[RPG]: Primetime Adventures, reviewed by C.W.Richeson (5/5)

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/13/13243.phtml

Christopher W. Richeson's Summary:

If you've ever thought up an awesome idea for a TV show and wanted to play it, but couldn't quite find the right system, then you need to check out <I>Primetime Adventures</I>.

Go to the full review for more information.

[cybersluagh]

The one and only thing that keeps me from buying Primetime Adventures is that it seems to require a fairly stable and regular group of players that know what they want to play and when. Unfortunately, my play group meets fairly erratically, we're never quite sure who will show, nor are we always certain what we'll want to play (yes, this causes me no end of frustration, but there's little I can do about it).

How well does PTA work for one-shots or occasional games?

[mitchw]

For me PTA goes onto the list of "great games with great ideas that I just can't seem to get" right next to "The Mountain Witch". I like indie games like Fate and Zorcerer of Zo so I don't think it's just my “traditional game bias” talking.

For running TV episode type games I run "Now Playing". I purchased a copy of PTA just to compare the two and ended up trading away PTA and keeping NP.

I wonder if PTA, like Savage Worlds, is something you really need to play (and not just read) before it clicks.

Mitch

[C.W.Richeson]

Originally Posted by cybersluagh

The one and only thing that keeps me from buying Primetime Adventures is that it seems to require a fairly stable and regular group of players that know what they want to play and when. Unfortunately, my play group meets fairly erratically, we're never quite sure who will show, nor are we always certain what we'll want to play (yes, this causes me no end of frustration, but there's little I can do about it).

How well does PTA work for one-shots or occasional games?

I've only run one one-shot with it so far, so it's probably best if someone else answers. My suspicion is that the game can do one-shots ok, but will really shine with 5 session mini-campaigns. I'm not sure I'll use it for one shots again in the future, but I'll definitely bust it out if we want to just play something new for a month.

Originally Posted by mitchw

For me PTA goes onto the list of "great games with great ideas that I just can't seem to get" right next to "The Mountain Witch". I like indie games like Fate and Zorcerer of Zo so I don't think it's just my “traditional game bias” talking.

For running TV episode type games I run "Now Playing". I purchased a copy of PTA just to compare the two and ended up trading away PTA and keeping NP.

I wonder if PTA, like Savage Worlds, is something you really need to play (and not just read) before it clicks.

Mitch

Interesting thoughts, Mitch, thanks for sharing! In my brief actual play so far it has played largely as it has read, though the game doesn't work well for me with a small number of players (2).

[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. Whenever our group talked about playing it again, enough of us came to the conclusion that we didn't like the cards and screen presence rating system that we decided not to reopen the book. And yet, it's one of a handful of games that has most influenced the way I play! It affected how I run and play almost everything, whether hippy or trad games.

I highly recommend at least reading it, and trying it. You may not like the actual game any more than I did, but you'll probably get a lot of ideas from the experience.

[Alvin Frewer]

Originally Posted by cybersluagh

How well does PTA work for one-shots or occasional games?

It works with one shots better than "I'm not sure who's going to show up" games, due to the screen presence. Screen presence is also a great guide so you're not stuck playing the pilot for every single one shot.

For example, after characters are set up and screen presense is determined, the group group might go they it would be really interesting to start playing on Johnny's spotlight episode. Looking at other characters, they see that Sue just had her spotlight the previous episode, and should consider what that might have been and the aftermath of it, and see that both Yodel the Magical Swede and Bob have their spotlights on the very next episode.

On the other hand, if the people you're not sure who's going to show up are already the same two or three people, and you have a core of say, three, who are almost always there, then you could have the core be the main characters, and work out a method for recurring guest star roles for the occasional players (though, the book only briefly mentions what to do if someone new shows up, and doesn't really get into a guest star "mechanic" as such, but just assuming screen presence 1 and limit their Issue so that it's linked to a main character, and I think that could work well).

[critical miracle]

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. Whenever our group talked about playing it again, enough of us came to the conclusion that we didn't like the cards and screen presence rating system that we decided not to reopen the book. And yet, it's one of a handful of games that has most influenced the way I play! It affected how I run and play almost everything, whether hippy or trad games.

I highly recommend at least reading it, and trying it. You may not like the actual game any more than I did, but you'll probably get a lot of ideas from the experience.

I've PTA on my shelf and I plan on cracking it open as soon as I'm done reading Burning Wheel.

This review has me a little concerned, however. The Producer's Budget "roll" makes the game seem like a "GM vs Players" situation. Please tell me I'm mistaken, because I want a game that empowers and encourages my players' awesomeness. The obstacles should be deeper than an arbitrary "budget" resource that I throw at the players. It would be a shame for such an acclaimed game to fall short because of an emasculating resolution system.

[C.W.Richeson]

I think Budget can be used to enhance the players awesomeness or oppose it, depending on how you use it. If a scene is just dripping with awesome, don't throw all of your Budget at it (or any, necessarily). If a scene has some really interesting potential through failure, pile on that Budget and advance the drama.

[Poster #15672]

Originally Posted by C.W.Richeson

I think Budget can be used to enhance the players awesomeness or oppose it, depending on how you use it. If a scene is just dripping with awesome, don't throw all of your Budget at it (or any, necessarily). If a scene has some really interesting potential through failure, pile on that Budget and advance the drama.

That's key, right there.

As Producer, you are not out to stomp the players. You're there to add adversity only when adversity would make things more interesting. You collaborate with the players to make a cool story. The problem is that oftentimes, players and Producers might have different ideas about what awesome is. Thus, the mechanic to settle the dispute.

[Landon Darkwood]

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