I’ve been playing PTA recently too. My situation is the same as Christian’s: everything in that game supports character interaction really well, except for the “have a conflict in every scene, then end the scene” rule.

I played PTA today, forgoing that rule. Some scenes had 2 conflicts. Some had 1. Some had zero, but built dramatic tension. Some scenes were purely dialogue and character exposition, with no conflicts introduced or escalated.

The game, IMO, works better this way.

- Who is in the spotlight, who is supporting cast, and who is a walk-on
- How much time we have left in the show this week
- How much budget I have left
- What options do I have for bringing out character issues, and for developing whatever “plot” (and I use the term loosely) is out there

Agreed – definitely not freeform. Indeed, I doubt I’d be able to take on a Producer/GM role in a totally freeform game – I need some hand-holding.

I feel like we’re struggling a bit to find a use for conflicts in our game. So far, they seem to be good for times when, as a viewer, we are thinking “I have no idea what’s going to happen next, but I can’t wait to find out.”

Thing is, we have just as many times where something just seems inevitable to all of us, and we nod our heads and say “yep, that’s what should happen”.

It’s like we’re exploring and revealing events that have been predetermined in part by the initial conditions. *We* can’t always forsee them, so we’re surprised when they come up, but we recognize them when they’re revealed.

Thanks for a great post!

Matt, the only thing necessary to drift PTA this way is not to have conflicts all the time. Not that much of a change, really It’s not actually freeform play; there’s a lot more structure there, and all of the rules are being used. I just think the resolution rules are overrated when compared to the other rules in PTA, which have a huge impact on play. Like I said, the structuring effect of Screen Presence is actually more impactful than its role for conflict resolution.