Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechante_Anemone
Primetime Adventures as I experienced it is a very curious phenomenon. I did not actually enjoy playing it, largely because although I like streamlined mechanics, the resolution system left me very unsatisfied.
|
It's kinda funny; hacking PTA into other sets of mechanics is one of my favorite things to do.
Matt Wilson himself has said that PTA has great potential as a meta-mechanic - take all the structure and framing procedures from the game, parse out issue arcs and whatnot, and then just resolve conflicts using some other system of your choice. The book's worth the price of admission just for its advice on how to get conensus-powered play moving in the right direction.
A very simple way to make conflicts seem a little more proactive is this, inspired by Malcolm Craig's
Cold City and Ron Edwards'
Sorcerer:
* Do stat pools of 1-3 for each character. I usually go Physical, Mental, Social because I can't get away from the action/adventure thing when I game. You can do them as point distribution (6 pts. total, min. 1 per stat), or White Wolf style (3/2/1, and you prioritize), or whatever.
* Add Screen Presence to these ratings only when the player can figure out a way to make the character's Issue central to the conflict, and one additional die per relevant Trait, and fan mail. Note that you'll need to amp the Producer's budget a little in order to allow her to throw out 5-7 cards a little more regularly. Maybe total Screen Presence x 3, like in the original edition.
* Define stakes as loosely as possible, *not* suggesting outcomes beforehand. "I want to make Devon look ridiculous in front of his friends." "I want to get inside that building." "I want to beat Paul into unconsciousness."
* Use the optional three-round rule from the book, splitting your pool up between the rounds. If you have less than three dice/cards, then you at least need to make sure the final round has one die/card assigned to it.
* Everybody generally states their action and draws cards for the round, comparing their result against the Producer, just like normal PTA. Highest card determines who seems most effective doing their action, and narration goes to the person with the next highest card showing. If the producer beats anyone, that person's actions aren't as effective as they might have hoped. If there are any ties, remove those cards and compare the next highest. If there is an absolute tie, it indicates either a stalemate (in terms of action) or shared authority (in terms of narration).
* Do the same for the next two rounds, using different cards each time. At the end, look at everyone's cards in *total* - whoever beats the Producer wins their stakes unless, for whatever reason, the players' goals were diametrically opposed (which is boring, by the way). If there's a tie for high card, remove those cards and compare again between the tied parties. Once you determine a winner, the next highest card showing tells you who gets narration, resolving ties the same way.
***
The main effect this has on play is that the outcomes aren't entirely based on (but are still heavily influenced by) Screen Presence, allowing the character to play to his strengths a little more. Also, because you're parsing out the resolution into sets of action, you get a more proactive "I do X, with result Y" feel to things.
For an advanced application of the above, consider that you can split the cards up into as many as five rounds with no issues. So, if you want it all to ride on one instant of action, go with all the cards up in one round. If you want to drag it out and have fun with description, go for four or five rounds. Just remember that you always assign points from your pool starting from the last round, if you have less points than there are rounds.
-L