[PTA] Players wanting their PCs to fail?
Ron Edwards:
Hello,
I wanted to emphasize one point I made earlier as well as on the Story Games thread: that the actual game rules rarely, if ever, instruct people to do what I've been criticizing. I maintain that actually using the rules-instructions of (say) Polaris, Mortal Coil, Hero's Banner, Shock, Primetime Adventures, carry, The Shab al-Hiri Roach, The Mountain Witch, Primitive, and many others are not only functional, they are wonderful - and in fact, quite different from one another in key and exciting ways.
The problem is not these games and how they are designed. The problem lies solely with something out there among people, psychologically speaking, which seizes the games as excuses to do this other, horrid thing. I think Jesse is right that it's same-old Story Before, and it's characterized by the same smug "by the rules" justification that absolutely ignores the rules, which we are all probably familiar with in play with older games in which one person is designated the sole herder.
It's tragic that the same shit is being carried out using (or "using") games that were written specifically to get away from the shit's original manifestation.
Now for a totally different point ... as it happens, there may well be an enjoyable version that bears mention, which we might call "story conferencing" without the negative connotation I've been including with the phrase. Imagine playing PTA with little or no in-character depiction, taking the designated Conflict scenes very seriously as such, and having nearly every step be highly influenced by an all-included talk among the participants. I'm still pretty sure that pre-narration of outcomes would not be functional, but perhaps character goals would be stated in such detailed ways that they were almost pre-narrations.
Would this be fun? Perhaps not for me. Ralph told me recently that he enjoys PTA played this way. I'm tossing it into the mix of the discussion to acknowledge that the situation may not be as 100% bipolar as I make it out to be in my posts above. I do think there is a very hard line between (a) fun play and (b) the crap-ass rotten phenomena that I've observed so many times and described above. I also think there is a very hard line between (a) actually using the rules as they stand, or close to it, and (b) not doing so specifically along the lines I've described. There may, however, be modes of enjoyment on the good side of both hard lines that do include elements of story conferencing.
Best, Ron
Valamir:
That's not exactly what I was saying about PTA. I don't think you have to play only at the meta level and leave all of the in fiction stuff behind to get at what I was suggesting.
PTA is ostensibly a game about a TV show. TV shows often have teams of writers and producers who gather to story board upcoming episodes. The "behind the scenes making-of" extra found on the Deadwood DVD gives a wonderful glimpse of this process in action.
There is nothing wrong with, and in fact, I think PTA works best, when you approach the conflicts being mindful of this sort of process. One can easily imagine one writer saying "and this is the scene where he finally kisses her" and the producer saying "no, not yet, its too soon to release the tension on that thread, lets have them about to kiss but then they get interrupted." One can easily imagine two player kibbitizing about this as an aside in play. Either way can lead to good entertainment and a good story so its more about which equally good road are they going to go down. One can easily see the writer and the producer wrangling about this issue before deciding.
In PTA the game, there is no writer and producer wrangling. Instead the card draw mechanic essentially determines whether the writer or producer won and whether the kiss happens or is interrupted. You don't have to step out of character here, you don't have to portray the character of the writer and the producer wrangling. But I think PTA works best when players remember they are playing out a TV show not immersing in characters we're pretending are "real". All players of PTA know they are not playing their character. They are playing an actor playing their character...this is TV after all. If I'm playing the character trying to get a kiss and I say "I kiss her" and the producer says "I think you get interrupted before you get your kiss, lets take it to cards"...I think that is not only perfectly functional PTA play but extremely effective PTA play.
It is irrelevant that there is no other character actively resisting. It is irrelevent that there is no "conflict of interest between characters" My character wants to kiss, your character wants to kiss, the person who interrupts us wasn't trying to prevent anything, they just obliviously stumble in at the wrong time...there is NO conflict of interest between characters...and yet this is EXACTLY the stuff that TV has been built on since the days of I Love Lucy and Mary Tyler Moore.
"If I win this happens, if you win that happens" is 100% effective play in PTA, not at all toxic and IMO a FAR FAR better model of portraying a TV show than obsessing about conflict of interest at the character level.
I have a whole soap box about the notions being expressed here that there is some corrupt version of stake setting that has taken root and needs to be stamped out (short version: I think that's bunk), but I'll refrain from derailing this discussion with it.
jburneko:
Ralph,
First a question: In the situation you provide what is the role of the High Card player? From what I can see all that person gets to do is maybe add a bit of detailing.
Now a comment: You're right, that the situation is describe is exactly what TV has relied on. And frankly, that's the cheap-shot shit that makes for weak-sauce storytelling: Drag the audience along with pseudo-conflicts and keep them coming back because maybe this week something will really happen. I think that's what Ron means by "It does TV better than television."
The prime example of this is the show Lost. I happen to know that Lost was pitched as an anthology show with rotating genre. That whole flashback thing? Yeah, that was supposed to be the focus of the show. This week it's ER. The next week it's the Fugitive. The week after that its 24! Each character was designed to be separate genre. The island was only supposed to be an excuse for those genres to all end up in the same place.
Except it all backfired and the audience got caught up in the suspense of the island's unexplained mysteries. What's the monster? Who are these people? WTF polar bear!? To me, playing PtA the way you describe the group would spend all their time playing cards over whether or not the monster is a living creature or a machine. Whether the polar bear was real or an illusion? Instead of playing cards on the actual honest to god good parts of Lost which were the stories about all those individual people.
Jesse
Valamir:
Well, yeah Jesse, I picked the most cliched trope I could think of to illustrate what a good fit it is. You can plug whatever you want in there that is a "fit" conflict. The point is that the format "if I win X happens, if I lose Y happens" is perfectly functional. Saying its "just storyboarding" isn't a valid criticism. Its not "just" anything. Storyboarding is a perfectly valid way of dealing with resolving conflicts...it may not be everyone's cup of tea, but we know that already.
I think the whole history of this discussion starting at GenCon 2006 (yes I was there) has been nothing but the byzantine confounding of two completely unrelated things in a process largely driven by the personal relationships and perceived relationships between the people representing (or called upon to represent) the various "sides".
Throughout these discussions there've been an inexplicable and undefendable amount of blame placed on "story conferencing" "bullshit stakes setting" "setting outcomes before you roll" "borrowing characters". As if somehow these perfectly reasonable and functional techniques were some how responsible for...or even a contributing factor towards the power grabbing, asshat, manipulative behavior that is what is really being criticised.
What I see when I follow these discussions is this:
1) Actual play that sucked...or at least was sub optimal
2) Techniques being used that don't match the observer's preferred techniques for that game / situation.
3) Those techniques being blamed for causing the suck
4) Gallons of electronic ink being spilled bashing those techniques.
Which, IMO, is bunk.
The two topics have nothing to do with other. Dysfunctional play is dysfunctional play. Blaming dysfunctional play on "abominable story boarding" makes as much sense as some old schooler blaming dysfunctional play on author stance.
Oh, as to your question. Yeah, I don't really see a problem with that. Add some color, throw in an unexpected twist, give a nice "Yes, and also", or "Yes, but" addition. Its only a "thing" when the player who didn't win has the high card, and I think that's a fine opportunity to flavor your loss in a way that leaves the door open for a follow-up of some kind.
Ron Edwards:
Hi Ralph,
Regardless of any polemic or conviction in my posts about it, the point of the discussion is not whether I'm right or not. If you think what I'm saying is bunk, that is OK. We can both make our cases and let it stand for people to read and think about. I disagree with you quite a bit about PTA, but I'm not here to engage in gladiatorial combat about it.
The point is the discussion is how well any (meaning quite likely not all) of what I'm saying works for Hal regarding his group and what's going on in the game. If he hadn't indicated that I was on some kind of right track, as he saw it, I wouldn't have tried to apply my notions further. Now let's see what he thinks of the new stuff.
Um, to be clear, I'm not saying "everyone shut up until Hal posts." All thoughts on the issue are welcome. My immediate point is to say that this isn't a bear pit and I'm not the bear. I'm happy to clarify what I mean, but will not be defending the points against all comers.
Best, Ron
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page