Started by Halzebier, June 28, 2008, 06:09:10 AM
Quote from: David Berg on July 29, 2008, 02:02:10 PMI win. I'm disappointed. Fred's disappointed. Everyone else at the table is disappointed. Looks like they were thinking the same thing I was! Oh well. It's still a juicy situation, we roll with it, fun play continues. Just maybe not quite as fun as it could have been.
Quote from: jburneko on July 29, 2008, 03:14:31 PMConstantly coming to vigorous creative agreement about how the story *should go* and always going for what you *want* to have happen means you never challenge yourself. You never let yourself be surprised (in the audience sense) and force yourself to re-evaluate where you want to go next (in the author sense).
Quote from: Valamir on July 29, 2008, 02:34:44 PMMy option three would be that the moment everyone realizes that "If I win, you help me make the arrest." isn't equally as fun as "If I win, I walk away and leave you with doubts." then you work out an alternative for what you win that everyone agrees IS as equally fun.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on July 29, 2008, 07:25:53 PMall protagonist card draws are compared with the Producer's. Not against one another. Ever.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on July 29, 2008, 12:03:45 PMBasically, there are three kinds of play we're talking about: A, PTA by the textual rules; B, PTA as you and I and others have Drifted it in a characteristic way; and C, Chesting-play which cannot really be called playing PTA despite the book being present at the table. As you can see, I'm saying that C is the odd man out, not B & C together. That means that it's not necessary to be concerned with how B might become C. To get see, you have to break with A, B, and any other form of functional Drift of A, as an entire group.Now, that does leave open the question of whether B play harbors certain pitfalls of its own. I think it does, actually. At least in my experience, it tends to open the door for one or another person to start narrating scene-events more or less as a monologue, telling everyone else what's going on. I've also seen the nominal central player of the moment be steamrolled by a fellow player, which is more likely to happen in B than in A. And finally, speaking for what makes B less fun for me than A (when B becomes really the mode rather than an add-on), slightly-hyper group discussions about what exactly the conflict is happening and what it's about are extremely not-fun when they don't work well. When that happens, it's not a glitch or slightly-lessened moment, it's a brick wall that brings down the enjoyment of the whole session, for me.So B play, as I see it, works much better as a modifier of A than as a full replacement for it. It seems to me that you, Steve, and the others may have been able to enjoy it maximally specifically for that reason.
Quote from: Ron Edwards on July 29, 2008, 07:25:53 PMIt is: all protagonist card draws are compared with the Producer's. Not against one another. Ever.[SNIP]All of this is to say that protagonist draws in PTA must concern orthogonal stakes (to use the term "stakes" exactly as defined in the rules), even if two or more protagonists are directly opposed. In this sense, Shock and PTA are very much alike. The only person who is playing direct mechanical opposition to any protagonist is the Producer, even if the characters are narrated to be attacking one another with fireplace pokers with deadly intent.