[Primetime Adventures] pre-game killing game?
Wordmaker:
Now that sounds cool!
Callan S.:
Quote from: Wordmaker on June 17, 2009, 04:37:16 AM
The only problem I see in the situation is that one player became intimidated by the jargon and wanted to change character as a result. If a player ever feels that they can't enjoy the game the way they wanted, that needs to be addressed. Now, maybe the player just realised that she wasn't confident enough to come up with technical jargon in play, and just needs some encouragement, but on the chance that she felt like the tech-heads would shout her down if she contradicted their specs, then there's an issue.
I don't own PTA, but I'd assume the rules already address it. Again it's an assumption of a power vacuum, most likely, on her part this time. Where she thinks this stuff will take over and fill that power vacuum and she's trying to dodge that non issue by changing to a xenobiologist. I think having a chat with them about any 'potential' shout down would be also trying to fill a power vacuum that isn't there. Unless I'm crediting PTA too much in having procedure for this? But I'll say that for about thirty years RPG's have had massive power vacuums in them (some people even exult in that), so it's hardly a crazy assumption for her to have about an RPG (if she does have such an assumption).
Noclue:
PtA has a pretty simple rule on this. If you win narration rights, you say what happens. There's no way for others to impose their version of the ship specifications or anything else. The high card narrates.
Alan:
Quote from: Noclue on June 17, 2009, 09:06:45 PM
PtA has a pretty simple rule on this. If you win narration rights, you say what happens. There's no way for others to impose their version of the ship specifications or anything else. The high card narrates.
High card narrates _how_ the winner got their stakes. They can't narrate a failure.
Joel P. Shempert:
Hi, Kentsu!
About the technical stuff, I think there's a danger in trying to deal with the social issues with the game rules. That is, if everyone's expecting to have these technical specs be adhered to, then all the "hey, the book says I can narrate anything on a high card!" is going to alleviate the frustration and hurt feelings if someone is expecting their contribution to be adhered to. And hell, I'd be pissed to, if I contributed something--be it tech, culture, or whatever--to the setting, and people just said in play, "Nyah! I can do it however I want! Rules say so!"
Not saying you're doing that necessarily, but I wanted this advice to stand in contrast with some other advice here. If you think there's likely to be a problem, you're best off addressing it up-front.
On the subject of Issues, I think you're right that something's off. Some issues are goals, some are past events. . .I don't think those are going to work for the whole cycle of PTA play. Alan's right that some of the Edges (are those Edges? Those assignments seem off too. Where's the relationships?) look like great Issues. You should make sure an Issue is resilient and broad enough to weather specific events (like a traitor being revealed) and also present enough to affect play NOW. (people died. So what? What's your Issue about people dying?)
Good luck!
Peace,
-Joel
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page