Started by Halzebier, June 28, 2008, 06:09:10 AM
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Marshall Burns on July 18, 2008, 01:58:24 PMLet'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.
QuoteFrank, I wonder if you and Giorgios might be able to enjoy PTA play together with that distinction in mind? I think the three of us could do it pretty well, actually.
QuoteYour point about every conflict becoming explicitly about the character's issue is a good one.