Gente Che Gioca > Gioco Concreto
[Inglese] Raccolta link e approfondimenti su AiPS
Moreno Roncucci:
Ciao a tutti!
Segnalo un thread interessante su Avventure in Prima Serata (Primetime Adventures) oggi su the Forge, in cui sia Edwards che l'autore, Matt Wilson, parlando di diversi errori comuni nel giocarlo. E in fondo Edwards posta il link a diversi altri thread d'interesse sul gioco.
Consiglio a chi sa l'inglese di leggerlo, è difficile riassumere in poche righe un intera discussione. Per gli altri, riassumo a grandi linee gli argomenti trattati: sono quasi tutte cose già dette molte volte in questo forum, ma è comodo trovarle tutte riunite
- Non bisogna pre-narrare i conflitti
. Non ci sono contro-poste
- rispettare la divisione delle autorità sul manuale
A questo proposito, cito il brano:
[..]
It looks to me as if you were playing as follows:
Player asks for scene. Player describes scene. Player introduces conflict. Player and Producer draw cards. Player succeeds or fails. Someone narrates.
This is ... well, it's not going to work. A long time ago, Paul Czege articulated a key point that it is extremely not fun to propose one's own adversity and then resolve it oneself, and even less fun after that if you have to narrate it. For events in role-playing to be enjoyable, there must be some kind of back-and-forth which is not based on consensus somewhere in the start or middle of the process.
You are probably familiar with the extreme opposite which is widespread in role-playing:
GM states scene. Players state (minimally) preparations. GM introduces conflict (or at least crisis). Players state tactics. Players and GM roll dice. Players succeed or fail. GM narrates.
Despite certain flaws or pitfalls, this is actually more functional than the sequence I laid out above. At least in this case various people have to listen to one another establish actual content and then respond with actual content of their own. This not only makes the creativity social, it introduces time into the fiction as they do so.
PTA doesn't do either of these, actually. I have seen a number of people fall straight into the trap you and the group fell into, because they think it should run like the first sequence. That sequence is not actually what the book and rules describe. I think the book is a little bit light on the details of what to do so that that sequence doesn't happen (which is not to criticize it particularly; no author can anticipate all the ways to misunderstand, especially ways he or she never dreamed of).
The functional sequence for PTA goes like this:
Player requests a scene. Producer frames scene. Producer and Player develop scene. Conflict arises from both or either's action(s). Producer and Player draw cards. Player succeeds or fails. Someone narrates.
Do you see the crucial difference? The Producer does not sit mutely while the player is forces to generate everything about the scene. The player is not forced to create a whole scene, conflict, issue-relevance, and character actions alike.
The back-and-forth is different from the traditional sequence, and far more oriented toward generating emotionally-relevant conflict rather than a threat to the characters' lives, but it is the same in the sense that it's still back-and-forth as the fiction proceeds.
Basically, you guys are storyboarding. You're not creating a shared imagined space in which characters move around, enter and exit, do things, say things, react to one another, and otherwise "be." The conflicts are not forming organically from interactions and situational features, but being imposed in the abstract.
Notate come la necessità di questo "back-and-forth" si ricolleghi agli articoli di Baker su come far sì che la narrazione "conti"...
E' interessante anche la descrizione di Edwards delle cose che il giocatore può determinare ad inizio scena:
Focus = development of character vs. advancement of the plot. This can throw people badly, especially when they think advancement of the plot means saying right now what that advancement will be. This statement signals whether we "hang out" with the character vs. "something happens to or around her," and that's all. All you have to do is say which, and nothing about it.
Agenda = general description of what the scene's about, what the likely conflict is. If I had my way, this would be removed from the rules. I know what it means because I've been so close to the design and play from its outset. But textually, it throws people off cliffs. What it means is: don't have your character sitting and doing something totally boring. Propose something that lets us know why it's interesting to see her here now, but ... and importantly, not what happens.
Location = where it is.
None of these pre-set the contents of the conflict. I say again, none of these pre-set the contents of the conflict. That is left to play itself. Look at the scene creation example on page 57. Pretty minimal, huh?
Quindi, anche se chiedeve una scena di "avanzamento della trama", non potete dire da che parte avanza. "Agenda" indica cosa il personaggio stava facendo ad inizio scena, non il conflitto.
Altri errori:
Never, ever draw cards in PTA regarding what someone feels or wants in the absence of a concrete, shared set of directed actions in the fiction. Same goes for "noticing things" too - the #1 top way to stop a PTA session in its tracks.
My answer is "valid, insofar as picking his teeth or scratching his ass is valid. But not even close to an actual contribution to play, and light-years away from requiring a card draw."
Tutti i quote di prima sono di Edwards. Questo qui sotto è di Matt Wilson:
I think people sometimes confuse agenda for conflict. Agenda is just what you're up to. It's useful material for the producer to create the conflict, but it isn't the conflict.
Like, say, Cara wants a scene where Nicola's in the lab examining this strange thing she found, and she wants it to be a plot scene.
I'm the producer, yeah? So we don't just say, "okay, draw cards to see if you can figure out what it is."
And Cara doesn't say, "okay, there's something wrong with my microscope. that's the conflict." Cara can introduce that as an interesting detail, but no way is she going to just sit there and be the author of the story.
Say she introduces that detail. Maybe I say, "great, so that slows you down and you're there later than you want to be, late enough that your love interest, the cute lab worker shows up."
"Oh no," says Cara. "He can't find out about this strange thing."
Now we've both agreed on a conflict. There's a pretty defined yes/no question in there, but there's lots of room to fill in details in the narration.
Per quella che è la mia esperienza, praticamente tutti i problemi di gioco che ho sentito riguardo ad AiPS derivavano dall'aver commesso uno di questi errori (o non aver ascoltato gli avvertimenti riguardo a questi errori)
Luca Veluttini:
Letture interessantissime. Grazie Moreno.
Moreno Roncucci:
Segnalo soprattutto gli ultimi due link citati da Edwards, che chiariscono molti dubbi frequenti su Avventure in prima Serata:
[PTA] Players wanting their PCs to fail? che chiamo spesso "il thread definitivo su Pimetime Adventures" tanto è esauriente, e
[PtA] How are the narrative authorities working in this scene? che ne è il seguito
C'è anche una discussione aperta qui sul primo di quei thread, questa: [AiPS][link, in inglese] Far fallire il proprio personaggio?
Emanuele Borio:
Ti... Amo ò_ò
Un enorme grazie, quando ho letto gli errori comuni che si possono fare, mi sono accorto che nell'ultima sessione li abbiamo fatti TUTTI ò_ò.
Chris:
Ovviamente il mio inglese è più che penoso...
Mi puoi illustrare meglio il concetto di "non ci sono contro-poste?
Perchè credo di aver avuto un problema a riguardo nell'ultima sessione, ma non ne sono certa
Navigazione
[0] Indice dei post
Vai alla versione completa