You hear that, Mr Andersen?

PTA, random stuff

And now, my promised thoughts on Primetime Adventures (PTA hereafter).

My first encounter with PTA was an awesomely fun experience. First, you brainstorm with the other players about a setting/story you're all excited by/interested in. Next, you come up with characters that would be involved in that story, and work out what their main issue is, who they know really well, and what broad classes of cool things they can do that most people can't. (I remember R. Borgstrom talking about how coolness was related to a feeling of protagonism, but I can't find the reference at the moment.) Then, you lay out all the episodes in the season, and work out which ones are going to be the "spotlight" episodes for each character, and which ones they're going to be more in the background; you might talk about what these patterns mean, and sketch out in general terms what might happen. And then you either choose to play from the beginning, or pick an interesting-looking episode in the series to play.

(Morgue came out very strongly for a modern setting; after a wide-ranging discussion, we settled on a small town next to an apocalyptic, Waco-style cult. Someone suggested that we have characters in both groups, and that we base it on a family-like pattern -- so we ended up with a hard-nosed female sheriff, a caring male teacher, a rebellious teen girl cult member, and a young boy cultist. We then sketched out our character arcs, worked out what they might mean, and then chose the episode just after the rebellious teen had snuck out of the compound to go to her school ball, and was apparently betrayed at the end of the night when the boyfriend failed to show up and take her away. The boyfriend's death in a suspiciously convenient car-crash that night was a big feature of the episode.)

As you can see, even the beginning of play is quite different from a more traditional game -- while there is a "Director", there is much more collaboration on the background than the traditional "GM comes up with a world/plot (or buys one), and the players explore it". I think that having all the players feel ownership of the world from the get-go makes a big difference in the amount of emotional involvement in the game.

Actual play consists of people setting up a scene, and playing through it until they get to a point that's a conflict with the issue of one of the characters in the scene. While people are playing a scene, if they say, suggest or do something particularly cool, other players can reward them with "Fan Mail" -- a token that can be used to push a conflict one way or the other. This means that you're always pushing at what makes the characters interesting, and people get rewarded for bringing the awesome (which makes the game more fun for everyone).

How conflicts work deserves to be expanded a bit -- for example, say the sherrif (whose issue is Emotional Isolation) is facing off a kidnapper with a gun to the head of a kid from the town. The conflict in this case probably isn't "Can the sheriff stop the kidnapper?", but more likely, "Will the actions the sheriff takes cause the town to embrace her, or push her away?" For example, if she loses the conflict, she could save the kid, but in such a way that the kid is traumatised (by shooting the kidnapper, for example). And the kid could still be shot if she wins the conflict -- for example, if the sheriff is shot down as well, and wakes up in the emergency room with the townsfolk rallying around their fallen hero.

Or take Stanley the Pigeon, whose issue is "Independence from Humans", who is starving and being offered a crust by a little old lady. Success might mean refusing the crust, or might mean stealing the crust and pooping on the lady; failure might mean taking the crust, or waiting for another bird to take it, and stealing it off them... but knowing in his heart that his "independence" is a sham.

A nifty thing that I haven't mentioned is that the person who wins the conflict doesn't necessarily get to say what happens in the conflict -- that's a separate parameter. So a player could lose the conflict, but get to describe how things go wrong; or they could win, but the Director might get to say how things go right. And since other players can put in Fan Mail to be involved, saying how things pan out (within broad parameters) can fall to them, as well!

So -- I think that it works well because it keeps the character's issues front-and-center, it does its best to make sure that the players are interested in their characters and the setting, and it gives players a mechanism for rewarding "good" play in others. There is no death spiral, so players aren't encouraged to turtle if they fail early on; and failure is usually just as interesting as success, if not more so. And I think that the amount of control that players have over the rest of the world makes it easier to allow conflicts to determine character's internal states. (In many games, how characters feel about things is the one thing players can completely control in the game world; I suspect this may be why emotional/social mechanics are so unpopular.)

There are, however, some weaknesses. RPGs are always social, but in games where there's not a strong central authority who can say what Truth is or isn't, players have to be careful not to "block" others, and the game tends to flow better if players don't, for example, reject ideas just because others thought of them first. On the other hand, other players may find they have to self-moderate, to allow other people's voices to be heard. And there's plenty of bad habits for more traditional roleplayers to unlearn; and while the Director's job is easier than a traditional GM's in some ways (not as much pre-game prep, for a start), it requires a lighter touch overall, and more thinking on your feet. There's also likely to be a bit of negotiation when people's assumptions about the setting clash -- and how well that turns out depends very much on the dynamic of the group.

Nevertheless, it's a really interesting system, and I'm very keen to explore it more. Here's hoping I get an opportunity to do so.

For those who read to the end of this roleplaying-intense section, Flaky Pastry -- yet another webcomic, but one that only has about 50 archived comics. And for the Batman fans, how about Butterfly?

***

Speaking of Batman, one of the most memorable bits of the original campy TV series is probably the words that flashed onto the screen whenever dramatic, noisy action occurred. If you've ever thought to yourself, "Gosh, I wish someone had screencaptured a whole bunch of those!", I've got good news -- your wish has been granted. I notice a number of screens that suggest some sort of Olde Worlde theme, with "Clange!" and "Thwapeth!". I can't imagine any use for these images, but I'm glad they're there.

And as far as campy goes -- what about the fact that there are two feuding midget Kiss tribute bands?

In other random linkage there's the aptly-named AskANinja.com, a webcast/podcast where a "ninja" answers your email. Which reminds me, I haven't looked at Homestar Runner in ages... time to crank up the old interweb again!

And in one of those special "thanks, the interweb" moments, the BBC is reporting on a group of Welsh musical sheep who are to entertain Arabic children. Welsh interacial musical sheep who run a recycling plant. Well, why the heck not, I say! And what about Pimp My Snack, a British site dedicated to creating giant versions of bite-sized treats, like the Jaffazilla or the Mega Twix?

Finally, a collection of Japanese Rube Goldberg contraptions. I remember setting up this sort of thing as a child, but nothing nearly as elaborate. :)

That's all, folks!

Posted by svend at April 14, 2006 2:14 PM