I bought a copy of PtA at Gencon this year, after a friend of mine reported some very favourable gaming sessions with it. From the way he described it, it sounds like the game I'd been looking for for a long time.

Unfortunately, as it's written, I still can't grok it, despite my friend's attempts to explain and despite having read through several actual play reports here on the Forge. As far as I can tell, the mechanics of the system reduce everything to a single play of cards to determines which side of the conflict "wins" that scene and who gets to narrate the outcome, apparently without any actual in-character roleplaying at all.

What I don't get is how you use those mechanics to play out a high-action and/or high-suspense scene. With everything reduced to a single play of cards, I don't see how you could do a scene where there's a big fight, or a rescue from a burning building or anything like that. If you play the cards early, you already know the outcome of the scene before you start to roleplay it out, thereby taking away the suspense part of the game and you have one person dictating how the entire scene will play out from that point on (if I'm reading it right). If you start to roleplay the scene out first and then play the cards at the end, then you've got no mechanics at all to help figure out the steps along the way. Ideally (as far as I am concerned), the players would roleplay their way through the scene in character, and the drama and tension in that scene would escalate, until the conflict was resolved through their choice of actions.

It's entirely possible that PTA just requires a paradigm shift that I haven't been able to make. I suspect that if I could play through a few sessions, I may start to get it.  The actual play reports that I've read to date just talk about what went on in story form, without showing how the game actually played and how the mechanics were used to achieve that end result. Unfortunately, I don't know anyone who's playing it online (and capturing IRC channel logs), or playing it locally to allow me to watch the game in play so that I can grok it.

Can anyone provide me with a set of decent concrete examples that could help me get a handle on things?

It seems a shame to have bought the book and just throw it on the shelf to never see any sort of use.

Heya Geoff!

Sorry I didn't reply about this when you had it in your LJ. I'd meant to, then got busy, and well... I'm a loser, okay?

Anyway, to start off with you might want to skim this thread here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=15520.0

Then I'll tell you about how I often deal with things like this. It goes something like this: We RP up to the point where it is obvious something has to break, then we go to the cards. At this point the conflict is already well established, and its usually pretty easy for people to define what they want.

The cards get played, and we know the general form of how the conflict is going to turn out, but not the details. (We've got the tell, but not the show of the old dictum to writers.) The narrator then gets to do the show. Sometimes, in a blinding flash of brilliance, they will just do it all themselves, describing exactly how everything turns out. Usually, however, we have a moment of kibitzing, then the standard style RP starts up again -- but with the person with narration rights acting as director. He can roll back, veto, guide, and push people about the set until everyone together has acted out the outcome decided upon by the cards. Then there is a hard cut to, as Matt says, get away while its still wet.

A lot of players assume, at first, that conflict res means no RP, or no character immersion. Neither is true. And while games like PTA do have a degree of distancing from character that doesn't make them good for immersion, there is no reason to not RP out as much as your group likes to RP out. If you drive the tension up before the cards, then they'll still give you your tense moment where you don't know who is going to win. And after that it becomes like on TV -- you usually know Buffy is going to clock the vamp when there is only 10 minutes left in the show, but what is important is how she clocks him. That's what you get from your narration/RP after the cards.

At least, that's my two cents. Matt will now tell you how wrong I am. ;)

Brand_Robins wrote:
Sorry I didn't reply about this when you had it in your LJ. I'd meant to, then got busy, and well... I'm a loser, okay?

Brand_Robins wrote:
The cards get played, and we know the general form of how the conflict is going to turn out, but not the details. (We've got the tell, but not the show of the old dictum to writers.) The narrator then gets to do the show. Sometimes, in a blinding flash of brilliance, they will just do it all themselves, describing exactly how everything turns out. Usually, however, we have a moment of kibitzing, then the standard style RP starts up again -- but with the person with narration rights acting as director. He can roll back, veto, guide, and push people about the set until everyone together has acted out the outcome decided upon by the cards. Then there is a hard cut to, as Matt says, get away while its still wet.

A lot of players assume, at first, that conflict res means no RP, or no character immersion. Neither is true. And while games like PTA do have a degree of distancing from character that doesn't make them good for immersion, there is no reason to not RP out as much as your group likes to RP out. If you drive the tension up before the cards, then they'll still give you your tense moment where you don't know who is going to win. And after that it becomes like on TV -- you usually know Buffy is going to clock the vamp when there is only 10 minutes left in the show, but what is important is how she clocks him. That's what you get from your narration/RP after the cards.

Hi Geoff,

Ideally (as far as I am concerned), the players would roleplay their way through the scene in character, and the drama and tension in that scene would escalate, until the conflict was resolved through their choice of actions.

a rescue from a burning building

Frank wrote:
This isn’t the concrete example you had asked for, but I hope it helps.

Eynowd wrote:
It seems to me that whoever wins the narration rights has pretty much carte-blanche to do whatever they want with what's left of the scene (which actually may be the entire scene if the conflict resolution happens at the beginning of the scene). There doesn't seem to be a huge amount of options for the other players to do cool stuff with their characters. It's all just a bit too arbitrary for me.

Hello,

I have some recommendations that might help reduce the disappointment factor.

Games that provide a similar conflict/story focus to what PTA does, but "build" conflict resolutions out of smaller-scale actions and choices, include:

Trollbabe
The Shadow of Yesterday
Dogs in the Vineyard
HeroQuest
The Dying Earth
Sorcerer

Best,
Ron

Ron wrote:
Trollbabe
The Shadow of Yesterday
Dogs in the Vineyard
HeroQuest
The Dying Earth
Sorcerer

Seems like something in the text is turning you off, Geoff. I suspect that if you played PTA, it would all become clear to you.

Instead of thinking of PTA as some alien-thing that is totally different from familiar gaming, think of it this way:

Once a scene starts, you can play PTA like any normal RPG. Players say what their characters are doing, the GM describes what's happening around them... all that stuff. You can talk in-character, make plans, argue, describe cool moves, etc.

Here's the difference: In a "normal" game, the GM will ask you to make die-rolls along the way. You say, "My guy kicks down the door and throws a brick through the window so he can climb down the outside of the building to safety!" And the GM responds by asking you to roll for various things to see what happens (STR check to kick down the door, and then a climbing check for example).

In PTA, you don't draw cards to see if your character can do things. When you say, "My guy kicks down the door and throws a brick through the window so he can climb down the outside of the building to safety!" then your guy does it, no hassle. So when do you draw cards? You draw cards to find out if your guy gets what he wants. And you, as a player, get to decide what that thing is, for this scene (with the help of the other players and GM).

So, for instance, your guy might just want to save his own ass. You can put that on the line. "The stakes are, I make it out of the burning building in one piece." Now the outcome of the cards will tell us how badly things go for your guy as he escapes the building.

Or, you could set the stakes as, "I want to get the disks from the third floor." What's at stake is: does your guy end up with the disks? This leaves his injury or safety up to you and the narrator.

You can also set more abstract stakes, like, "My guy wants to prove to everyone that he's not afraid anymore." If you succeed, then the stuff you say that your guy does in the scene ultimately proves that point to the other characters.

Everyone says what their characters are doing and saying before, during, and after the cards are drawn. You are "roleplaying" the whole time. The important thing is, you, as a player, put something on the line that you are personally interested in (the stakes).

Does that help? I'm not trying to win you over, or tell you you should like PTA. Maybe you just don't. And that's cool. But I don't think its game play is as unusual as you maybe think it is.

(edit: typo)

Brand_Robins wrote:

Ron wrote:
Trollbabe
The Shadow of Yesterday
Dogs in the Vineyard
HeroQuest
The Dying Earth
Sorcerer

Actually, I'd recomend those as games that any game writer/designer should have at least read. Goeff, from what I know of your style of play I think you'd really like Dogs, Shadow of Yesterday, and HeroQuest in particular.

John wrote:
Seems like something in the text is turning you off, Geoff. I suspect that if you played PTA, it would all become clear to you.

Eynowd wrote: Thanks for the suggestions. I don't know if I'll pick any of them up though; from what I understand about all of them is that they all have specific settings that I'm not interested in.

Brand_Robins wrote:
Trollbabe is a .pdf, which you can get down in that barbaric land, as you apparently have put together two rocks and managed to connect a modem to them. ;)

It also has a default setting that is all of "Hot women with horns in a semi-Norse, semi-Celtic, semi-Swords and Sorcery world do stuff" and is quite modifiable. It's also as close as you get to a vanilla Narative system, and has some good things to say about using conflicts to give players (rather than characters) what they want.

But still, if you're feeling too burned and think that conflict res/Nar isn't for you at all, then it may be best to follow your gut.

Let's not forget that Shadow of Yesterday is freely browsable on teh intarweb (Creative Commons License):

http://anvilwerks.com/src/tsoy/book1--rulebook.html

Ain't costin' you nuthin'!

Hi Geoff,

I hope you'll take everyone's comments not as "No, wait, you really should try this," but rather as purely informative. If you've got a feel for what PTA's trying to do, and it just doesn't grab you, everything's good. Not every game works for everyone.

It sounds like you've gotten some ideas from the book about player empowerment and scene framing. I think if you try some of those techniques in a traditional task-resolution game, and they provide something for you, then you've probably gotten your money's worth.

Andrew wrote:
Hi Geoff,

I hope you'll take everyone's comments not as "No, wait, you really should try this," but rather as purely informative. If you've got a feel for what PTA's trying to do, and it just doesn't grab you, everything's good. Not every game works for everyone.

It sounds like you've gotten some ideas from the book about player empowerment and scene framing. I think if you try some of those techniques in a traditional task-resolution game, and they provide something for you, then you've probably gotten your money's worth.

I played my first game of PtA on IRC. If you want to play the game with people who know it, maybe that's the way. Check out Indie Netgaming, I'm sure someone can point you there.

- Frank

Frank wrote:
Check out Indie Netgaming, I'm sure someone can point you there.

Hi, Eynowd,

Eynowd wrote:
I bought a copy of PtA at Gencon this year... Unfortunately, as it's written, I still can't grok it... As far as I can tell, the mechanics of the system reduce everything to a single play of cards to determines which side of the conflict "wins" that scene and who gets to narrate the outcome, apparently without any actual in-character roleplaying at all.

What I don't get is how you use those mechanics to play out a high-action and/or high-suspense scene. With everything reduced to a single play of cards, I don't see how you could do a scene where there's a big fight, or a rescue from a burning building or anything like that. If you play the cards early, you already know the outcome of the scene before you start to roleplay it out, thereby taking away the suspense part of the game and you have one person dictating how the entire scene will play out from that point on (if I'm reading it right). If you start to roleplay the scene out first and then play the cards at the end, then you've got no mechanics at all to help figure out the steps along the way. Ideally (as far as I am concerned), the players would roleplay their way through the scene in character, and the drama and tension in that scene would escalate, until the conflict was resolved through their choice of actions.

IMAGinES wrote:
Hi, Eynowd,
Now, if you picked it up at GenCon, I'm assuming you have the Revised Edition, the one with the black-and-blue cover with the little TV on it. I've only got the original edition, wich has the full-colour cover. Please correct me if I'm wrong, okay?

As I understand it, one of the things Matt introduced in the Revised Edition was a "multi-flip" mechanic. He describes it here, and it reads like what you might be looking for - at least in terms of pacing and creating suspense in a big, tense combat or chase scene.