mtiru wrote:jenskot wrote:- I don't necessarily think every scene needs a conflict. If the conflict isn't obvious, I don't think we need to come up with one. Maybe just keep changing scenes till you hit a conflict? It may take less time to switch scenes or play them out than to force conflicts.
I think every scene is supposed to have a conflict... basically if we are floundering to find strong conflict in the scene, it's up to the producer (and the other players) to start throwing out some elements that can help us get there.
I should rephrase. I think the term scene is throwing me off. I think every player's turn should have a conflict (not necessarily every scene although we may be just using scene differently). So if my character goes to talk to someone, let's say at my job, and no conflict comes up and through role-play we do what ever we need to do, I don't think we should force a conflict in that specific conversation if there is none. I think it is possible to do so but could be forced and may take more time than the following. So there was no conflict yet. I think instead of forcing the conflict, still on the same players turn, have them fast forward through scenes till they do hit a conflict or we come up with one. So I finish talking with this guy at my job. The GM asks me to hit a conflict. So I frame that as I leave my job, in the parking lot... BAM... conflict. My only point is to make the most out of a conflict they need to have meaning. I don't think we should place a conflict in a scene where there is none. Just fast forward as much as you can till you hit it. Does that make sense?
I also think as we get better framing our own scenes and setting stakes this becomes less and less of an issue.
mtiru wrote:ALSO - it seems like we've houseruled in the entire idea of a producer having stakes (like in With Great Power), because the book says "if the Producer wins, the protagonists don't get what they want."
Phredd having stakes in the conflict is so much better... because it steps up the incentive for us to win the scenes, and allows him to introduce elements that push the conflicts forward.
The default game has it so that the Producer can't set stakes? I can't believe it! What happens if there is only 1 player vs. an NPC? Only the player sets stakes and the NPC can't because they are Producer controlled? I hope this isn't the case. Some of the best scenes were when Phredd would set stakes that really tested us and pushed our issues. I loved loosing just to see Phredd's stakes happen!
mtiru wrote:Handing out fanmail before a conflict:
I like what the designer of PTA, Matt Wilson, says here, "So if there's no audience pool, which there isn't when each show starts, then you better try and find conflict all quick-like and help the producer think it's worth spending a lot of budget on." I want my Fan Mail asap... and I like putting the Producer in situations where they have to spend budget to give it to me. It makes it me feel sooo much happier when I finally get fan mail.
mtiru wrote:Paka is wise - too wise:
Paka says, "Set stakes that aren't about success but about price. It isn't about whether or not Buffy defeats the Big Bad but about what price she must pay to do so."
Let's come up with some examples for this, I may be misunderstanding.
So if stakes are not about success but instead about price, does that then assume victory on my part and the only questions if what price I pay?
My intent: embarrass someone
Victory stakes: everyone loves me and laughs at my target
Failure stakes: everyone thinks I am a mean unfriendly looser but also laugh at my target
Is that what Paka means?
And is he saying this is how stakes should be set in PTA? If so, does that mean we always get our intent? Or this is a cool option to consider?
I really like the rule where we can pay a token to get our character into a scene. Is it possible to pay a token to get us as a player into the scene and not our character? Basically paying for the chance as a player to set stakes and possible win narration having nothing to do with the character we are playing? I think that would be awesome! Kind of like mountain witch where you can pay to steal narration.
Rule wise, the only thing that threw me off was an aspect of winning narration. I often (but not always) didn't like it when that person also spoke as my character. Most of us kept jumping in when someone was narrating and spoke as our character anyway. It felt off. And didn't add to the feeling of a TV show. It was like, Buffy played by a different actress. What I would like is have a different writer write Buffy's actions, and have the same actress playing as the character. I wish I had the book to read more. Maybe what they mean by winning narration is more accurately winning the right to play a Producer like role for the scene?
I loved the game and the system! The above were my only issues or questions.