Just downloaded Primetime Adventures, just done the first read through. Now, the role-playing game as TV show thing is a big thing of mine. It's sort of the common way I view things.

So I really like some of the stuff in this game - specifically the character arcs, and specifying when they are important, etc.

I love it all, until I come to Conflicts. Is it just me or are Conflicts too abstact? I'm all for dropping hit by hit resolution, etc, but at the moment Conflict has nothing to do with the characters Traits? Again, not wanting any sort of in depth realism/sim but it seems a disconnect to me? That's one issue.

The other issue is I can see how to use the Conflict system in some situations, but not others. Opening a door..yeah. Persuading someone to do something...yeah. Protagonist gets into a kick-ass fight with his nemesis...no.

Any thoughts on why it works this way? What I am missing? What I can do to tweak things?

Also, anyone know if this is the full version, or if some 'meat' around this stuff exists in a 'to buy' version?

I stand corrected. I see how traits are used. Still vague on certain types of conflict though.

Ian:

Actual examples are in the works. I'm just being a lazy bastard about finalizing some of the bits and pieces. I'm going to use actual play experiences for them.

As for how to do a big duel with the nemesis, you can use the advantages and setbacks for cues of things that happen in one exchange. I plan to expand on that idea as well.

So say you roll 5 dice and get 3 advantages and 1 setback, and the producer gets 2 advantages for the nemesis. One interpretation is that you get 3 advantages' worth of whuppin' in and then something unfortunate happens, and the nemesis gets in 2 advantages' worth.

They don't technically mean anything other than a comparison of who wins the exchange, but they can help you visualize the conflict.

Since a conflict is always at most a total of three exchanges, if you want it to be a long, epic battle, you need to narrate more for each exchange.

Hope that helps. I'll see if I can get some of the other playtesters to chime in about their experiences.

By the way, thanks for checking it out!

Hey Ian,

I agree that conflicts in PTA are somewhat abstract. All the business with advantages and setbacks and such is pure metagame. It's in the collaborative narration of the conflict that you see the actual, in-game results. I'll post some actual play examples when I have more time.

Also, you don't roll a conflict to open a door. Even a big stone door, or one with a nasty lock on it. You get your conflict dice from your Issue, right? That's the big neon sign in the game system that says make conflicts matter. The outcome of a conflict should be significant for the story arc of the character involved. It's never, ever about task resolution or "can my guy do X?"

(edited: typo)

Feng wrote: Also, you don't roll a conflict to open a door. Even a big stone door, or one with a nasty lock on it. You get your conflict dice from your Issue, right? That's the big neon sign in the game system that says make conflicts matter. The outcome of a conflict should be significant for the story arc of the character involved. It's never, ever about task resolution or "can my guy do X?"

I remember a big knock-down drag-out fight using PTA conflict rules that I loved - mainly because it combined really great action with good character development. I don't remember how each role went specifically, but just one conflict involved all four players, a few of our connections and a cadre of big and little bad guys.

Here's what I remember - roll one, good guys were taken by surprise so had to sacrifice (to a tranq dart) one player who was trying to save another whom she loved. Roll two, rest of gang escapes (without looking back at the sacrificed player - moral issues there) with just a twist of an ankle. Roll three, last player enters the scene and kicks royal butt on remaining big and little bad guys, in a disturbing display of power no one knew she had.

Does that help?

Ian, re: bad example. I figured you probably knew the score there, but it was a good excuse for me to sound off about a part of the game I really like.

(I have checked out your Buffy pages, by the way. Great stuff. I ran Buffy myself for a while -- next time I do I'll use PTA).

Anyway... fights. In PTA they're tricky. Is it worth a conflict roll or not? Well, what's a stake? If there is something really at stake, then it probably is a conflict, even if it's against nameless mooks. If it's the opening scene where Buffy is on patrol and we see her dust a few vamps as part of her nightly routine... not a conflict roll.

When I was running PTA, I tried to think about conflicts this way: Will the story change as a result of this conflict? How? What's at stake? If I had answers to these, then a conflict was probably brewing. If not, then no conflict roll was necessary. Just narrate it, or ask the player to.

Ah, that's another point. Conflict rolls determine who gets the final say in the narration of the outcome. Everyone gets to help narrate, but the winner can veto things and tell the "final version." So rolling for a conflict sort of implies that the players have different ideas about how something can turn out. If everyone is already in agreement about how things should go ("Yes, Buffy dusts the single vamp, no problem.") then you don't need to roll at all.

So this game is interesting. As I assume, scenes with mooks would just be described as scene framing, or the conflict (if there was one) would be about something else (still just describing the Mook fight)?

Or, in short hand, I assume there are no filler fights? If the fight is just for the player to look cool it should (a) not involve a conflict in PTA terms for the fight per se and (2) ideally involve another element that may or may not be a conflict?

I like those examples. I've sort of realised something, well, I've realised it for a while but PTA has brought into focus (probably because it matches how I approach games - the TV show thing).

When we play Buffy, we play PTA.

It's true. We only include scenes that are important. 90% of scenes are freeform. When we do make task resolution skill rolls the DM just looks for a disasterous result otherwise he allows the characters to look cool. We often edit scenes in as players, but we could do better on that. We even ignore rolls in combat when it's not that important, or we make them and it feels wrong (tedious). We just want to look cool and make the dramatic choices.

But you know what? Suggesting we use PTA would feel like a big leap, but it's madness that it is, because we are playing PTA - we just play fast and loose with an already simple game to get it.

Weird.

Ian:

I mentioned some of this in response to your thread on rpg.net, but I think the change that might feel strangest will be in addressing the various stances that PTA encourages.

There's a lot of time spent away from actor stance, and that's obviously going to be a minus for players who enjoy the "on stage" thrill. It can make it feel more like rehearsal than performance at times.

Answered on rpg.net to, so this might get complicated.

We are not actor stance pursis, far from it, but I think there is a difference on how we implement the other stances which may cause conflict with PTA. The conflict would largely be centred on when we implement our author and directory stance.

We do author scenes, we do add elements to scenes and ask for other playes to be present, but we do not do it 100% in terms of the construction of the overall session in actual play. A lot of the scenes set-ups are still DM provided (though we add some in at times) BUT done in some cases from author stance, etc stuff discussed between sessions to some degree.

So yeah, it would cause a shift.

Ian, it sounds to me like what you're doing now with Buffy is exactly what you want. Except that you're here asking about alternatives like PTA. So, I have to ask: Do you want to try a different game system or not?

If you do, then yeah, some things are going to be different than what you're doing now. That's the idea. This line of yours highlighted it for me:

... but I think there is a difference on how we implement the other stances which may cause conflict with PTA.

Feng,

I've been thinking about it, and I think what happens is I take ideas and concepts away from these narrativist games. The the games represent a sort of raw intensity of what I want to achieve in my games - but I'm happy to do it with systems that are not a perfect match (in a Forge sense).

So, has this been useless? Not overly, it's actually got a few things clear in my head. Basically that I'm to some extent dysfunctional and I don't mind :)

Do I like these narrative games, yeah I love them. I get really enthusiastic about them - but it's more about what I take away than what I actually play. Which might frustrate some people, as it's all about actual play for some. but nevertheless that's the case.

For example, I'd make seasonal character arcs like in Primetime Adventures a requisite for all characters now. It happened for some didn't for others in the past, now it will just be part of character creation in the game I play.

Ian, (you can call me John, btw)

That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. And I wouldn't call your play "dysfunctional" at all. Quite the opposite. You know what you want, and you use System to get there (Social Contract is a part of system, as defined around here). Your players are happy and you're happy. Shine on, you crazy diamond.

FWIW, I was running a heavily drifted Buffy game myself (using Unisystem). We shifted gears and ran it with an Everway-like system, and that worked, too. Then I found PTA and everything clicked. It put into system everything that I was handwaving and doing "behind the scenes." So of course I'm now a big PTA booster and I'm jumping up and down saying "You should play PTA! You'll love it!" That's where I'm coming from.

I'm glad you can take something away from games like PTA to make your own drifted game better. That's what all of this theory stuff is about anyway: making actual play better. If you can do that, who cares what you call it? You're playing the "Ian O'Rourke Buffy System" and it's a beautiful thing.

Hi Ian,

John's right - you're still struggling with some funky notion that got into your head that "If I play game X and it's supposed to be all Sim, but I'm playing Narr with it, then I'm dysfunctional." I even remember when that happened, a couple of years ago; your posts got all tail-chasey and impossible to answer, and then you stopped posting. So maybe it's time to just find that wriggly notion and kill it?

Bset,
Ron

That is quite true. In truth though I stopped posting because I started actually playing, so that was sort of a good thing.

It wasn't so much I thought I was dysfunctional (I must watch what I say) - it was more I was seeking perfection I think, often before I actually played, or after the first few sessions.

I think that period of actual play has started to resolve the issues you mention. The reason being, even though I'm not DM'ing, I've heavily influenced how the games we play are played, and I think I've finally reached the comfort zones in terms of how we approach playing, it's relationship to the system and, more importantly, what I get out of narrativists systems.

It may be worth noting that the other thread I'm involved in is not related to this issue - but since it's about unconscious narrative (or not) play it may touch on slightly.