I have been hearing a lot about Primetime Adventures from SoK and other sources. I finally got a chance to play (I ran) a game after reading the book last week.

After about a half hour we got a really good pitch out of left field. The original premise was A show about the lives of people who are living out the chess game between heaven and hell. more specifically an angel and a demon. where the seven deadly sin are weighed against their opposing virtues.
Then I asked about why he called the show Seven on the dice, the player made some reference to the angel and demon rolling dice, then pointed to my shelf were I had two very large foam d6’s positioned facing him in the number seven (3 and 4). This evolved into a game set in Las Vegas; revolving around a Casino, the employees, the usual players, and High Rollers.

Our show was a hit for all of us at the table. We decide we were an HBO miniseries, with gratuitous sex scenes, and our portrayal of the Angel and Demon as the Head Bartender and Head Pit boss respectively. All of the players issues went well with the theme of the show and were all posed as questions that could slant either, toward the angel or the demon. We Had “Just one more hand” for our rich regular, “what is happiness” for our professional dealer, and “am I the best” for our pro gambler / entertainer.

Overall I thought the game went well, however there were some issues with the way the narration was determined. And I guess this is a question for those who are more experienced with PTA. We had a scene where two protagonists were involved in a conflict at the same time, and technically the same conflict. However one protagonist was not directly competing with the other, and was not affecting his stakes at all. Would this be two separate conflicts? It turned out that the player with little to do with the stake of the scene; which felt a little flat to both me and the player who called for the scene.

There were also some problems with the economics of the game, I would love some advice on how to handle budget in future games. I found that I was spending a lot of it too early (trying to get it on the table) and ran out before the climax of the episode. Granted there were 8 chips in the center pool by that time well.

SpazMan wrote:
Overall I thought the game went well, however there were some issues with the way the narration was determined. ... We had a scene where two protagonists were involved in a conflict at the same time, and technically the same conflict. However one protagonist was not directly competing with the other, and was not affecting his stakes at all. Would this be two separate conflicts? It turned out that the player with little to do with the stake of the scene; which felt a little flat to both me and the player who called for the scene.

SpazMan wrote:
There were also some problems with the economics of the game, I would love some advice on how to handle budget in future games. I found that I was spending a lot of it too early (trying to get it on the table) and ran out before the climax of the episode. Granted there were 8 chips in the center pool by that time well.

Hi  SpazMan,

Sounds like a cool show.

Remember that the high card in any conflict is the narrator. That player may have lost his part of the conflict, but he still gets to narrate (with input from others) how the other players won or lost and how he won or lost.

Also, when two or more players are in the same conflict, they always compete separately against the Producer. This means that each player compares their set of cards to the Producer's and never to each other's. Note also that the Producer uses the same hand against all players involved in that conflict. Finally, because one player can never oppose another player's objective, you have to start the stakes setting conflict by choosing stakes that don't directly oppose each other.

About Fanmail economy: the general wisdom is for the Producer to spend lots of chips early. This puts out a good Audience pool for players to give Fanmail from. If you're budget is running low and there's lots of Audience chips, encourage the players to give Fanmail for anything they like--it doesn't have to be exceptionally cool or laughmaking, just enjoyable. When they spend Fanmail on cards, you'll get half of them back as budget. Finally, the economy is designed so you eventually run out of budget so the protagonists win the final challenges. If you can end a session with an empty Audience pool and empty budget, you're doing great.

SpazMan wrote: There were also some problems with the economics of the game, I would love some advice on how to handle budget in future games. I found that I was spending a lot of it too early (trying to get it on the table) and ran out before the climax of the episode. Granted there were 8 chips in the center pool by that time well.

Hi,

I'll chime in with more agreement the business about the Producer spending lots of Budget right away. However, my motivations are a little different, which is to say, I like putting lots of mechanics-based pressure into the resolution system, so we're not all just sittin' around talkin' and agreein' (boring). In my experience, adversity matters greatly in PTA. The increased Audience pool is definitely a bonus on top of that, though.

Best, Ron