Dro, Thor, Andy, Rich and I got together to play Primetime Adventures tonight. My agenda for the game was explicit: I wanted to play The Wire. Pure and simple. Of the four players, only Dro was hesitant. Rich, Andy and Thor were all gungho.

Rich was late for the series creation session. By the time he arrived, we had decided the series would be called Shaolin -- the slang for Staten Island. We'd be playing a corner crew beefing for a corner on SI.

Andy played a goofy, awkward triggerman whose issue was respect.
Thor played a gang lieutenant in charge of the corner. His issue was rebellion.
Dro played the lieutenant to Thor's character. His issue was ambition.
Rich walked in, heard the pitch and announced that he was playing Stringer Bell (from the series). I looked to Thor; Rich was stepping on his toes. Thor nodded that he was fine with it. But Rich kept up the controversy by choosing profit as his issue. We tried to push him toward a more human characteristic, but he was adamant. He also seemed to internalize the struggle between gang life and making money, so I was fine with it.

The first song on my iTunes playlist was Execution of a Chump by Gangstarr. It was a cue and an omen.

I initially was going to go with a pilot, but I wanted to play with the full rules -- varied Screen Presence in particular. Andy chose to put his 3 SP in the first episode. I decided that his respect issue was going to come out blazing, literally. I wanted to set up a conflict where he would kill another gang kid for respect  and get in trouble with Rich.

That's just what I did, but things went wildly array! I set up a beef with another triggerman from another crew -- would andy pop him for respect? Well, Rich, as the boss, told them via a phone call not to make any trouble. Andy backed off accordingly.

But Dro was on my side. He scratched up the triggerman's car with his own, trying to turn up the heat. Well, I had him get caught. He egged the guy on until he pulled a pistol and shoved it against his temple.

This is where I called for a conflict. Can Andy save Dro's life? Thor, Dro, Andy and I all went at it. I won the conflict -- Andy could not earn respect by saving Dro's life. But Andy got the high card. He got to say how it went down.

He narrated that he shot the triggerman from the alley at distance, causing the triggerman to fire and kill Dro! Holy shit! I couldn't think of a reason or mechanic that would prevent this. So we let it lie. And it definitely kicked the episode into overdrive.

Next scene was Thor chewing Andy out for getting his right hand man killed. No conflict.

Next scene involved Thor and Andy closing ranks and reporting to Rich -- blaming the other crew.

Next scene two homicide detectives rolled up to Thor's corner and pumped him. I started a conflict. My stakes were to get him to slip up and tell them about the car. Thor's stakes were to make like he wasn't there and didn't have a car. He won and got high card. He narrated that the car was in his granny's name -- one of his relations.

Next scene was Dro's funeral. Everyone was there and all agreed that Dro's nemesis, a homicide detective, would show up and pump the crowd. Dro talked about how his mom was there. I narrated a conflict -- I wanted the detective to make a good impression on Dro's mom, in hopes that I could narrate a scene where I would turn her. I won the scene, but Rich got narration. He narrated the woman rebuffing his sympathies and shoving his character aside as he attempted to soothe her. "Bring my son back!" she screamed at him. Fade to black.

Next scene, Andy disposed of the murder weapon. I wanted a witness. Andy won the conflict.

Next scene, Thor wanted a flashback. We hashed it out. Dro's character's name was 9-Spot because he dodged a nine year sentence. We staged it at the mistrial. The two nemesises were present -- Dro's and Rich's -- both homicide detectives. The stakes I wanted involved Dro's nemesis remembering this scene and making a connection between him, Thor and Thor's Grandma who was coming to pick them up from the courthouse. Dro wanted to do the exact opposite. He wanted to escape unnoticed . I disagreed with his choice here, he could have really put the screws to Andy in this scene. Thor's stakes were to cause a rift between his Grandma and the homicide detective-- setting up a future scene nicely. Rich's stakes were to cause an altercation with his nemesis and distract the detectives.

They clobbered me. Rich got narration once again. He framed a nice scene between him and the detectives. He had the detective mistake Thor's Grandma for Dro's mom. I can't remember exactly what he said, but he essentially blamed her for churning out bad kids. It was brilliant. I got no connection to that damn car full of evidence and I got a wedge between the Grandma and the detectives. Lovely.

Rich framed the last scene: He wanted an action scene where the crew took over an enemy crew's stash. Andy and Thor were to be the gunmen. Andy wanted to use the scene to earn respect for his character's prowess. I can't remember Thor's stakes. My stakes were to have Andy's character made during the raid -- made by someone who saw him at the club shooting from the beginning of the episode.

I destroyed them. I won and got narration. In addition to making his character, I also narrated that the raid was successful, but Andy got Thor's character shot during the raid. Further driving a wedge between the two!

We faded out there.

Dro getting killed in the first scene. I framed the stakes high, but I didn't frame them to the point where dro had to die. It was only that Andy couldn't save his life and thereby would lose respect. Andy! narrated the death. So did we take things too far? It was well within genre, but still felt shockingly powerful.

Aside from that, we took about an hour to warm up to the mechanics, but everything went reasonably smoothly. The one hitch, I couldn't figure out the mechanical purpose for the Focus section of scene framing. What's the difference between focussing on the protagonist and focusing on plot development? Is there a mechanical difference? Are the scenes focusing on the protagonists just interludes? Like Kima cheating on her wife in the Wire?

Not including Thor, the players, used to very traditional framing, had difficulty setting their stakes. They just didn't see the power behind it. They might warm up to it, though. And Rich kept insisting that "there wasn't enough roleplaying, it's just a card game." Even though he busting out the best roleplay among us...
However, I didn't notice my tendency to slam through scenes in director stance rather than using in-character narration.

It is my suspicion that Primetime Adventures might be the most accessible roleplaying game ever written, and possibly one of the best examples of the art of roleplaying game design.

But only further testing will tell!
-Luke

I was a bit annoyed at Andy for narrating Dro's character's death, especially after numerous options were given for avoiding that very result. Yeah, there was a certain amount of genre-fidelity in the move, but it was a pretty lousy thing to do, all in all. Dro was a good sport about it and stayed involved, but I could tell that he wasn't too happy about that either.

I find Rich's complaint about the lack of roleplaying to be mind-boggling. Yes, there was a tendency to play things in director stance, but there was certainly no requirement that it must be so. And really, getting to that conflict-decision nexus is incredibly similar to playing Burning Wheel, for instance. In Burning Wheel you play into the conflict, set the stakes, and resolve who gets what they want through the mechanics. It's the same in PTA. PTA is certainly more explicit about defining actual narration rights, but I see that more as a difference of degree than a difference of kind.

I also think that the others were not very focused on distributing fan mail, and I'm not sure the game functions that effectively if the players aren't committed to rewarding interesting play/scene framing/stake-setting. I think it might be helpful for you, as the Producer, to stop after each scene and ask whether people want to make use of their last opportunity to award fan mail in this particular scene; maybe even suggest things you think are fan-mail worthy (even though you don't have any to give). This might help the rest get into the habit of thinking about awarding fan mail.

Those complaints aside, I thoroughly enjoyed the game and the results of the mechanics. Shitty as I think the decision was, I really appreciated the fact that Dro could continue to play a "dead" character with considerable effectiveness. As we left tonight, he even mentioned to me that he could continue to play that character throughout an entire season as long as we continued to frame flashbacks.

Thor wrote: I also think that the others were not very focused on distributing fan mail, and I'm not sure the game functions that effectively if the players aren't committed to rewarding interesting play/scene framing/stake-setting. I think it might be helpful for you, as the Producer, to stop after each scene and ask whether people want to make use of their last opportunity to award fan mail in this particular scene; maybe even suggest things you think are fan-mail worthy (even though you don't have any to give). This might help the rest get into the habit of thinking about awarding fan mail.

abzu wrote: in my own defense, I did this after the first few scenes. You'll remember Rich calling me a cheater for suggesting Dro get fan mail which he then used to help me!

I seem to recall that it was illegal for a character to die not in their spotlight episode.  Were you aware of this rule and, if you were, why did you choose to break it?

yrs--
--Ben

Ben wrote:
I seem to recall that it was illegal for a character to die not in their spotlight episode.

Og wrote: The one hitch, I couldn't figure out the mechanical purpose for the Focus section of scene framing. What's the difference between focussing on the protagonist and focusing on plot development? Is there a mechanical difference?

Matt wrote:

Ben wrote:
I seem to recall that it was illegal for a character to die not in their spotlight episode.

Man, I strongly suspect that there is such a rule, but hell if I know where it is in the book. Dro's protagonist's actor signed a contract with the studio, after all.

Dro's best recourse is just this: "Hey, Andy. Don't kill my character, okay?" If he doesn't say that, he's giving the narrator premission to do it. "The entire group participates in the narration" is one of the most important phrases in the book.

If Andy was not looking Dro in the eye and gauging his response to the killing -- or better yet, actually talking to Dro about it-- then he was not being a very good narrator. But that's okay. It takes a few games to get the hang of it. My guideline for good narration is, "is everyone talking?" When it's time to narrate an outcome, I want to hear all the players' voices before it goes in the books.

Yeah, I feel like a total jerk about narrating the execution of Dro's PC. I guess at the time, It felt like an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone (my nemesis' gunman and my rival within the ranks on the chain of command), but it was definitely the wrong thing to do in hindsight.

I pushed the action in a direction that was certainly less fun for the rest of the people at the table and I apologize. I sure would have appreciated a rule that prevented me from killing a PC, but honesly I should have known better. Sorry Dro!

That aside, I found that the clean rules mechanics for conflict resolution really allow for plot and narration to come to the forefront in a very natural, organic way (even though this was our first shot at it, no pun intended). I felt that role playing was as prevalent as any other rpg - the players have the opportunity to bring as much or as little to the table as they desire/can. Sure, we spent a little extra time rummaging for rules, but on the second go-around, I'm sure we can jump right in and narrate/orchestrate our way into a rich series.

Just a thought: A possible solution for the murderous train wreck that I caused would be to leave the 1st episode as the Pilot and move on the rest of the series using the Law as PCs and leave the thugs in the dust. Perhaps a flip in roles can let our Pilot stand as a dramatic set up for an exciting Cop Drama! What do you guys think?

Like I said man, I think it was the wrong decision at the time, but I don't think you should beat yourself up over it either. You did inadvertantly manage to showcase the fact that a player isn't necessarily out of the game in PTA just because his character is killed.

And Dro did say to me as we left that as long as we continued with the flashback scenes, he could continue to play this character throughout the entire season. That makes sense to me. Certainly in episode 3, when he has the highest screen presence, I expect an full flashback episode.

Anyway, the point is not that you screwed up the game. I don't think you did. But, in the future, we all need to go into the game looking for opportunities to help increase the protagonization of each other's characters.

I agree, Thor and thanks for being patient with me and encouraging at the same time. I sometimes deserve a note pinned to my sweater that reads "Action doesn't get along with the other children."

That said (and I know Abzu hates them), I actually enjoyed bringing flashbacks in. Some of my favorite aspects of the HBO dramas are scenes with Pig Pussy (Sopranos) or the Dad (Six Feet Under), The Kid's dying mother (Carnivale) and especially the Bartlett Campaign group being formed en route to the White House (West Wing). There's a huge amount of dramatic potential to foreshadow/amplify the present set of character's circumstances. I was surprised and delighted by the systems' accomodation of this! Clearly the system was ready to accomodate a newbie rube like me!

Matt wrote:

Ben wrote:
I seem to recall that it was illegal for a character to die not in their spotlight episode.

Man, I strongly suspect that there is such a rule, but hell if I know where it is in the book. Dro's protagonist's actor signed a contract with the studio, after all.

I'll add my support to playing the dead character. PTA is one of the few games where playing a dead character is viable and fun -- might as well enjoy it while you can. This also minimizes Andy's "mistake" in killing the guy. He didn't take Dro out of the game, he just flipped a switch that says, "All of Dro's scene set-ups are now flashbacks." Should still work just fine.

Andy, why would kiling your nemesis and rival help you? You need those people to make your character work!

Playing the dead character does cut down on that player's options a bit though. Sure he can request flashbacks for his scenes, but other players when requesting their scenes can invite their own players into their scene - harder to do that with the dead guy.
Unless, you're playing Six Feet Under, of course.

I've not played PTA yet (grrr!), but playing dead (or simply absent) characters shows up in Capes, as well, which suggests some common solutions. And it's not just flashbacks and apparitions. The dead guy can influence a scene any time someone living remembers him, or comes across something he left behind (money, drugs, booby traps, kids), or even does something he taught them how to do. Tricky, but lots of fun. Plus they can't get rid of you by killing you now, can they?

Everyone has already discussed a lot of the options for playing dead characters through flashbacks, but what about players having back-up characters? This could even be a simple matter of just giving a protagonist's connection an issue, moving him into the spotlight, and maintaining your screen presence formula that's already been established. Because it doesn't seem like the game could handle bringing in a new protagonist built from scratch mid-season, but connections are already a part of the story, right?

So, for the Wire as an example, D'Angelo gets popped, Brodie gets promoted, boom, new protagonist. (Hypothetical, btw. Not a spoiler)

I've been thinking about trying to run The Farm (11PM HBO), but with Primetime Adventures mechanics as my first attempt at the game. I love the tone and setting of the Farm, and I think my play group would appreciate the ability to get gritty human drama from a character before he's lunch, or beat to death by Minders. But I'd want to have the tone of a show like Oz when it comes to characters being in danger; the feeling that if things go wrong enough a character could die at any time, regardless of screen presence (just like what happened to Dro, but without confusion of annoyance).

Does anyone know if PTA can do that comfortably? Season finales only, basically?
Ryan T

I've been following along here and something's been itching at the back of my brain.  Something about how having your character killed might lead to more potential instead of less in PTA.  But that particular thought just won't pop.

What has come to mind in it's place is a potential way to keep the dead character in the story, in every episode, in any scene.  I know it's a bit wonky but...; How about playing a reverse-timeline game where each episode takes place before the previous episode?  In each episode you could have some action for each of your characters that's totally inexplicable, because you don't have to worry about the motivation or the background until next week's game.  Then you could be like "Oh, that's why I punched your momma in the mouth."

Theoretically the final episode would either illustrate the events that lead to the story cooking in the first place, or might jump back to the end of the timeline to wrap everything up.  Or maybe both.

Just a thought.

Flashbacks are fun too.

-Eric

all of this is possible, but I have one issue with all the "fixes:" they diverge from our premise mightily. We all agreed to play out a Wire-like series. That genre has no flashbacks and no weird "story in reverse" stuff. At this point, we've got to incorporate some of it to make the story go now, but as GM/Producer for this, I'm a little disappointed. I wanted to focus the game on other stuff.

-L

Dro could just make a new character. Nothing wrong with that.

Right. The Wire is almost obsessive in its aversion to all kinds of time trickery and little creative story building critters.

But how about the connections stepping up? Dro's lieutenant must have had somebody. A brother, a lover, a rival dealer looking for new bosses. And the thing that would really drive home that it's still Dro's character would be if this old connection/new protagonist's issue was, like, I'm gonna get to the fucking bottom of who killed my brother, and they gonna get got. You know? Because somebody you know getting killed can be a pretty huge motivator, but in practically any direction. Maybe it's a wake-up call, and somebody wants out of the crew. Maybe something else. So that's just opening up lots of options, instead of asking Dro to keep the hand he was dealt and make lemonade.
Ryan T

It's too bad that you're so dead set on making it like the one show. Because I'm thinking a bit like Darren above...why not play him as a ghost ala Six Feet Under. But instead of all touchy-feely like six-feet under is (don't get me wrong, I think Six Feet Under is one of the best shows ever), it's about the memory of the character causing trouble. That is, he has scenes where he talks to the other characters about how he was coming for them, going to take over, whatever. He's dead now, he can say anything, and they can't stop him.

That's a powerful character. Yes, it would totally change the sort of show. That's the sort of thing that happens in a pilot. Just a thought.

Mike