So I tried to run some of my pals through a session PTA the other night. It was aborted three scenes in due to communal frustration and a dislike of the rules.

The pre-game discussion session went great. We came up with a hot premise and title (a wild west town in the midst of a zombie apocalypse called "Boot Hill"), the characters were cool (the outlaw, the sheriff, the preacher, and the barber/smuggler), and we were fired up to play. Awesome! I explained the concepts of the game, made the game the Pilot and gave everyone a screen presence of 2. Let the game commence.

I'm going to skip the actual in-game stuff since I know that tends to be the stuff I skip or skim when I'm reading posts like this one, but two of the players didn't like how Stakes are framed. One of them, Tom, was very vocal that he thought that player characters should be able to "team up" and have the same Stakes in a conflict. I explained why this was no good, referencing the answers that are brought up in the More Questions thread, but Tom didn't buy it.

There were some other issues which I think were correctable such as the players feeling that there should have been more roleplaying before a Conflict was declared, and honestly I think the other complaints were just a result of fatigue (the game was late and at the end of a pretty exciting day) and grappling with a game that's completely novel conceptually to the group.

And then, three scenes (which I think were actually pretty cool) into it, the game just crumbled. Everyone was venting complaints, I asked if everyone would rather just call it quits, and that was the end of the session.

It was a very frustrating experience for me because I recognize just how powerful PTA could be for running compelling games about hard choices and character development, and really like it. I think the players who disliked the Stakes-setting are just going to have irreconcileable problems with the game, but I still wonder if there was something I could have done differently to create a more enjoyable session.

Anyhow, I just thought I'd share this experience.

Bret,

I don't think there is a problme with players teaming up against an outside conflict, so long as there is a conflict in every scene.

Right?

I don't believe every conflict has to be players vs. player.

Hey Brett,

Your experience with PTA sounds like it had a lot in common with my first experience, though the group I was playing with did make it through the first session. Could you give us some specific info on a couple of the scenes in play? Were there any bright moments during play, or only in the initial creation period? How about fan mail, any make it out? Reflecting on my own first experience I think a lot of the trouble came from the group somewhat assiduously avoiding the very issues we had set out to address. I think there was concern about peaking too quickly, or something of the like, but in practice it just meant that the game was stale and frustrating.

Thanks,

-Tim

Judd,

Sorry, I was pretty unclear about that. What Tom had a major problem with was that characters had to have different Stakes in a conflict, and that we had to discuss the Stakes until they were different. To paraphrase a conversation, he thought that two players should be able to frame their Stakes as, "We want to survive," and leave it at that and then be able to stack up their cards as one hand, much like how Lisa says her group played during one of their sessions. Which, as I understand it, is just not how PTA is played.

Tim,

During play I thought the scenes and the resulting narrations were pretty cool. I probably should have backed off when it came to jumping to the Conflicts, because the players were really itching to do some dialogue and whatnot. I just took the advice to get to the Conflicts ASAP if you're new to the game to an extreme.

One of the players, Bob, got awarded some Fan Mail for some clever narration, but that was it. Again, the players said I was hitting the Conflict too quickly for them to really "do anything cool." In retrospect, I'm beginning to think that I was largely at fault for the player dissatisfaction.

Bret wrote: One of the players, Bob, got awarded some Fan Mail for some clever narration, but that was it. Again, the players said I was hitting the Conflict too quickly for them to really "do anything cool." In retrospect, I'm beginning to think that I was largely at fault for the player dissatisfaction.

Bret wrote:
Sorry, I was pretty unclear about that. What Tom had a major problem with was that characters had to have different Stakes in a conflict, and that we had to discuss the Stakes until they were different. To paraphrase a conversation, he thought that two players should be able to frame their Stakes as, "We want to survive," and leave it at that and then be able to stack up their cards as one hand, much like how Lisa says her group played during one of their sessions. Which, as I understand it, is just not how PTA is played.

What were the characters' issues, Bret?

Tim,

I thought the scenes and the narrations and the conflicts and the stakes were great, but everyone was getting frustrated at the struggle that was required to GET all of those things. And hey, count me in on that - it was a new way of looking at a game, and it's not easy to go from "I pick the lock" to "I want to pick the lock so that my father will love me" (silly example I know). I think the problem was that the "hammering it out" phase was being looked at as a hoop to jump through rather than an actual, integral part of the game. I'm going to link the players to this, so maybe they can also provide some more insight.

Matt,

The survival example was actually from an explanatory discussion with Tom, so that was probably also a bad example since it wasn't actually an in-play one. But yeah, the fact that PTA is a very different kind of game made things uphill. Unfortunately, we tired out before we crested that hill.

Judd,

The Issues were:
Bob (The Sheriff) - Preserve law and order in the face of the end of everything we knew.
Jere (The Preacher) - How can one hold onto Faith when confronted by seeming abandonment by God.
Josh (The Outlaw) - Confronted by creatures more horrible than he ever was, guilt crept up and he faced spiralling into self-destruction.
Tom (The Barber) - Petty and greedy, the barber was trying to hold it all together and maintain control amidst the chaos.

Yeah, see ... I don't see how "Do I survive?" can be stakes for any of those Issues.  It is, I agree, a question that players might be interested in, but it's not relevant to their Issue, is it?

My sense is that the Sheriff doesn't get to ask "Do the townsfolk fend off the Zombie Hordes?"  He gets to ask "When the Zombie Hordes attack, do the townsfolk stick with each other or do they become wild, fearful animals unthinkingly destroying themselves and the fragile remnants of our society?"

The Preacher doesn't get to ask "Can I save this child?"  He gets to ask "Is there anything in what is happening that gives me reason to hope?"

Every single scene where a character has a conflict, that conflict should somehow be about their Issue.  And, therefore, it is extremely unlikely that people have the exact same conflict, no matter what the surface appearance would lead you to believe.  Does that make sense?

Bret, take heart: PTA is hard for some gamers. Sometimes incredibly difficult. Sure, maybe you could have done some things differently as Producer, but I don't think the "failure" of the session was your fault.

Gamers have many unspoken assumptions about the way they enjoy their hobby. Toss them into the deep end of a very different way to play, and sometimes they sink.

Non-gamers almost never have this problem, because they come from the world of party games and board games -- in which you sit down and learn how to play before you start, then you play according to those rules you just learned. Most RPG players do nothing of the sort. They already "know how to roleplay" -- they just need to be told what to roll and how to make a character, right? Wrong.

A very frank discussion about the the point of PTA play, and how it's played is probably in order. Even so, this really may not be the game they want to play. Nothing wrong with that. You can find other people who do want to play a game like PTA. Continue on with the old group playing whatever they enjoy.

I think everything Tony said is right, as long as the agenda of the scene is Character. When the agenda is Plot -- sure, you can have a "Do the zombies eat the townsfolk?" kind of conflict. No problem. That's why you specify an agenda up front. It lets everyone know what kinds of conflicts we should be aiming for.

Tony,

Yeah, I don't either, but keep in mind that the "Do I survive?" wasn't an Actual Play example of Stakes. I should've said that up front.  I should probably give some real examples here.

"Piss off the sheriff." - Outlaw
"Instill the fear of God in the townsfolk." - Preacher
"Keep any of the townsfolk from being harmed." - Sheriff
"Find a way to profit from this situation." - Barber

I think we all got the Stakes, though there was occasionally some iffiness on whether they related to Issues or not. It was just GETTING those Stakes that the players found sort of tiresome.

John,

Thanks. Yeah, I think that's what happened here. I still think that some of the players would enjoy it. I did do the serious discussion of PTA and what it was about before the game, but it was still a struggle in play. Even for me. I think that if we set up a campaign of it and worked through our struggles, eventually it would click. But also, some of the players might just not like it. Ever.

I've just done the "different style of game" before and did all right. PTA just seems to be a very radical departure from the "typical game." And I mean that in the most pleased of ways.

Also, your latest post reminded me of another problem that we had which was, once a scene was declared Character or Plot, knowing what to do with that once we hit the Conflict. But again, I think experience would sort that out.

I was one of the players in the session, I played the Preacher who's issue was faith. Bret encapsulated my concept pretty well so I won't elaborate on that.

My difficulty with the game mainly stemmed from the jump to conflict without allowing more time for scene framing and character interaction.  It seemed that once we jumped to conflict we stepped out of character and began discussing things amongst each other as players rather than characters.  Then we'd play the hand of cards to determine who got their stakes and who got the narration privileges.  It seemed overall we spent more time out of character than in character.

For me this was a stumbling block because if I'm constantly breaking character I'm not getting a chance to really feel out my character and understand him better.  Although I felt like my character and his issue were interesting, I really didn't feel like I was getting a chance to be that character.  Instead I felt more like I was manipulating that character and then watching the result play out.  Is that the point of PTA?  If so, perhaps that's why it's not jiving with me.  That would be a radically different sort of game than I'm used to.   

I have played Capes previous to this game, and that is similar in the shared narration and scene building.  Yet, I found that even though I didn't "own" a character in Capes, we still spent a good portion of time in character in Capes, and that the out of character interactions were secondary to the in character stuff.  Conversely PTA seemed to spend most of its time on out of character interactions and less time with the in character stuff.  Is this a problem in how we approached PTA, or is that pretty much how PTA is meant to be played? 

I will also say that fatigue played a large part in building the general frustration of the group,and I think the game died largely because we were too tired to work through our frustration.  Otherwise I would've been more inclined to work through it. 

All this being said, it is an interesting game and I'd at least like to give it another shot at some point and see if works better for me the second time around.

It was just GETTING those Stakes that the players found sort of tiresome.

I really didn't feel like I was getting a chance to be that character. Instead I felt more like I was manipulating that character and then watching the result play out.  Is that the point of PTA?

Hi,

I have met quite a few gamers that think PtA is just exhausting and draining to play. And it is. Depending on how hard you jump into stakes and conflict in scenes. Many gamers I know actually relax when "just playing their character".

I think being in character and just jamming along in a scene, talking IC and doing IC stuff and making "cool scenes", is actually rather easy. Setting up conflicts and stakes is hard. Setting up conflict that addresses the Protagonists issues is even harder. IMHO that's exactly what makes PtA such an enjoyable game, but you do feel like having run a marathon after playing a session ;)

Frank wrote:

It was just GETTING those Stakes that the players found sort of tiresome.

P.S.: My opinion about conflict stakes and tying them to issues: Don't get all fuzzy about that. It's not like there's a penalty for not playing PtA narrativist or something. Just pick stakes that make for a cool scene whichever way the conflict turns out. That's enough.

Frank,

You're statement that "It's like, every single player has to put up an effort equal to the effort of a classic GM improvizing," really clicked, and I think in the future it may be very beneficial for me to say something to the players to the effect of, "Forget being a player in this, you're a GM more than anything else." That might be helpful in getting the players to grok the game.

Per,

Well, the game basically ended as a result of a discussion over Stakes-setting and the lack of "roleplaying" erupting in the middle of setting Stakes for the third scene.

But yeah, fatigue and the unexpected amount of effort required to play PTA was probably one of the biggest causes of the game's abortion. I *have* to try running this again, but I'm going to have to do it earlier in the day, and on a day in which we haven't already done five hours of roleplaying and spent two-and-a-half hours on the road.

Hey Bret,

Just as a point of reference, setting good stakes is a skill that does take some time in and of itself to develop, regardless of the system. It's a really cool technique but, especially for entrenched gamers, it can take a while to get facile with it. I've been playing these sorts of games for a while now, and there are still plenty of times that I fall into some bit of task oriented thinking. PTA is a game built heavily around the assumption that you're setting good stakes. Rest assured though that with some additional practice I think you and your group will find the conflict setups a bit less onerous. It's also useful to point out that PTA seems to me to have the same quality that Sorcerer does; the first session or so is a settling in period while everyone figures out the lay of the land. Once you all start to get a better feel for the other characters and especially how their issues are going to be addressed I think you'll find that things start to fall into place.

-Tim

Hi Jeremiah,

Welcome to the Forge! And thanks for posting about your experience with the game.

I think your concerns are valid. A lot of players (myself included) like a little "warm-up" time with a character, to get under their skin and learn how to play the part. For something as challenging (drama-wise) as PTA, getting to know your character is key, however you like to do it.

Even though PTA is all about driving towards conflict, that doesn't mean that you can't spend some time in a scene acting out your parts and speaking in character and all that. Matt talks about this in the book. This acting time is often very good for creating conflict material that you never knew was there, just based on some off-the-cuff character remark or mannerism. The tricky bit is not getting stuck in "just talking" as the main point of the game, but trying to always steer your play (actor stance or author stance) toward conflict and therefore, drama. But that comes with practice, and you may already be good at it anyway.

Anyway, communication about this (like you guys are doing here) is key. When a scene is moving along too fast for you, speak up. Just ask if the scene can play out a bit more before the conflict is resolved. I bet everyone will be flexible and allow for that. You can also ask to have a character scene with NO specific conflict, just as a little screen time to show who the character is. Most PTA scenes should have conflict, but it's okay if a few don't.

Something else to think about that helped some of my PTA games out:

It's okay to keep playing the scene after the roll. I had a couple of people I tried PTA out with get weird about the jarringly direct transition from building up the conflict to rolling to having one dude say what happens.

It doesn't have to work like that at all. It's not always the case in RPG play that the GM simply describes what happens after the roll with no input from anyone else. You've seen it - you're in heavy dialogue with an NPC and the GM breaks for a second to say, "Roll your Persuasion." You do, she checks the roll, and then continues the dialog now that she knows which way the NPC is going to bend. The fun of determining how you get there is still left to pure roleplay - all you know is the final outcome.

There is absolutely no reason why PTA play can't work like that. As has been previously mentioned, the 'narrator' authority is much better described, IMO, as the normal GM's 'this is where the buck stops' power over the way things actually go down. The only thing that's far out about that concept is the fact that said authority gets passed around.

So the Sheriff is trying to fend off the zombie hordes in order to keep the people from rioting, say. He fails. Someone gets narration. Keep roleplaying. Show the decline of the townsfolk into a disorderly mob. Show the Sheriff's determined, vain efforts to stop it all. Pile on the angst. Act. Be. Do it like you've always done it.

Just like finding the "sweet spot" for rolling dice in a conflict, the degree to which you do the above is an issue of local preferences and tastes, not just for PTA, but for any roleplaying game, period. Nothing in the rules says that you have to step way outside of your character in order to resolve a scene after your stakes and whatnot are in place. You can resolve PTA conflicts just like any other Fortune-in-the-Middle design, apart from the authority passing mentioned earlier, and you lose nothing for doing so. In this sense, PTA doesn't have to be that different from other games. I've observed that people can easily psych themselves into this "oh, I have to do everything different!" kind of mode when they first get into PTA, because a lot of attention gets paid to how different it is.

The more I play it, the more I discover the same basic activities you do in all roleplaying games, except mixed up a little with some snazzy (and admittedly badass) rules for the sake of achieving specific creative goals. That's not to belittle it at all -- the game is a fine achievement and now a near-absolute favorite of mine. I'm just trying to point out that there are parts of your gamer comfort zone that PTA doesn't absolutely demand you get rid of, even as it's hacking away at some other parts.

-Landon Darkwood

John,

Thanks,  for the welcome, I've heard alot about this place.

I appreciate hearing that other people have felt the same way I do about the game and the potential for the pacing to be too fast.  I think that our newness to the game kind of hindered us in trying to adjust the pacing, and in the future I'll be sure to speak up if I'd like a little more time to feel out the characters and their interactions.

I think one of the things I wasn't really thinking about was that even though Bret was the producer, that doesn't mean he is the sole arbitrator of the flow of play.  The other players at the table can speak up and ask for play to slow down or speed up if they feel there's a need for it.

I think also spending a little more time with our characters might've helped us understand what the stakes in an individual scene might be a bit more clearly.  Although I understood that stakes were supposed to be tied to the issues of the character, I had a hard time making that connection at some points. 

You've all certainly given me some things to think about, and encouraged me to want to try this game again.  Thanks.

On Stakes and Issues, maybe a little example from this week's actual play. The show is Diamonds & Desasters, it's a modern day show about master thieves operating from Bangkok. My protagonist is Espen, played by Ryan Philippe, a spoiled little brat from South Africa. His Issue is (ir)responsibility. For his Spotlight, a black girl he left behind pregnant shows up with her three year old son. What Espen doesn't know: She is being used as bait by a mean bountyhunter set on Espen's trail by his own father.

In the first half of the episode, Espen has done everything to piss the poor girl (Laura) off. Eventually, he returns from a job and finds her and the boy gone. There is a self-reflective scene, and he decides despite himself to go looking for them. So the producer frames a scene with Espen wandering the streets of Bangkok, calling people on his cell phone, as a big limousine drives by and he recognizes Laura at the window. I describe Espen grabbing the next best motor-rikcha-whatever, knocking off the driver and giving chase (two middle-aged french tourist women still in the back). We say Conflict, I propose the Stakes: "Does Espen find out about the bountyhunter?" Everybody says cool. We roll, I win, I narrate the hot chase with the french ladies cheering me and how the limousine pulls up in front of the Hilton and they are greeted by the bountyhunter.

Later, there is a climatic scene in the Hilton with the bountyhunter putting a gun to Espen's son's head and one of Espens team mates crashing through the window. Now Espen's Stakes are: Does Laura get killed? His team mate, whose Issue is risking too much for thrill, has the stakes: Does she risk too much, therefore causing trouble? (It's agreed that if we both lose, Laura's death will be her fault.) I lose, she wins. I narrate the whole fight and Laura taking a bullet for Espen, telling him, dying, that she didn't do it for him, but for the boy, and that she hopes it was the right choice.

Now, the first described scene was smooth. The stakes were easily found, the narration was a laugh. There was just me and Situation, and off it went. It was fun. The second scene was hard. There was the producer and us two players, a Next Week On, two Issues and their Story Arcs in that room, along with a tricky Situation and a two-way-conflict. It took us quite some time and struggle to figure out the right stakes, and the narration of the outcome was repeatedly interrupted and rephrased.

I freely admit that the first scene was more fun to me, though the second scene was certainly much more important for my protagonist's development.

- Frank