[Primetime Adventures] unexpected upsides of new play style
David Berg:
Quote from: Remi Treuer on January 29, 2008, 09:11:32 PM
the intensely shared narration in the game was something I hadn't encountered much before. Usually people take responsibility for their own scenes, or look to the Producer, maybe with occasional input from other players. I think the amount of back-and-forth we saw happens when there's a bunch of people who are suddenly handed lots of narrative authority for the first time.
It's interesting; my scenes were the last ones in which I looked to take responsibility. My play history has been all about "use character to react to all other aspects of gameworld"; it was much easier for me to make suggestions in other people's scenes, cuz that felt more like GMing.
I'd be curious to play a more "normal" PtA game and see what my favorite parts of that would be. The intense sharing was a huge highlight for me.
Your "aiming an issue" point sounds right to me. We had one player, Bruce, whose issue was something about "proving he could do what others said couldn't be done", and it was tough to hit on that in a way that was really meaningful.
David Berg:
Quote from: Remi Treuer on January 29, 2008, 09:11:32 PM
I'm glad there wasn't a, "Hey, don't do that" moment among the players.
Actually, there was, early on, but you shot it the fuck down. Great job wrangling that many loud personalities into being focused for 5 hours!!!
Queen_of_Kryos:
This is so funny, because I guess I've never really played anything other than shared narrative-style RPGs, at least with table-top stuff, so when people suggest that there are games where the GM runs the show utterly, I'm like, "huh? The players don't get a say? Weird..."
Anyway, PTA is my absolute favorite RPG. Now, I don't have the breadth and depth of experience of everyone else, but I know I can trust PTA to be awesome, because with the way it's set up, the focus is on making the story as interesting as possible. Like Remi said a couple of times on Saturday night, if he can make life suck for the players, it makes for great TV, great drama, and ultimately a great game. That being said, I have to admit that I still panicked at that Tong vote of no confidence thing, even though it drove the action (at least for me, Bruce too) for the rest of the game.
And I have to give out a massive shout-out to Remi for running the game with seven players. Remi, you did an awesome job pushing the action first and not letting any little side-tracky arguments get out of hand. Even with seven, you managed to keep everyone involved and valued. Talk about herding cats. So, thank you. The other thing I liked is something Dave mentioned, that you didn't let people say, "no, no, this instead." It kept things really positive.
Also, Dave, just so you know, the last time I played PTA, it was 180 degrees different. We made a show called Bounty...Hunters! It was a reality show (probably aired on FOX), about regular people who want to become bounty hunters and have to live together. So I guess it was a cross between Dog the Bounty Hunter and The Real Life (that reality show that was on MTV -- I think that was its name). It was hilarious, and totally awesome. So you see, another brilliant thing about PTA is its diversity and ability to transcend every taste.
Both times, when the game was over, I thought "Wow, I would totally watch this show..."
Remi Treuer:
That vote-of-not-confidence scene was really interesting. I ran at you really hard, but there wasn't much behind it. Your reaction didn't read so much as panic as, "There's nothing happening here that threatens anything I care about." It was only after I made the scene about you being a traitor like your assimilationist brother that your eyes lit up and you were like, "Heck no!" I finally hit on the thing that you DID care about, which was your relationship with your brother.Your business didn't matter, your family did. That made Wei Fa an enemy who you then went after with all your guns. That was cool.
Thank you for the compliments. My main worry is that I'm stifling player input in the name of equality of fun, and as I mentioned, I really did feel like I was swinging the facilitator stick pretty hard. I'm glad that it managed to get to the fun instead of bringing everyone down.
Ron Edwards:
Hi Dave,
I wanted to post to this a few days ago and finally got the time.
Your statement about Narrativist play is a common expectation from those who haven’t really gotten into it, but it’s inaccurate. The typical reaction is much as you describe: “Gee, that was easy. I didn’t have to do any English 101 at all. Maybe we were playing Sim or something.” Which is itself an inaccurate attempt to cope with the inaccurate expectation that was not met.
I think I’ve posted the following point in dialogue with you before, or in threads you’ve probably seen, but it would have been before you really came to grips with the Creative Agenda concept. The point is that all my essays and discussions about defining Creative Agendas are about what people do, but not at all about what each one (or its many applications) actually feels like to do.
When people read the essays or the relevant definition-debate threads, they scratch their heads and say, “I don’t do that, it doesn’t feel like that, that isn’t it,” and so on. The closest they can get is the Simulationist emphasis on the SIS, and, mistakenly thinking that their necessary SIS-platform must be what I’m talking about, they say, “Gee, I guess I like Sim then.”
A most common phenomenon at the Forge, over and over, is someone who’s never really managed to get his or her Narrativist bone on, and has often settled for Zilchplay, because grappling with the difficulties of Sim/Narr clash, or with those associated with Typhoid Mary GMing, is too agonizing. They read the essays and therefore find Sim closest to what they “want.”
When that person finally gets some Narrativist play in, they tend to react a lot like you’re doing now – “Hey, that was fun and definitely different, but it didn’t hurt or seem all theme-y like in play itself (well it actually did but it was easy).” They can also get distracted by the new techniques involving shared Authority or lots of unfamiliar Stance work, which are certainly relevant but not as definitional as they might feel at the time.
The thing is, all functional play is easy and fun.
A couple of clarifiers:
- by “easy” I mean that play clicks together well at the social and creative level (sometimes it’s hard in other ways which are OK, like complex tactics or whatever)
- given that that particular kind of game is something the people enjoy in the first place
Best, Ron
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page