You are here

Our series begins

Here's our first gathering to prepare for Primetime Adventures, a game whose title will invoke more blithering, partisanship, and sprayed terminology than any other I can think of. Which is too bad because the actual game is quite wonderful.

I ask pretty seriously that you examine the short presentation in Discuss: Primetime chat, and if you feel investigative, the discussion in Monday Lab 3: Boiling pitch.

We're using the 2nd edition. In this session, you'll see us create the series from scratch, i.e., no imposed prior content from me, make the protagonists, and play the pilot. It adds up to a beast of almost 200 minutes, including a short sequence I recorded afterwards and placed between preparation and play.

For reference, here's a summary of the protagonists' Screen Presence and issues. In the days following the session, people sent me pictures of their characters and I arrived at a name for the series. I'm restraining myself from providing my notes following play, including which rules I think we need to review a bit and what I have in mind for Episode 1; I'll share those after that episode gets recorded and posted here.

Please ask questions. I am sadly almost fully certain that no one reading this has seen the game played this way before.

Actual Play


I've run the game this way and also been a player in games like this. 

At the same time, I've always been uncomfortable with the resolution system. On reflection, I think I've been looking for action-by-action bounce and feeling there was something wrong because it didn't work that way. It's reassuring to see that I was playing it correctly. I guess I never completely embraced the scene resolution system.  

Question: in part 10 when Sandra's character Nia is probing into the secret lab -- you asked what kind of thing she hopes to find. She won both the conflict and the narration. She narrated finding information on a secret base. It seems that the conflict resolution provided the general parameters of outcome authority and the narration gives the high card winner authority to narrate the outcome details, as well as background authority. Do I have that right?

Ron Edwards's picture

First, thanks for watching this thing. Note to self, no more marathon sessions.

For your question - that is a very good point. Our transition into the episodes necessarily includes some review on that exact moment.

The simple answer is this: narration does not convey backstory authority. The tricky part is that during this pilot, given the lack of prep, we don't really have much content as raw material, so describing or narrating anything sort of puts us in that zone of authority, without wanting to be there.

Now, Sandra threw us a curveball, too. She was the very person who said, "I like it when it's about nothing," and then played Nia as obviously proactively investigating something. I suppose, table-talk wise, I could have interjected to ask her what she (Sandra) wanted to be happening (to be taken as a "suggestion" for the Producer, who in this case would have happily picked it up and incorporated it. I did ask her what Nia thought she was looking for or seeking, but didn't press it hard.

The reason why not is that the precise content ("what they're up to") is not actually all that big a deal, considering that, as I see it anyway, any scientific-industrial concern such as the one she gatecrashed would be up to something dodgy. So my quick-in-in-the-moment processing resulted in my conclusion that we can leave the precise nature of the intel as a McGuffin. For me, the important thing is that she trusted Sam to keep quiet about the whole thing, even when Sam ended up taking some heat for it.

Anyway, I consider this particular curveball effect to be part of the learning curve for our group to establish clearer roles among us for backstory content, and also how table-talk provides ideas for any of us to use while utilizing those roles. I'm OK with discovering any such points during the pilot, in fact, better than OK.

Sean_RDP's picture

For years I had no interest in PTA. There was no particular system or social reasons, I just had no interest in the game itself. 

And the previous discussion about the game, while interesting, still did not motivate me towards any real interest other than the idea that "that game is not a writers' room. The characters are the characters and not writers, writing the characters."

Of course the power of PLAY and of seeing it in action often leads to "Oh, okay, yes I DO want to play that." This is the case here. I am putting PTA on my list of games I want to play, as a player, but of course also run. Which is unusual for me as my default is "yeah I would like to run that."

As a pure audiance member, there were moments of "what are you doing!?" in response to the character's actions, but not in a critical "you did it wrong" kind of way. In that visceral, tense, OMG I cannot belive they did that, but I enjoyed it kind of way. Playing with idiom and trope seems like a lot of fun. 

My only question is about the success/failure state. It looks something like: seccuess = you get what you want and failure = you get more to work with. Is that accurate? And I grok'd how the mechanics work, so its not necessarily a mechanical question.

Ron Edwards's picture

You're seeing some of the learning curve in action. I'll be specifying more clearly that conflicts' outcomes flatly, non-ambiguously succeed or fail at the protagonist's attempted outcome, and that failure carries consequences which must be narrated. Narration does have unique power; one person narrating the failure to fix the scoop might say that 100 people are killed, whereas another might say that one person is injured. But it can't slither out of failure, and our proper episodes will hold to that standard.

Ron Edwards's picture

Here are some nice cloudberry muffins in preparation. You'll see why.

We have played Episode 1, linked directly within the playlist. It begins with my presentation of my thoughts between sessions. When the session begins, we did go over all those things, but I didn't include it due to the repetition.

I set up a sheet of paper on my desk to show a box marked Budget, another marked Audience Pool, and then four smaller boxes marked with the players' names. I used dice as counters to track the movement from Budget to Pool to Fanmail, then sometimes back to Budget. Some of the players did the same, so that we would occasionally check the values.

Everyone was clear on the Audience/Fanmail process, and after just a little prompting for retroactive Fanmail, then it clicked as a habit and the cards were up and running.

As it happens, the Budget was replenished enough to stay at a few dice by the time the plot-events had reached their own conclusion, which is legal/fine. I do like it when the Producer runs out of Budget entirely, though, because then the players can seize the day and enjoy some triumphant conflicts.

Helma's picture

So now we shot the first episode and I realized a couple of things

Remember when you chose an issue, TV is a visual medium and you will have to transfer your issue into visual (or at least verbal) clues. Clearly I made a bad choice, I do know the issue by heart but forgot how difficult it is to transform it into palpable clues. I found myself at least twice describing what Sam thinks/feels and given the environment (TV-show) that should not happen.

Remember that when playing online, you will have to describe a lot more than when playing at a table. At the table everybody can see the sparkle in my eyes and my body language, on screen they can’t. Particularly there is a scene between Sam and Cara (her connection) where I realized long after, I should have described the way Sam looked at Cara and reacted to the situation in considerable detail. Unfortunately I did nothing of that kind which wasted a lot of potential.

Remember, people may say on thing and mean another, like “I like TV shows where nothing happens” and playing a hell of an action movie or “I want a space show” and putting up some kind of spy thriller. I think I’m fine with it, but it makes me still somewhat insecure in play.

And something on a much lighter note: Remember, whatever you may come up with for a character, with this group there is no “easy, laid back” way of play for you. It’s gonna heat up pretty fast, so get used to it.

Summary: This will be the first TV show I will finish watching, that is for sure.

Everybody out there, I know you’re watching, come and comment here, especially your thoughts about PTA as a game and your own experiences, please, part of the fun for me is comparisons and other peoples experience.


LorenzoC's picture

Done with the pilot, and really curious about episode one. It takes a moment to get going, but in the end it was one of the most immediately enjoyable (in terms of pure entertainment) sessions I've seen recorded.

A few observations:

  1. The early stages of play gave me the impression that this is a type of game where it may be particularly useful to nail down the genre as soon as possible. Everyone needs to be onboard with the tone of the story they're trying to create, much more so that in other games where the GM has more or less the liberty to set up the scenes as he wants. I noticed Ron insisting often in the beginning about how technology works and looks, about how menial and non-glamorous the characters' jobs are, and probably correcting the course when other branches of space opera reared their heads. But again, when it got going people seemed to be able to use this efficiently to set up the type of scene the show would accomodate.
  2. Inconsequential, but I really like the implementation of the mechanics that allow players to narrate outcome even when they fail. If I got it right you simply get that authority if you draw the highest card, no matter the outcome. My favourite approach to this tends to be "GM narrates successes, players narrate failures", but within this format and the false pretense of the tv show (which I guess soon disappears while playing) this implementation of narrative authority (I guess evolving into situation authority in many circumstances) is particularly enjoyable and makes me appreciate the wide breath of the conflicts. When Helma/Sam foundt herself in the situation of having to narrate how she failed to de-escalate the altercation between the russian goons and the technician I was instantly excited by the potential of how the scene would evolve. I think perhaps this is where the premise of the game helps an old player like me letting go of all the ingrained "the world needs to have internal coherency, so it's one guy handling the nonplayer characters and the scenery, otherwise it's just a story" nonsense and just enjoy the explosive potential of the narration.
  3. The game looks like a blast to GM. I only ever played it and it always looked incredibly stressfull with all the "we set up a script, and we need to fulfill it" practices I was seeing employed, but looks like the ideal type of situation where players throw stuff at you and you can use it immediately and enjoyably.
  4. This is mostly for the players - listening to people playing, and imagining myself playing, I very quickly shifted my expectations from "what would make sense for her/him to do?" to "what would be interesting for her/him to do?". I'm wondering if that happens in play it - if the player's priorities successfully shifts from "What's the safest/most effective/most advantageous course of action for my character?" to "What would be fun to see now?". I don't think the issue of protagonism was touched in pre-play, but watching people play the shift in attitude was noticeable to me (expecially in players I had seen playing before).
Ron Edwards's picture

For your point #1, yes and no. The key is stopping early, before anyone has the sense that it’s enough. It’s crucial not to let this topic run rampant before play, or else “the pitch” becomes “the series bible” and drains all the energy. The original creators of Star Trek didn’t give a shit about how the transporter works and neither should you.

For your point #2, Are you familiar with the variety of narration rules across The Pool, InSpectres, Dust Devils, and Trollbabe? They are all different, and each one’s details are highly specific and integrated with the rest of the respective system. Furthermore, consider Sorcerer and My Lie with Master, which emphatically do not include rules for narration, not even a default “GM says,” and that too is for good reasons within each game.

I'm composing some thoughts in reply to your #4 and will post them later.

LorenzoC's picture

#1 feels clear. How it looks, not how it works. The cultural frame of references play an interesting role - the moment you said "think Alien (not Aliens)" I was immediately onboard and knew I wasn't going to hear about holographic keyboards and replicators. I have some further thoughts on this but I'll save them for once I've seen more of the game.

#2 is... complicated. Yes, I'm familiar with those games, aside from InSpectres (I mean I know what it is, but I never read or played it). I've been borrowing Trollbabes' approach for most of the games I've run (that didn't have specific prescriptions on how to do it). I particularly like it because it's airproof in terms of the flow of information (players perfectly know the boundaries of failure before rolling, and the DM doesn't bring in any unwanted baggage; while he can extend success through his authorities without ever entering those "gotcha" moments that are unpleasant to me).
The thing is - knowing how it works or how it's written or how it should work is one thing. Making it work isn't always as easy. I'm saying this from the DM perspective (honestly I've played nonstop once or twice a week for most of my life and still do, but I think I've sat at a table as a non-GM 5 times in the last 10 years).
When I propose these solutions to the 5-6 people I generally play with I know two will have no issues doing it, one will do it but not enjoy for the reasons detailed ("I want ownership of my character only"), one will absolutely freeze and become unable to do anything with it (I mean literally - he's played for 30 years and he just can't process having to narrate something that isn't direct consequence of his character's choice); then there's the guy who'll joyfully take the narrative authority and immeditately turn it into background, situation and outcome authority if you don't stop him fast enough (spoiler: he's the guy who loves Blades in the Dark).

And so my comment was on the tone of: wow, watching this is play makes me think this could work at my table. I think what I'm particularly appreciating is the softened way in which the "this is fiction!" element is brought in the game, compared to the "You're not the character, you're an actor! And the screenwriter! And the audience!", in-your-face way that was used when I experienced the game locally.

Ron Edwards's picture

Direct link here into the playlist.

Content matters. In this game, some content is inherently present in the Premise, some is inherently present across the sheets of the protagonists. From there, it's apparently filtered out among gamer-dom that content appears at the opening of scene, de novo as authored by each player at that time.

That's not the case. Plenty of situation is determined at that point, up to and including skipping over incidental content ("the location is inside the vault" after the last scene we saw was planning the heist, for example). But that's not content in terms of setting variables, not even a little.

Take a look at the authorities this time around. We should talk a bit about it. Because it's not different from most, probably all role-playing you're familiar with.

Ron Edwards's picture

Because we had two protagonists with Spotlight 3, there's a lot to do, and the rules mention using two sessions rather than three for an episode in that situation. We'll finish episode 3 in our next session.

Here's the direct link into the playlist. I had a lot to reflect upon or showcase so added a video of mine at the end as well.

Add new comment