[GGG4] Quantum Bums

[jenskot]

- 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.

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!

Handing out fanmail before a conflict:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=16749.0

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.

Paka is wise - too wise:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=18495.0

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.

Rock,
John

[mtiru]

here's where Michael Miller asks about Producer stake setting and receives something of an answer.
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=16927.0

from my perspective, the Producer should definitely set hard stakes for the players (not just, if you lose these are the stakes).

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 think it is cool to have short color scenes with no conflict (like our little montage at the end of episode one). i think there are ways to keep that to a minimum.

PTA has a pretty good section on scene-framing that we can go over. In brief, as each scene is framed the player should state the Focus (Character Development or Advancing the Plot), the Agenda (what the scene is about), and the Location (including who is there).

we did this informally in many occasions - but I think specifically stating the agenda is going to help with having scenes that always have a potential for conflict.

One thing for us to remember is that our stakes are resolved vs. the producer (even in Protagonist vs Protagonist conflict), so conceivably in the conflict between Jack and Kamau, if we had both beat Phredd we would have both gotten what we wanted in some way...?

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 will lend you the book if you want it (can drop it off next time i'm around GHQ on tuesday).

also, i apologize if i narrated anything too unkind for peoples characters.

i definitely think people should be able to speak what their character says after the narrator frames the scene - but there is an element of "editing" rights that the narrator has to frame the conversation.

narrating other characters' actions i think is generally cool, but the buck stops with the responsible player who can say "i don't want my character to do that."

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.

unfortunately, no... (you can pay a point of fanmail to give the producer a card though)

here's another thread that references a "multi-flip resolution"
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=16587.0

that would mean resolving several stakes in one conflict... not sure what i think about that (sort of task oriented i guess). it might work well for action oriented sequences... not sure though.

[jenskot]

here's where Michael Miller asks about Producer stake setting and receives something of an answer.
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=16927.0

from my perspective, the Producer should definitely set hard stakes for the players (not just, if you lose these are the stakes).

I want to clarify because I may be misunderstanding (and the answers in that thread were sort of vague).

The way you are supposed to play: Producer does NOT set stakes. But if they win, they get to say what happens and make it up right then and there.

The way we played: Producer sets stakes. If they win, they get to say what happens based on the stakes they set.

Is this accurate?

So if I am right, the end result is the same. But I think what we did had so much more drama. Because knowing the Producer's stakes ahead of time made me fight soooo much harder and feel sooo much more suspense as we flipped each card.

But maybe we should play it straight? If I was to see this from both sides... I think producer stakes up front is a lot of fun since we mechanically fight harder to get what we want and feel more tension. But not knowing producer stakes makes for a better (I think) TV show simulation because we don't usually know what is going to happen and adds surprise and suspense.

i think it is cool to have short color scenes with no conflict (like our little montage at the end of episode one). i think there are ways to keep that to a minimum.

PTA has a pretty good section on scene-framing that we can go over. In brief, as each scene is framed the player should state the Focus (Character Development or Advancing the Plot), the Agenda (what the scene is about), and the Location (including who is there).

That's a wonderful idea!!!

also, i apologize if i narrated anything too unkind for peoples characters.

Your and everyone's narration was excellent and raerly unkind. And when unkind was entertaining and very satisfying!!! This wasn't why I brought this up. It just seemed confusing when to speak as our character and when not to during narration.

i definitely think people should be able to speak what their character says after the narrator frames the scene - but there is an element of "editing" rights that the narrator has to frame the conversation.

narrating other characters' actions i think is generally cool, but the buck stops with the responsible player who can say "i don't want my character to do that."

I like all these ideas a lot!!!

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.

unfortunately, no... (you can pay a point of fanmail to give the producer a card though)

Question: Can I set stakes involving characters not in the scene?

If yes, then I don't understand why I can't pay a token to set stakes. That would add to collaboration and make everyone even more involved every step of the way.

If no, I can completely understand because then what I am suggesting would allow you to set stakes in a scene where your character is safe.

I like the idea of giving the producer cards though! That does provide for part of what I am looking for.

Rock!

[mtiru]

i forgot to respond. also, i'd love to hear what doctor phredd and the others think about these questions.

but reading the RPG threads today reminded me that PTA is super fun! i can't wait for our next episode.

The way you are supposed to play: Producer does NOT set stakes. But if they win, they get to say what happens and make it up right then and there.

The way we played: Producer sets stakes. If they win, they get to say what happens based on the stakes they set.

Is this accurate?

I think so - only because it doesn't say much in the books, and based on that thread.

So if I am right, the end result is the same. But I think what we did had so much more drama. Because knowing the Producer's stakes ahead of time made me fight soooo much harder and feel sooo much more suspense as we flipped each card.

Tell me about it - Phredd made us fight to win and really built the tension in the scene.

But not knowing producer stakes makes for a better (I think) TV show simulation because we don't usually know what is going to happen and adds surprise and suspense.

Not sure I agree - as players there is more tension when we know the stakes of failure. As a TV audience, maybe there is more tension when the outcome is unsure, but I like to be a player/audience.

Question: Can I set stakes involving characters not in the scene?

No. Your character has to be in the scene in some way in order for you (the player) to set stakes. I think this is what you're asking...

However you could set stakes for your character that involved characters not in the scene. ie: "When Jack succeeds at breaking into this safe, he finds the information linking Annie to his drug dealer mobster friend" or something to that regard.

I like the idea of giving the producer cards though! That does provide for part of what I am looking for.

I think it's a question of "Do I think it will be more interesting if Timmy lost these stakes..." Then I'm gonna spend a point to give a card to the Producer. Wouldn't want to do it when something hugely important to the player is on the line - but hopefully we'll be able to read that as we continue to play together.

[jenskot]

I'm soooo fucking excited!!!

[phredd]

I'm sorry I haven't posted the scenes from the notes yet. Been one of those kinda weeks.

[Bird-Poop]

it would be really helpful if we had brief summaries up guys!

[Bird-Poop]

[mtiru]

:cry:

phredd, why have you forsaken your chosen people?

[phredd]

February is the cruelest month. Don't let Eliot fool you. I'm well rid of it.