[PTA] Players wanting their PCs to fail?
Halzebier:
Quote from: ”Ron”
1. Upon re-reading, I realized that the original D&D game context for the PTA show may well be a core problem.
Okay, so let me fill in everybody on some of the background of this particular game.
The group has been playing the D&Dish German FRPG “Das Schwarze Auge” for about ten years. For the past five years the game has been run by Kevin, who is currently on a business trip.
This is the game I’ve dropped out of and we’re using its world for PTA.
*-*-*
Is PTA an attempt to fix our regular fantasy game?
I became frustrated with DSA – and enamored of the idea of Indie games (no actual play yet) – years ago and started to pitch them to the group. Our earliest experiment was The Pool – also set in the DSA world – and it was a big success. (I'll hunt down the link later.) Everyone’s still talking about it to this day and Violet even tried to run The Pool during a holiday (I wasn’t there, but according to Carl, it was an unmitigated disaster).
I then ran The Mountain Witch, Under the Bed, and InSpectres (usually when Kevin, the regular DM, was on a business trip). None of these games ran smoothly or were as well received as The Pool. This did not faze me, as I was fascinated by the things that worked (or seemed to work, perhaps) and attributed the things that didn’t work to “having to learn the ropes”.
(Oddly, we never went back to The Pool. I suspect that I secretly fear that it wouldn’t be as magical as the first time and have thus offered other Indie games and perhaps hid behind the “having to learn the ropes” excuse.)
I did not set out to fix our DSA game, but I certainly set out to convert the group to other games. I have failed in this, but just now, things seemed to be looking up:
(1) I’m no longer part of the DSA game. This makes it easier for me to run Indie games as I’m not suffering from a weekly case of hyper-frustration about that game. As a result, my zealotry has diminished considerably. After all, I don’t have to find a way to stop the pain anymore. (I do have another group which plays D&D 3.5/4e. I greatly look forward to game night every week.)
(2) PTA has sparked considerable enthusiasm – before and after the first sessions – and Carl has suggested a follow-up. The beginning of a conversion after I had given up all hope?
So I’m not under as much pressure as before, but I certainly care a lot about this game.
Quote from: ”Ron”
Mysterious origins is not an issue, and this is not merely quibbling, it's like saying "that opera singer is dead." There is literally no way it can do what it's supposed to, because "solving the riddle" is pure information. It isn't "mysterious," it's merely absent, and as such, is solved when the hole is filled. Compounding that, Carl even already had the answer made up!
I only saw the compounding problem, but not the root. I’d like to thank both of you.
Quote from: ”Ron”
3. You asked me how I'd handle the "fake ink" scene. The answer is that I wouldn't have to. Since the character literally has no issue, there can no conflict about it, and hence there isn't a way to handle it. What that situation at your table was about, was solely about seizing authority in order to maintain control over the back-story. [..…] Anyway, I dunno - I think I can only say that (a) you need characters with issues, (b) you need conflicts of interests among characters (not preferred outcomes) in order to have a draw, and (c) you need to follow the PTA rules in order to enjoy PTA's strengths.
The distinction of (b) in particular rings true and matches my diffuse concern about the players failing to play their characters “as usual”. I have difficulties expressing this – the players seem to abandon the SIS too quickly to talk about it from the outside. Rather than saying “I go to the baron and say …” or “My guy goes over to the baron and attempts to persuade him…” it’s all, IFs, THENs, WOULDN’T IT BE COOLs, THAT’S A GOOD IDEAs etc.
Some of that feels splendid, mind you, but there’s only so much the game can take. (If or to what extent this is good, is a question I’m grappling with.)
Quote from: ”Ron”
What I'm saying is that people at your table, mainly Carl in your examples, are not playing anything, much less PTA. They are grabbing, as if the whole game posed the SIS as a prize. Whether it's back-story, others' characters' actions, outcomes of scenes, or visions of what is to come, they are using scene framing, establishing conflicts (actually pre-narration), dice rolls, and final narrations as methods for that competition. They are not actually framing scenes to play in, in the sense of not knowing what will happen in play itself; nor are they posing conflicts as opportunities to see character issues in action; nor are they utilizing the system as written as the opportunity for non-negotiable collaboration that it is.
I think (or hope, at this point) we had genuinely successful instances of play in there as well, but the problems you describe certainly fit the bill. I’ll try to describe some of the good instances in a future post.
Quote from: ”Ron”
I strongly suggest examining the behavior of the real people at that very moment. How much interpersonal drama, in the negative posturing sense of the word, do you see? There may be laughter: is it really fun laughter, or tense? There may be engagement: is it really in the fiction, or in the chance to dominate? There may be expressions and tones you've been selectively forgetting: a certain hysteria, a choked kind of breathing, a weird "you got me" letdown for the loser, and often, facial expressions that connote resentment and aggression. I say again - I have observed all of these, and then been surprised to see people publicly proclaiming how good & awesome their experience was, only they never seem to want to play that particular game again.
You’ve hit a sore spot, here. Why did my group never want to have another run of The Mountain Witch or Under the Bed? And looking at the past sessions of PTA, there are instances where some of your hard questions may require a hard answer.
Halzebier:
Quote from: “Paul Czege”
But I'm interested to know whether you think it's possible to put players into a constructive and fun frame of play behaviors more with good advice than with admonishments and stipulated requirements? And if so, what advice you'd give to achieve that?
I’ll second Paul’s query because this is just the dilemma I am facing now. I’d like to get things on track but how? Of course, a lot depends on the social interactions at our table which I’ll have to judge for myself, but the current discussion (and any advice) is very welcome.
I'm currently considering three points: I'd like to...
(1) appeal to the players to police themselves regarding the craziness (and gently remind them to reconsider something, if necessary).
(2) stop shirking my GM duties, i.e. enforce the PTA rules (this entails all sorts of things and is not easy where my own understanding is problematic) and take firm control of NPCs and scene framing where this is my responsibility
(3) appeal to the players to keep an open mind (that's wishy-washy and I have no idea how to really do this).
Quote from: ”Ron”
So with PTA, it's true, specific scenes are designated as Conflict Scenes from the outset. I see that as an agreement for everyone to be mindful, as we play, of the possibility of in-fiction, among-character conflicts of interest coming to be expressed by the characters in word or deed.
We’ve mostly abandoned declaring a scene’s purpose, i.e. we go through the motions, if that. Your statement confuses me a bit – should we ditch this or take extra care? The former is alluring (less work) and the latter seems fraught with danger (yet more pre-scene discussion).
Quote from: ”Jesse (in its entirety because it’s so good)”
I think Ron's analysis of the social issues resulting from the misapplication of Stakes is brilliant. For a while now I've been calling this phenomenon, "player-side railroading." Players build characters and then pre-play get all invested in the story their going to tell about that character. Then they use Stakes as the arbiter of who gets to deliver the next bit of their story.
This is the biggest hurdle I have when introducing Sorcerer to players who came to indie-games via Stakes oriented games taught to them badly. They end up whining about how little *direct* control over the direction of the narrative (i.e. outcomes) they really have. They feel like they're wrestling with the system to tell *their* story. They bitch about how they can't *make* anything happening. We're seeing this played out with In A Wicked Age... as well.
It's all classic Story Before except instead of one one person herding a group of players together it's six people fighting over who gets to herd next.
This sounds painfully true.
After I had pitched the game to the group (“How about a wandering circus in the DSA world with a nifty new set of rules?”), I discussed it with one player (who ultimately didn’t find the time to participate) on the way home and later on the phone. He was extremely enthusiastic about it and immediately started to work out what kind of characters we’d need, who he’d play, what backstory the circus should have, and all sorts of particulars. I felt like SCREAMING “For God’s sake, keep your mind open. Wait for the brainstorming of the first session. Wait for the others’ ideas. Work out your character then.”
(To be fair, I also had all sorts of ideas tumbling around in my mind, but I emphatically did not want to go there at that time.)
Quote from: ”Ron”
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.
I think some good parts of our PTA game went down like that. My problem is (a) figuring out whether that’s a consistently fun way to play for us (which isn’t up to me, really) and (b) how to transition to a more character-centric (for lack of a better word) way if it is not. And during the game, too, as I suspect a bit of story-conferencing is natural.
Halzebier:
Okay, here's the link to this group's first Indie game, a nice experience indeed: [The Pool] First Experience (long)
I should note that Violet = Vicky and Hank = Henry. I'm not using the players' real names and am using a pen name myself for personal reasons. I know that Forge etiquette and custom is different. I intend no disrespect to our community.
Best Regards,
Hal
Marshall Burns:
I don't think the issue here is really misreading of "stakes" or of pre-narrating outcomes. It would seem that there is a misreading of "stakes" involved and that there are pre-narrations of outcomes involved, but they look like they stem from something else.
The root of the problem here, the toad under the fountain that's causing all the problems, is authority. Who has authority over Character X's back-story? Who has authority over X's actions and decisions? Who has authority over the outcomes and consequences of those actions? Who has authority over what independently happens to X? In what situations might this authority change hands?
From what I can tell, the answers to these questions in Hal's game are up-in-the-air, at least from time-to-time, and they are re-purposing the resolution mechanics to arbitrate who has authority over what at what time. That is a very spiky way to play ANYTHING, and it calls for a very particular Social Contract, or else someone's gonna get spiked.
The reason it's a problematic way to play is that it leaves two fundamental questions unanswered: "What should I contribute to the game?" and "How should I treat others' contributions?"
A good system answers those questions by delineating who has authority over what, at what times, and to what extent that authority goes. That authority can be apportioned in any way, as long as the arrangement is understood. You can even yield authority. Let's say that I have authority over my guy's actions and decisions. Bob says to me, "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if your guy did blahblahblah?" I could say, "Yeah, that would be cool! My guy does blahblahblah," or "Nah, I don't so," or "Yeah, that would be cool, but I don't think it would make sense," or any permutation thereof. Point is, when Bob said "Wouldn't it be cool?" he was contributing something to the game, so I ask myself, "How do I treat Bob's contribution?" The answer in this case is that I accept or reject it based on my authority over the thing in question.
Now, here's a thing: the pertinent part of the answer to "What should I contribute to the game?" in Bob's case here is, "I should contribute suggestions to other players when I deem appropriate, but I should do so with the knowledge that they might accept or reject them based on their apportioned authority." If Bob is not aware of this, and I reject his suggestion, he is subject to feel very put-out about it.
Now, I haven't read PTA, so there's a limit to how useful I can be in this discussion. But, Hal, I'd strongly recommend that you give the rules a once-over, looking for the various answers to the questions "What should I contribute to the game?" and "How should I treat others' contributions?" in the various situations (lower-case S, not Big Model Situation) that arise in play.
-Marshall
Alan:
Marshall,
Quote from: Marshall Burns on July 18, 2008, 09:58:24 AM
Let's say that I have authority over my guy's actions and decisions. Bob says to me, "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if your guy did blahblahblah?" I could say, "Yeah, that would be cool! My guy does blahblahblah," or "Nah, I don't so," or "Yeah, that would be cool, but I don't think it would make sense," or any permutation thereof. Point is, when Bob said "Wouldn't it be cool?" he was contributing something to the game, so I ask myself, "How do I treat Bob's contribution?" The answer in this case is that I accept or reject it based on my authority over the thing in question.
Table talk like "Wouldn't it be cool if my character does this?" just isn't a use of any kind of authority. It's just speculation -- testing the water. And a conflict resolution system is not for testing if you should use your existing authority to put something into the "reality" of the SIS -- it's a test of what has already been put into the SIS. PTA conflict resolution in particular works best when the elements of the conflict have already been entered into the SIS through play before the draw.
Speculation about actions and outcomes between players bypasses the system. When, as in the case of discussing the outcome of a conflict before actual resolution, it becomes a detailed and exciting image that short circuits the creative energy of the outcome of the conflict system.
It does take a certain amount of courage for a player to just put an action in play without testing the idea with other players or the GM. Particularly if they're used to a system where the GM can just undercut their statements. I'd suggest encouraging the players to put their ideas directly into action instead of testing them. Story games in general are designed to make this safe. Trust the system, Luke.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page