Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Georgios Panagiotidis, July 20, 2005, 09:20:17 AM
Quote from: TonyLB on July 20, 2005, 09:32:29 AMScreen Presence 1, 2, 1? That's... sorta low, isn't it? Was that deliberate?
QuoteJeffrey P. Tanner(Tobias): a young and pampered rich boy (Joaquin Phoenix), who seems to coast by on the reputation and the connections of his father (David Hasselhoff). His issue is 'asshole with a controlling father' (player's own words).Anna Maria Ramonez(Eva): a young and ambitous woman (Jennifer Esposito) with South American ancestry. That's all we know so far.CJ Cromwell(Frank): a seasoned veteran in his mid-fifties (Samuel L. Jackson) with a corruption problem and a tendency to drink. A lot. All the time.
QuoteThe first scene, introducing Tanner and his father started out rather well, with everybody giving suggestions how to frame the shot and how it should look like, etc. The scene itself though played out rather oddly. The scene started with Tanner's father giving Tanner a dressing down as he's getting ready for some important meetings. I tried to play him as controlling and disrespectful as possible, hoping to get Tobias to push his character's issue in the scene. His father would put one restriction after another on him (daily reports, weekly meetings, etc.) to which Tanner replied by rolling his eyes and leaving the house. No roll, no apparent conflict. Nothing really.
QuoteThe conflict in this scene was Ramonez trying to improve morale and getting the team to accept her as team leader. She failed the roll, and thus the team chose Cromwell as the authority in the division and shunned Ramonez.
QuoteIn a later scene we ended up having a prolonged argument about scene construction. The scene started like this: Tanner was about to interrogate a lawyer working for the syndicate. During the scene Tobias established through dialogue that he was in possession of evidence that would incriminate the lawyer and offer him a deal.This I really didn't like. There was something very boring and lame about simply establishing something off-screen in order to get what you want in the scene. So I blocked it. The lawyer denied any involvement and refused to talk. We interrupted the game and tried to find out the source of our disagreement. Eventually we settled on Tanner trying to bluff and rolled for that conflict.
QuoteThe characters are very thread-bare, because all three players had trouble getting into the spirit of the game for one reason or another. I think Tobias just flat out does not comprehend the narrativist angle of the game. Eva is still stuck with creating her character the way she does in other games, i.e. by reacting to the other player's characters during the game. She also had a difficult time coming contributing to scenes, and ended up hemming and hawing when she had to request a scene. Frank, I think, has figured out the general idea behind PtA.
QuoteTobias complained that once the dice had been rolled, the 'role playing' aspect of a scene ended and took away from his input on the game. He wanted to continue the scene by acting out the consequences of the dice roll. It occured to me that what he wanted to do was add to the game (SiS? I'm hesitant to use any of the Forge-terms as I'm never completely sure I'm using them right) in-character. Unlike other games where you could add or contribute to the game whenever the GM isn't narrating, PtA has a clearly marked window during which the players contribute to the game via in-character action. (Everything outside this window only permits OOC input.)
Quote from: Ron Edwards on July 26, 2005, 06:26:51 PMIt seems to me perfectly viable in the PTA rules to narrate conflict outcomes through any blend of in-character or out-of-character dialogue that you want. It's also worth remembering that "narrator" is not the solo monologist that many people might think - he or she is, instead, "maestro of the moment" and can accept narration help or suggestions from anyone ... and some of that input could easily be in terms of in-character dialogue.
Quote from: Joe Dizzy on July 20, 2005, 09:20:17 AMHis father would put one restriction after another on him (daily reports, weekly meetings, etc.) to which Tanner replied by rolling his eyes and leaving the house. No roll, no apparent conflict. Nothing really.
Quote from: Joe Dizzy on July 20, 2005, 09:20:17 AMThis I really didn't like. There was something very boring and lame about simply establishing something off-screen in order to get what you want in the scene. So I blocked it. The lawyer denied any involvement and refused to talk.
Quote from: Alan on August 18, 2005, 03:59:50 PMTrying to leave a scene is a call to resolve a conflict. That is the moment to roll. Does Tanner keep his cool and just leave, or does he blow up at dad?
QuoteThe moment the players (including the producer) disagree about what happens next -- that's when to roll a conflict. Let the dice decide. The point of the conflict is whether the lawyer talks. Whetehr the evidence against him is geniune doesn't matter to the roll -- though if you win narration, you could describe the "evidence" as bogus, provided you still describe the success or failure of the interrogation.
Quote from: Joe Dizzy on August 18, 2005, 06:06:08 PMShould I suggest it out-of-game ("Hey, maybe we could make this scene be about whether Tanner loses his cool?")