting about this is that in this case, "winning" the conflict means you damage your relationship with your son, because you succeed at your intent. "Failing" the conflict means you can't ignore it and have to go deal with your son, but you ultimately may preserve/strengthen that relationship. Either way, there is an explicit mandate in the rules to set up what is to be gained or lost separate from what actions are actually being taken, before the roll/card deal is made. It's not proper to leave it at "Roxy wants to impress her friends," actually. "Roxy wants to impress her friends, and what's at stake is her self-esteem." Or "Roxy wants to impress her friends, and what's at stake is her influence over the members of the group." Or "Roxy wants to impress her friends, and her pride is at stake." Any of these work.

Why? Because the narration depends on the stakes. Win or lose. "The narrator takes their cue from the stakes" on revised edition page 66 shouldn't, therefore, have any "if the player wins" kind of clause attached to it. I don't have the revised edition; I don't know. But if all of the above is still true, the narrator takes their cue from the established stakes in failure and in success. Period.

Here's important point #2: Who sets up the stakes? The group does, according to my text. The only thing the player does alone is make an initial statement of intent. "My guy is <fill in the verbs>." The group then clarifies what's at stake (page 47). Taken literally, that means that both win and loss conditions (because they're both the same as properly defined stakes) are defined by group negotiation and consensus, again, before dice/cards are rolled/dealt.

This being the case, some of the discussion in this thread may have been predicated on a false premise, which could be the cause of some of the baffling/confusion taking place.

Now, two important questions, the first directed at Matt and John: is the above all correct? The second, directed at Rob and maybe at Lisa: Does the above meet your criteria for a.) being entirely textual and b.) being explicit?

-Landon Darkwood

Rob: I haven't said anything about "protections" because there's no such thing. I understand why you're calling it that, and I think it's emblematic of the whole disconnect we're having. You're talking about "protection" in the "negotiation melee" and I'm talking about cooperation to help everyone get what they want. That should tell us something.

But, yes, by the rules, you can say stakes that contain implicit or explicit consequences. I said that in the previous post, and the one before. It's also in the book, since the book only constrains your stakes setting in one way: say what the protag wants. Since no other constraints are listed, everything else is fair game if your fellow players allow it.

And by the rules, the narrator must include the win/loss of those stakes as part of the narration. I said that at the beginning, but it's in the text anyway and you weren't really asking about that part.

The thing I'm curious to hear your opinion about is I have also said, several times -- by the rules, the narrator must synthesize the input of all the players. You (the stakes-setter) are one of those players. So, by the rules, you may include "consequences" as part of your input after the draw, and by the rules, the narrator is obliged to use your input.

For some reason, you seem to think that only things said as stakes are "protected" (what a terrible term) and required as part of narration after the draw. But that's clearly not the case. By the rules, the entire group participates in narration, and the narrator's job is to include the input of the other players. All of those rules matter as much as abiding by the stakes. Stakes are important, but they are not "protected" as part of the game more than input and collaboration after the draw.

Landon: That passage has changed in the revised edition. It doesn't talk about the group setting the stakes together. Which I think it probably should. I'm not sure why Matt changed that.

I think that one very, very simple guideline (as simple as to be overlooked as implicit by some players, as noted by Lisa Padol)  for generating 'PtA-compatible' goals and stakes is this:
Goals can be just anything, but Stakes must be *personal*.
The stake declared by a player for her/his protagonist, well, must be indeed something about her/his protagonist only. In this way, there's no way to obtain all the weirdness cited in the first pages of this thread.

As always, this is just IMHO! :-)
bye

So here's all the things that go into narration:

• What everyone at the table says, in what Ron has called a "dogpile." You know, stuff like, "ooh, how about this?" "Hey, I have an idea." "No, wait, what if...?"

• The traits used in the conflict, and the traits in general. If you checked off "pacifist," then everyone's thinking, okay, so there probably wasn't violence, right?

• Specifically your thoughts as the expert on your protagonist. You created the character. You have the most insight.

All this stuff must be considered by the narrator. But what happens if everyone else at the table thinks your protagonist should take a punch in the jaw while you think your protagonist should come out unscathed? It's up to the narrator. He or she is sort of like the judge in a court of law.

You don't have rock-solid character ownership. Everyone at the table has an interest and occasional control over everyone else's protagonists. If you win narration, you essentially gain temporary ownership over the other protagonists. Could people abuse that? Absolutely.

John wrote:
The thing I'm curious to hear your opinion about is I have also said, several times -- by the rules, the narrator must synthesize the input of all the players. You (the stakes-setter) are one of those players. So, by the rules, you may include "consequences" as part of your input after the draw, and by the rules, the narrator is obliged to use your input.

Matt wrote:
All this stuff must be considered by the narrator. But what happens if everyone else at the table thinks your protagonist should take a punch in the jaw while you think your protagonist should come out unscathed? It's up to the narrator. He or she is sort of like the judge in a court of law.

You don't have rock-solid character ownership. Everyone at the table has an interest and occasional control over everyone else's protagonists. If you win narration, you essentially gain temporary ownership over the other protagonists. Could people abuse that? Absolutely.

For what it's worth, I find Landon's presentation of a separation between Intent and Stakes to be a far more appealing way to look at pretty much anything that's been said about players setting stakes for their protagonists.  If that model does truly persist (and if you glossed past it, I encourage you to scroll back and read it closely), then I think we can say with some safety that the shoulds come from the intent, but the musts come from the stakes.

Regardless of success or failure for a given protagonist, that success or failure must be narrated in a way that has influence specifically and primarily on the stakes.

The protagonist's intent, on the other hand, is something that should be taken into consideration -- but isn't a must.

So, if Roxy's entry into the scene is split into -

Intent: "I want to impress my friends."
Stake: "My pride is at stake."

Then, however her dice fall, the narrator must narrate something where her pride is at stake (if she fails the roll, she loses face and pride, if she wins it, she gains it), but has only a strong suggestion to involve the effort to impress her friends.  Thus, he can very well total Roxy's car in his narration if she loses -- robbing her of the opportunity to impress her friends, sure, but definitively bruising her pride -- not only as someone who can perform well and laudably in front of her friends, but has someone driving a sweet ride, as someone deserving of responsibility to operate a car, etc.

So I do want to step in here a little and point the finger at both John and Rob.  If Landon's suggeston of the model of the split between intent and stakes is correct, both of you are using bad examples to explore your respective points.  And I think that the above both addresses Rob's questions about the separation between Must and Should, and doesn't step on John's toes in any way that isn't supposed to be addressed through social contract rather than the Musts of Rules.

As a minor-follow up to my last point: I think what's important about this separation between Must and Should is that in a group with a solid social contract and a high degree of trust, sometimes the Shoulds should be ignored in favor of introducing some directions to the story that are unexpected, surprising, and delightful. 

By contrast, the Musts -- i.e., the actual stakes we're talking about here, not protagonist intent -- are where the player of a given protagonist asserts control over what kind of story he wants to be telling with his character.  Making Roxy's stakes about pride is a big deal and a significant constraint on the narrator, while still allowing the narrator to be something more than a sock puppet with five hands shoved up his ass.

Hey Rob:

Specifically, could the stakes "Roxy wants to impress her friends" become "Roxy wants to impress her friends and not reveal herself to be a hick" without us houseruling anything?

Matt wrote:
I see what you're after, and the answer is yes.

But narration could still determine that her car gets totalled. "Don't they have stop signs out where you live?" "Guess you small-town folk can't drink and drive very well. Maybe you'd be better off with a horse and buggy!"

Rob: I kind of forgot about your quest to play PTA like a text-parsing robot. My responses probably aren't much use for that... ah... application. My posts in this thread were meant to be useful for real games of PTA played by real people.

I still think that the must/should dichotomy that you and Fred are talking about is so hypothetical and semantic -- it has little or no relation to actual play as I've experienced it. For example, no one actually says, "Bill, you must now narrate X but you should narrate Y." It just doesn't work like that among real players. Maybe this kind of legalistic approach is necessary for some types of groups that I haven't had experience with, though. If phrasing it like that helps you, I guess I can't argue with results.

*laughs*

Nono, you misunderstand.  This isn't for my playgroup.  This is so, when I play a game by the book and comment on it here, especially about somethign that may or may not have worked, I have a firm foundation when the first and inevitable response is "You're playing it wrong."*

I've done that dance already, and it's no great fun.

-Rob D.

* - Of course, some will then say that strictly adhering to the rules is playing to wrong, but there's just no pleasing some people.

John,

I guess it's like this: by making clear what the musts and shoulds are prior to discussion, I can minimize the discussion phase of resolving a scene.  If those are made clear, the narrator already knows a lot of the stuff that might be discussed, and can assume answers there.  This is potent mojo for ... for reasons I'll discuss shortly.

The way you've been presenting things so far makes PTA play break down like this:

1) Frame Scene
2) Establish conflict and roll the dice to determine the resolution path
3) Discuss what's going to happen
4) Do what you just discussed

From what I've seen you say, I think you really, really get off on the #3 part.  Whereas, for me, if the #3 part happens, it cheapens the experience of #4.  As described above, I would characterize PTA not as "the greatest tv show that never was".  I'd characterize it as a fantastic simulation of the experience of collaborative screenwriting.  For me, that's not a delivery of "the greatest tv show that never was" -- instead, it's just dull.

For me, and a lot of people I game with locally, what we like in our actual play is revelation, surprise, and discovery.  And for us, we want that to happen in #4 -- not in #3 -- of the above list.  In other words, we want the surprises to happen as the narration occurs -- not in the negotiation for what's to be narrated.  And -- to bring it back to my harping on PTA's subtitle -- that's the experience of watching a television show.

So, to weave this back together, this is why I said, earlier,

I think what's important about this separation between Must and Should is that in a group with a solid social contract and a high degree of trust, sometimes the Shoulds should be ignored in favor of introducing some directions to the story that are unexpected, surprising, and delightful.

Fred, that characterization of my approach is just plain wrong. Not only wrong, but aggressively wrong -- casting "my play style" as the most boring thing imaginable. I've already said what I advocate again and again in this thread, though, and I don't know how to make it more clear. So until I get inspired to spell it out differently, you'll just have to take my word for it.

EDIT: Oh! Duh! The way I play PTA is in the examples of play in the book! It's been staring me in the face the whole time. Check out the play example and the shaded boxes all through the book. Those say exactly how I play, verbatim.

Hi folks,

Just wanted to say that I've been following this discussion with interest. I never had a problem parsing the PTA rules, but I'm seeing from this exchange that one reason for that is that our group's style naturally lined up with what John and Matt have been talking about. It's therefore been really useful to see discussion from a group that wasn't already doing that.

(For reference, we get about 90% of our excitement in the #3 stage, and #4 is the formality of the current narrator *not* vetoing anything in particular, and everybody nodding and going on to the next scene.)

Honestly, for me PTA is the experience of writing a TV show, in the bullpen with the other writers bandying ideas back and forth frantically. That's definately different from watching it.

John wrote:
Fred, that characterization of my approach is just plain wrong. Not only wrong, but aggressively wrong -- casting "my play style" as the most boring thing imaginable.

Andrew wrote:
(For reference, we get about 90% of our excitement in the #3 stage, and #4 is the formality of the current narrator *not* vetoing anything in particular, and everybody nodding and going on to the next scene.)

Sorry, Fred... but no. What you said was this:

wrote: The way you've been presenting things so far makes PTA play break down like this:

Hi Iago,

If we move #3 to before the roll, you retain your suspence.  Whlie I don't have a copy of the current rules, I believe this is what's intended in the discussion of stakes and possible outcome. 

1. Frame Scene
2. Roleplay until a conflict is discovered.
3. Clarify the Protagonist's stakes.
4. Discuss what player's would like to see happen and what they would find unacceptable.
  (This is where the _player's_ goals come in.)
5. Roll the Conflict.
6. Gather ideas
7. Narrate the resolution

From experience I know that the last two steps tend to meld into each other. 

iago wrote:
...to bring it back to my harping on PTA's subtitle -- that's the experience of watching a television show.

John wrote:
How do you respond to what I said about the play examples in the book?

Do you read those and think, "Oh man... I don't want to play like that!" Or do the examples sound like the kind of play you want? Because that's exactly how I play it.

Alan wrote:
I believe that 1st ed PTA's subtitle was "The Greatest Show that Never Was."
And the 2nd ed subtitle is "A Game of Television Drama."

I know from playtests that it has never been Matt's intention to create a game that recreates the experience of _watching_ a TV show.  His game has always been about particfipating in the creation of the show.  I don't think either of the subtitles would lead me to expect to experience the game ONLY as if I were watching TV.

I believe that 1st ed PTA's subtitle was "The Greatest Show that Never Was."
And the 2nd ed subtitle is "A Game of Television Drama."

Okay, I emailed the write up of the pilot ep of Keruton to the players, and we'll try a session tomorrow, assuming everyone shows. Avram wants to make sure we do it with Matt, saying that 4 players should make the fanmail flow work better.

-Lisa

Hm. We had a session of Keruton yesterday. Beth, Avram, and Josh preferred the way the pilot ran, not because of the mechanics, but because of the feel and the flow. I was more comfortable with the way this session ran, but agree that there were several bumps. Gonna send an email around and see if I can get from them

-- what worked in the pilot for them
-- what didn't work in the pilot for them
-- what worked this session for them
-- what didn't work this session for them

Got an idea of some of it already, and I think some of it will be better the next time around, just because we're more familiar with how things should run. Fr'ex, one thing that really annoyed Josh was that I kept going over things for every combat. That is, first I'd write down what was at stake for everyone, and what traits were being used, and then, after the combat, I'd go over this again, along with adding who'd gotten and who hadn't gotten their stakes. I agree that this is excessive. Next time, I expect I will still go over it the first time -- people need to declare stakes, and I want to write them down, as it helps in case of questions and for write ups. But, I'll resist the urge to go over it all again, unless whoever is narrating asks for a refresher.

Matt Stevens, our fifth, didn't really find the game to his taste. No harm, no foul -- we knew this might happen, and I really like the unofficial Also Starring rules to cover this sort of thing. He may give it another try, or he may not . 'Tsall good.

I also think that the Next Week On Keruton statements were more focused than last time, and that, in turn, will make the next session more focused. The bit I put in after the pilot may well have been piling up too much stuff, though it may also have been a useful hole card when the plot got too convoluted. I could argue it either way. But, the one I put in this time got a reaction of, "Yes! That's good." from the players, so maybe I'm starting to file off some of my bumps as well.

I'll post the write up of the pilot session to the Actual Play group asap.

-Lisa

The obvious thing that didn't work this past session: Too damn many twists. In the pilot, we had the one twist, and that worked fine. This time we had to write off one whole branch of the plot, handing it off to an NPC to solve. I think the problem was the decision to have Victor be kidnapped; that required us to have another group involved, and needed an extra resolution.

I also noticed that at one point early in the game, I wanted to award some fan mail, and there wasn't any in the bowl. I remember that our first conflict only had two budget behind it; that's probably why. The game may work better opening with a bang (in the non-jargon sense). At the start of the episode, everyone's traits are unchecked, and some players have leftover fan mail, so if you can start off with something dramatic enough to get everyone excited, everybody should be able to respond to a big conflict, and that'd get those chips in the fan mail pool. How much budget was behind the fight with the takoyaki vendor that opened the pilot?

As far as writing down stakes goes, I noticed you seemed to be writing down every word exactly. Things would go faster if you just jotted down some keywords.

Yes, your having specified that Farad would show up, getting out of a plane, did lock us into having a scene at the airport (which worked), and mandated that Farad would show up when we were at the airport (which seemed a bit crowded). Have you noticed that my "next week on" bits are entirely dialog, without setting specified? That frees me up a lot. If you'd left out the bit about the airplane, you could have inserted that scene into more settings, even having it take place over a video-phone link.

avram wrote: The obvious thing that didn't work this past session: Too damn many twists. In the pilot, we had the one twist, and that worked fine. This time we had to write off one whole branch of the plot, handing it off to an NPC to solve. I think the problem was the decision to have Victor be kidnapped; that required us to have another group involved, and needed an extra resolution.

I also noticed that at one point early in the game, I wanted to award some fan mail, and there wasn't any in the bowl. I remember that our first conflict only had two budget behind it; that's probably why. The game may work better opening with a bang (in the non-jargon sense). At the start of the episode, everyone's traits are unchecked, and some players have leftover fan mail, so if you can start off with something dramatic enough to get everyone excited, everybody should be able to respond to a big conflict, and that'd get those chips in the fan mail pool. How much budget was behind the fight with the takoyaki vendor that opened the pilot?

As far as writing down stakes goes, I noticed you seemed to be writing down every word exactly. Things would go faster if you just jotted down some keywords.

Yes, your having specified that Farad would show up, getting out of a plane, did lock us into having a scene at the airport (which worked), and mandated that Farad would show up when we were at the airport (which seemed a bit crowded). Have you noticed that my "next week on" bits are entirely dialog, without setting specified? That frees me up a lot. If you'd left out the bit about the airplane, you could have inserted that scene into more settings, even having it take place over a video-phone link.

Lisa wrote:
It sort of snowballed -- the stakes were set, iirc, so that the PCs could lose Victor for that conflict, which meant he shouldn't get killed. We'd already established that the original bad guy wanted to kill him, and it didn't seem to make sense that his goons would go for dragging Victor off to be dramatically saved. I don't want utterly idiotic bad guys. So, it had to be someone else.

avram wrote: We could have set up the conflict so that we knew we were going to win the fight, but left open the possibility for Victor to be injured. That would let players have stakes like "I want to keep Victor from being hurt" without letting him get killed.