Topic: Using 3/2 traits spread in 2nd edition?
Started by: Filip Luszczyk
Started on: 5/17/2007
Board: Dog Eared Designs
On 5/17/2007 at 4:32pm, Filip Luszczyk wrote:
Using 3/2 traits spread in 2nd edition?
So, I've been thinking about running PTA and I'm pondering going back to the 3/2 traits spread. Playing the game, I've felt that I had this feeling that I don't have enough traits to describe my character in a satisfactory manner and introduce enough important NPCs at the same time. On the other hand, the old 3/2 spread seems just right to me. Looking from the GM's point of view, 3/2 spread would make it possible to put more Connections on the character sheet, and this would give me more "flagged" NPCs to work with (with 2-3 players I'd have a pretty nice cast of 4-9 secondary characters).
I remember reading somewhere on the forum the reason for the change was because 3/2 spread was "an overkill" - but in what way? On the other hand I've been discussing it with the guy who has been running PTA for us before, and his conclusion was that 2/1 spread makes for stronger flags.
Specifically, what I've been thinking about is having 3/2 traits spread, but disconnecting their number of uses per session from Screen Presence. Every trait would be usable only once per session, and one chosen trait would be usable twice. No more than 3 traits could be used per conflict.
This would give the same number of uses the players would have with Screen Presence 2. However, SP 3 character would have 3 dice less, and SP 1 character would have 3 dice more to use per session. I don't really see it as that much of a problem, cause it's possible to regain trait uses easily anyway. So it's more about changing the moment when requesting scenes in the home set ceases to provide mechanical benefits to SP 1 and 3 characters.
So, the question is - would using 3/2 spread this way break the game's economy, weaken traits as flags or cause some other problems?
On 5/17/2007 at 4:43pm, Matt Wilson wrote:
Re: Using 3/2 traits spread in 2nd edition?
Hey Filip:
The 2/1 split forces a bigger-picture look at a protagonist. Edges and Connections shouldn't be lists. Pick the three most important things about your protagonist. Just because the other aspects of the character aren't mechanically applicable doesn't mean they don't exist or aren't important.
Pick a show on TV, one where there's actually a story arc in process for a character, and I doubt you'll find a laundry list of character traits that are consistently important.
Remember that you can change stuff around between story arcs.
And as for the economy, more traits mechanically means more chances of winning.
On 5/17/2007 at 5:25pm, Filip Luszczyk wrote:
RE: Re: Using 3/2 traits spread in 2nd edition?
Matt,
Hmm, it's not about having laundry lists. The thing is, playing the game I didn't feel like I have enough important things about the character defined. Three most important things would be enough, I think. But it was more like, one or two things most important about him and one or two most important secondary characters tied to him. This is why the 2/1 split felt problematic to me - regardless if I've been defining important things about the character or important characters tied to him, I had to cross out one of the things that I've seen as most important.
So, maybe the problem is that I see Edges and Connections as two functionally separate categories - but I have a hard time looking at them both exactly the same way.
The fact that it's not easy to change traits during the story arc only made it worse, as I've been feeling the character is too tightly defined mechanically. These are the aspects of the character that regularly come up in conflicts after all, and form the basis for narration. With only one Edge or only one Connection things seemed rather repetitive to me in that particular area - one dimensional, so to say.
It's hard for me to relate to the advice about picking a TV show and analysing it, as I haven't been watching TV shows for many years (I've been watching loads of Anime on the other hand, and thinking in these terms, I have a problem pinpointing all the most important aspects of most characters I like using 2/1 spread). Maybe this is my stumbling point, dunno.
As for the economy, I'm specifically wondering about my above idea of one use per session per trait, as it doesn't really add more dice in the long run, I think.
But then, it seems I need to reconsider whether I really want to run PTA - maybe it's too close to freeform for me after all, now that I look at your mention about the importancy of things not defined mechanically.
Thanks for the advice, anyway.
On 5/18/2007 at 4:13pm, Matt Wilson wrote:
RE: Re: Using 3/2 traits spread in 2nd edition?
Filip:
I don't like freeform play. I wouldn't look at the game that way. I like to jump immediately into conflict and skip past all that boring "let's sit around and talk in character" stuff. Nope, not a freeform game at all. There should be plenty of card dealing and flipping and coin spending and stuff.
All I'm saying is not everything about the protagonist gets a mechanical function.
How about you describe a protagonist for me that you would have trouble putting in 2/1 terms, and I'll tell you what I'd do?
On 5/20/2007 at 11:23pm, Filip Luszczyk wrote:
RE: Re: Using 3/2 traits spread in 2nd edition?
I've run the game after all, by the book (I'm just after finishing the pilot episode). From the producer's point of view, it's fine for me. I had enough NPCs to work with, although this might be due to strongly defined nemeses of both players (they were coming up in play more often than their actual connections so far). I'm not sure if there will be enough fuel for the whole season, but it should rather work fine.
So, it seems like the game works for me as a GM. But I've been thinking about it, and my conclusion is that very probably it won't work for me as a player all that well. It seems I should rather run PTA than play it ;)
I don't like freeform play. I wouldn't look at the game that way. I like to jump immediately into conflict and skip past all that boring "let's sit around and talk in character" stuff. Nope, not a freeform game at all. There should be plenty of card dealing and flipping and coin spending and stuff.
Now, we may be understanding "freeform" differently. However, "sitting around and talking in character" is basically what we've been doing for the most part of the session. Well, we've been switching between in character and out of character narration rather chaotically, but that's the normal case with us.
The session lasted for about three hours, and in half or so of our scenes there was no mechanical conflict as there was no real need to refer to conflict mechanics most of the time. However, I don't think we had any unnecessary scenes, and there was only one scene that, in retrospect, should have finished with a conflict.
At the same time, there was quite a lot of dice rolling and stuff (well, we play via Skype, so we're using the old dice method). Going with some advice I've seen around I started with a big conflict, spending 4 out of my 11 budget, and later I've been spending 2-3 per conflict. I wasn't receiving too much budget back from the spent fanmail, too. Also, players were using their traits very sparringly.
So, I'm not sure we've been playing the game as it is supposed to be played. Handling the mechanics itself didn't took us too much time. Without all this "sit and talk" interaction the session would have ended extremely fast and my guess is it wouldn't be very satisfying. I feel it was pretty much the substance of play.
Also, I'd say narration and interaction came into foreground exactly due to the minimalistic mechanics not engaging us too deeply in their use. For example, playing DitV we have a comparable amount of narration and interaction, but a substantial part of the fun comes from dealing with the mechanics.
BTW, with players awarding no more than one fanmail per scene, in a two player game there was constantly quite a lot of tokens in the audience pool and we finished the session with almost half of the initial budget in it. And more often than not, at least one fanmail was awarded in a scene. We figured out that increasing the limit to two fanmail awards per scene would have sense in a two player game, as some fanmail-heavy scenes would supplement the currency flow and make it more probable that budget erosion slows down. Now, would such a modification break something?
All I'm saying is not everything about the protagonist gets a mechanical function.
Yes, I get it. This is probably why I have problems with the game as a player. However I think about it, I barely ever care about descriptive stuff concerning my character that doesn't have any function in the system.
How about you describe a protagonist for me that you would have trouble putting in 2/1 terms, and I'll tell you what I'd do?
The thing is, I have no doubts you could describe just about anything using PTA system terms. Whether I'd be satisfied playing a character described that way is another matter, and this might not always be the case.
The first time I played PTA it was pretty difficult for me to define my character's traits, as I had to cross something out. The second time, I didn't really had such a problem (two edges was just enough for that concept), but both times I felt I'd rather have one more connection.
So, the first time we've been playing students of Arkham University who possessed some mysterious powers. I had a medicine student and a talented painter, torn between following his desire to become an artist and being obedient towards his family, insisting that he became a doctor. Also, after he painted something it was later occurring somewhere. I wanted him to have some problems with sight, too, as I've been picturing some tense scenes when this could be interesting.
I had the following three edges written down, and I had a serious dilemma:
-A medicine student. I wanted this to come into play mechanically, as in the Arkham game I expected to see my character in some research connected conflicts.
-A talented painter. I wanted this to come into play mechanically, as I wanted to see my character in some conflicts connected with painting in general and his powers. Also, I wanted both this and the above edge, as they would highlight the Issue.
-Glasses. I wanted this to come into play mechanically, as I wanted to see conflicts in which the glasses would come up as an important part of the narration (both as character's poor sight and as an item). Also, I've seen it as too cool to cross out.
Now, I knew that if I'd cross the glasses out, I'd soon forget that my character had poor sight and worn them. I'd have no real reason to care about it (and other players the more so). However, it was a pretty important part of my vision of the character. So, I crossed out the painter, as the fact about my character being a talented painter was in the concept and in the Issue anyway. However, I still felt bad about it.
I had the family as a nemesis, if I recall, but I also wanted it to have some mechanical weight. However, I also needed a connection with someone from the University, so I had to resign from taking a family member as a connection in the end.
For comparison, this is my last character from a recent Kumquat Tattoo game, statted in Risus:
-Desperate Quarry 4
-Engineer 3
-Exiled Noble 3
Even though I could have spent the points differently to add more Cliches, adding more mechanical definition would have been pointless as I had my whole character concept represented. At the same time, less Cliches wouldn't reflect everything I wanted to have there.
So, my conclusion is PTA more often than not won't give me the tools I need to feel comfortable as a player. Oh well.