So Eric (TheCzech) got Sydney, Jennifer and I together to run a season of PTA.  Excellent!  And we made this mutant cross-breed of Firefly (Sydney), Neverwhere (Jen) and Cowboy Bebop (me) for our world:  In the fringe colonies of the Canis Major galaxy, there isn't much organized law enforcement.  That's why the fairies and werewolves and all can find lots of shadows to hide in.  Our characters are bounty-hunters ... as often sent after those who have broken the mystical laws as the mundane.  We Know Stuff.  Doesn't do us any good, because we're dirt poor and borderline criminal.  But we do Know Stuff.

So our little band picked up Sydney's character (Weiss) when she got herself dishonorably discharged from the military that had been her life.  She's down.  She also needs to be licensed on the fairy side of the bounty hunting world.  There's a whole set of challenges, and rituals, and combats, and all that rigamorale, and we just skip right over it... because the spotlight is on Jen's character (Brigit) who is a fairy (albeit maybe/sorta/technically outcaste).  She's sitting there with the adjudicator, and we all agree that it just doesn't matter what Weiss does.  That's how the fairy work.  They're putting Weiss through hell, but that's not going to decide anything.  What matters is Brigit and this adjudicator chatting over tea.

Which, first ... awesome.

And then we're wondering "What are the stakes here?"  Of course we skip right over "Does Weiss get licensed?" because we all want Weiss to be licensed.  We move on to the classic lead-in about "Does Brigit win her conflict without being bound to something?" but immediately realize that we all want her to be bound to something.  So that drops out of the contention, and the question becomes what is she bound to?  At first we just say "If she wins then she gets to choose what the conditions are," but then we look at the "If she loses" side, and it looks a bit bare.  "If she loses, she gets whatever conditions the narrator wants to apply?"  Not really strong.  So we jazz it up.  "If she loses, the adjudicator gets to set the terms of what she owes, because her own people don't trust her to set fair terms."  This wonderful little shiver of appreciation went around the table as we realized how right that was for her.  It started out being about what happened, and then we tied in stakes about who she is.  Awesome.

So we turned to Weiss, and wondered "What can her stakes be, if we know she wins?" and that became instantly clear:  "Does she win with honor, or does she compromise her principles?"  But, again ... it needed to be jazzed.  And someone suggested "Weiss might be willing to compromise her principles because she thinks this is that important.  Because ... y'know ... it's all riding on her."  And there was the long pause, and then someone said "Even though it isn't," and we all nodded.  And I think it was Sydney who said "If Weiss ever finds out that this didn't matter, she'll never trust Brigit the same way again."  And we all nodded.

But here's the really wild part.

We settled all this, and Eric was dealing out the cards, and we were about to resolve all of this.  And I realized that I needed to go to the bathroom.  And that I was thirsty.  Oh, and that my legs were a bit stiff.  My body was telling me to get up and leave the table.  Right then.  Or, rather, my body had been complaining for some time, and the part of my brain that had been saying "Not now!  Busy!" stopped as soon as the stakes were set.  I really didn't care how it came out.  I mean, yeah, I wanted to keep telling the story ... but, y'know, they can give me the executive summary of what happened when I get back.  I didn't need to be here for the inconsequential bits.

So I've been thinking about it since, because my brain doesn't want to accept the obvious (but nonsensical) conclusion:  I think PTAs rules are too heavy.  Once we've set those stakes, that perfect way, I'd be just as happy flipping a coin, or just having the Producer (or another player) declare by fiat which way it works out.  If I can be guaranteed of those Stakes being set in that perfect, entangled, balanced way then I can use any rules system (even "GM's choice") to resolve the Stakes.

What I want now (for Misery Bubblegum particularly, but also more generally) is a rules mechanic that people can use as an explicit tool to create the right stakes.

Do you have a thought on what that rule mechanic would look like?  You seemed to have given this some thought. 

Glendower wrote:
Do you have a thought on what that rule mechanic would look like?  You seemed to have given this some thought. 

Greg:  Okay, on the one side I want to impress Peggy Sue.
Anne:  On the other side you get to keep your promise to Aunt Martha to be a good kid.
Greg:  Ouch!  Okay, but on the promise to Aunt Martha side there's also my reputation with the teachers.
Anne:  And on the Peggy Sue side there's also your reputation with your class-mates.
Greg:  AGGH!  So if I impress Peggy Sue then my class-mates think I'm cool, but I've betrayed Aunt Martha and the teachers think I'm a punk.  Well, I'm adding that if I impress Peggy Sue then she answers the question of whether she loves me.
Anne:  Well I don't want you to add that to the Stakes.
Greg:  Let's roll dice!

That looks a lot like Polaris.

Which would be a hell of a cool mechanic to hybridize with an Issues-focused game like Prime Time Adventures. Perhaps it's not that the PTA conflict-resolution mechanic is too "heavy" (hard to imagine): Maybe it's actually in the wrong place, because (as Tony said) the real excitement is in setting the stakes just right -- and a mechanic designed to rachet up the pressure in the stakes-setting would be very cool.

The great strength of PTA is that it gets the whole group into this story-brainstorming mode -- but one of my (few) frustrations with the system is that the brainstorming is pure consensus and talking-it-out (Drama, I guess). The mechanical element is limited to paying someone Fan mail after the fact to reward them for setting particularly cool stakes (that's the main way our group uses fan mail, interestingly). If I really, really, really want something about your character to be at stake, and you say "no," that's it (if I'm reading the rules right). I can only torture your character in ways you approve of; I can only threaten parts of the fiction that you are willing to see threatened.

Which is very "nobody gets hurt," and that's a great and good thing -- but one of my best roleplaying experiences came when the system (Capes) allowed the other players to say, "no, actually, your character's not like that" and threaten (in fact, in both cases, destroy) elements of the story I wouldn't have let go of on my own. I want a PTA variant or derivative where people can do that to me and my character, a game where they can threaten something I'm not ready to lose, or bribe me (conditional Fan Mail!) to do something I'm not comfortable doing.

Because beyond the borderline of "I'm comfortable," and before you reach the badlands of "no, this hurts," there is a lot of cool story territory to explore.

Sydney:  Yeah.  What I find fascinating about stakes-setting is that it can be such a compelling velvet glove over what is, when you get right down to it, an iron fist of other people imposing their idea for the story on you.

For instance, suppose we'd been playing in full-on traditional mode, and Eric were the all-powerful GM.  If he pulled some cards, looked at them and said "Okay, Weiss pulls out a hidden pistol and wins the fight by dishonorable means," I suspect (though, y'know, interested to hear your take) that you'd have been displeased.

And yet, if he says "Okay, the stakes if you lose are that you pull a gun and win the fight by dishonorable means," and then he pulls some cards, looks at them and says "You lose," that's more palatable.  Isn't that wierd?

And if he says (now shifting to the nebulous "Stakes resolution" nonsense) "Okay, if you lose this draw of cards then you won't be able to both retain your honor and win the fight ... you'll have to choose," and then he pulls some cards, looks at them and says "You lose," then that's ... well, for me that's downright enjoyable.  I had a chance to get it all, but that didn't work out, so now I have to make hard choices (which is something I wanted anyway).  Rockin'!  Even though somebody's just told me either "You're a loser" or "You have no honor."  It's still rockin'.  And yeah, that's wierd to me.

These examples vary in lots of little ways.  I'm not saying that Stakes are the only thing working here.  But I'm fascinated how taking a close look at the various ways that stakes can be set drags all of these other issues out into the spotlight, where we can look at them.

A big part of it is that it's not just "he says" what the stakes are: The whole group is brainstorming collectively (again, the amazing core strength of PTA). What's more -- if I understand the buck-stops-here of the rules correctly, and certainly as we've been playing it -- I as player of a particular protagonist have final say over what the stakes are for that protagonist ... even if my final say is, "yeah, what you said, that rocks."

The push beyond this is for me to go, "those stakes you proposed? I dunno. Not comfortable" - and then you say, "Here's five poker chips for you if you accept it -- feel comfy now?" Or even, "here's five face-down cards that say those are the stakes  -- unless you have a better hand?"

I wonder if there's a way to kick fan mail up a notch to the point where it's close to voting.  The cadence of the back and forth really seems to scream out to me for people slapping chips down on the table as they declare that something is awesome.  Coupled with some way to make resolution faster, say, a single roll of a single die, or a single cardflip, that might really sing.

-Rob D.

Jared mentioned a film director who said when a film maker wants to review a movie, they don't write a review, they make another movie.  It sounds like a few game designers want to review PTA by making another game.

I think that's awesome.  Make that game.  I'm dying to play something that has come from this fertile ground.

Rob wrote:
  Coupled with some way to make resolution faster, say, a single roll of a single die, or a single cardflip, that might really sing.

I think everyone's on the same page with you, Paka.  Saying "This different thing would sing" is not saying "PTA doesn't sing."  It's just saying "This other thing would sing too."

I apologize if my self-mocking "PTA is too rules heavy" comment came across as criticism of the system.  It was meant to be a "Look how goofy I am!  I'm actually thinking of the PTA mechanics as being intrusive!" thing, in the same way it would be if I said "Man, Vernors just doesn't have enough bite for my taste buds."

TonyLB wrote:
I apologize if my self-mocking "PTA is too rules heavy" comment came across as criticism of the system.  It was meant to be a "Look how goofy I am!  I'm actually thinking of the PTA mechanics as being intrusive!" thing, in the same way it would be if I said "Man, Vernors just doesn't have enough bite for my taste buds."

Sydney wrote:
The push beyond this is for me to go, "those stakes you proposed? I dunno. Not comfortable" - and then you say, "Here's five poker chips for you if you accept it -- feel comfy now?" Or even, "here's five face-down cards that say those are the stakes  -- unless you have a better hand?"

GM:  Okay, Sydney, now you have to choose between winning the fightt (here on the left) and keeping your honor (here on the right).  Choose!
Sydney:  Uh ... no!  My naval training will let me win, no matter what ... I'm removing win-the-fight from the conflict.
GM:  Not so fast.  Your 'disgraced' trait clearly shows that you don't always win.  I'm putting the win-the-fight right back where it started.
 > struggle, dispute, compete <
Sydney:  Okay.  I guess I really do have to choose, after all.  I choose ... urgh ... defeat with honor.
GM:  Defeat with honor it is!

TonyLB wrote: The second is a thread back when (my search-fu fails me) where someone was pointing out that the threat of Narrativist choices can be an incentive to Gamist engagement:  that people will get very creative in their attempts to wriggle out of being forced to make a hard choice.

Here's possibility 1: the situation develops in such a way that the character can ditch out of her stake in the issue. ...People in real world crisis crave this possibility. A character will always seize the opportunity, if there is one... [But] There's no creating theme if the character has no stake in the issue.

Paka wrote: Something has been stirred up by this game and I'd love for something productive to come out of it.  I'd love for PTA to have a cousin out there making good games happen.