Premise?

[Paganini]

Since Ron sets great store by the work of Louis Egri, I've been doing some net research into Egri's use of the word "premise" in hopes of obtaining a better understanding of GNS. I have a question:

Does an Egri premise necessarily imply resolution? Egri's premise for Romeo and Juliet is that "great love will defy even death." If we play a game with this it doesn't just tell us what the game is about, it tells ahead of time how the game will end. This may be a great tool when writing a play, but knowing ahead of time how your game will end can be anti-climactic. I guess my real question is this: An Egri premise must have fulfillment - but can that fulfillment when used in RPG terms come as a result of actual play, rather than being encoded into the game's premise? In other words, could a question *without resolution* be a valid premise? For example:

"How far must one be pushed in order to betray a person one loves to a person one trusts?" (A central theme to the Riddlemaster trilogy by Patricia McKillip.)

[Ron Edwards]

Nathan,

With respect, I don't know whether to buy you a beer or to break down crying.

This is exactly what I've been saying about Narrativist Premise all along.

1) Egri makes the most sense I have ever seen regarding theatrical narrative (which applies fully to film).

2) His principle must be adapted to role-playing, however, as author and audience are the same, simultaneous people. (To repeat, I am speaking only of Narrativist play.)

3) It is adapted by converting it to a question, such that the people in play may provide an answer via play itself. I cannot over-emphasize that the people need not have an answer formulated from the outset of play - they simply need characters with passions that address that question, and enough author-power such that the characters are really protagonists, affecting the story through their decision-making.

I've repeated these very points throughout about a dozen different threads. Which is no bad reflection on you, at all, but on my evident need to write this out in essay form.

Best,
Ron

[J B Bell]

Ron,

Lest you spill too many tears into the draught you buy for Paganini, I should mention that in reading Egri, I found the adaptation of Premise into a question rather than a statement wholly natural, intuitive, and obvious.  How else could it be, when you have a table full of authors and actors with free will?

Of course, other stuff that should perhaps have been obvious vexed me a long time.  But Premise is a very trusty rudder, IME.

--JB

[Le Joueur]

I dunno.  In all the lit courses I took, what has been cited as Egri's Premise for Romeo and Juliet is called the message.  The 'theme' as I was taught is 'love and death in tragedy.'  The 'message' is the answer to the question that tumbles right out of the 'theme;' which is greater, love or death?

I know we all put great stock in the old master, but if you're going to change the application of his prize term, it just seems disrespectful to keep using the same term.  My suggestion is, keep the idea that the 'something' changes from a statement (a 'message') when that 'something' is ported over to role-playing games to a question; just don't use the same term.  I mean for all the resemblance, we're talking about something different right?

Call it, I dunno, a thematic question?  Yeah, that sounds about right and a lot less confusing.  (And doesn't strike me as disrespectful as perverting the earlier usage.)  How about, a Narrativist role-playing game is about exploring a Thematic Question within the context of the Theme of the game and delivering a Thematic Message based on it?

But that's just me.

Fang Langford

p. s. I'd say a tear-tainted beer, cuz it's Lajos not Louis.

[Paganini]

Nathan,
With respect, I don't know whether to buy you a beer or to break down crying.

Why not do both? I've heard that crying into a beer glass is a great release. :)

I've repeated these very points throughout about a dozen different threads.

Please note that I didn't intend this thread to be one of the "ground breaking" ones, just a self-serving (and maybe newbie serving) one to help me get a better understanding of premise. I was sure this has been discussed in other threads - I figured if it had someone would be quick to post a link to it, the way they usually do. ;)

Which is no bad reflection on you, at all, but on my evident need to write this out in essay form.

Yes please. :) I'm afraid I found the section on premise in your essay to be one of the most difficult to understand. Possibly this is because of a lack of context on my part at the time I read it - now that I've been here a while it's easier for me to grab. I also suggest, however, that the essay could be clearer in explaining exactly what an Egri premise is, giving a big basic foundation for your use of it when applied to RPGs.  I didn't really "get" what you were talking about until I read an essay online about it.

<Edited to add URL: http://www.99degrees.de/writing/premise.htm>

[Paganini]

Call it, I dunno, a thematic question?  Yeah, that sounds about right and a lot less confusing.  (And doesn't strike me as disrespectful as perverting the earlier usage.)  How about, a Narrativist role-playing game is about exploring a Thematic Question within the context of the Theme of the game and delivering a Thematic Message based on it?

Well, all issues of philosophy and disrespect aside, I really like the term "Thematic Question." It seems to be much more exact, and useful in the sense that what it means is actually what it *sounds* like it means, which is not the case with a technical term like Premise.

p. s. I'd say a tear-tainted beer, cuz it's Lajos not Louis.

Is it really? I was sure I checked it before posting! ARGH!

[Jared A. Sorensen]

I don't think "knowing how the game is going to end" is any great tragedy in the world of RPGs (though traditionalists are going to balk mightily at that statement). There seems to be a general feeling out there of "Why play if it's all set in stone from the beginning?" or what I called "Titantic Syndrome" ("Why see it if you know how it's going to end?").

IMO, RPGs are all about the journey, not the destination. I tried to incorporate this into several of my games (in InSpectres, there really shouldn't be any doubt as to whether or not the agents complete the job...In Schism, the characters will all die, etc. etc.). So I don't see any problem with the idea that Premise sets up the end as well as the beginning of a story. In fact, I'd say that's its strength.

[Paganini]

I don't think "knowing how the game is going to end" is any great tragedy in the world of RPGs (though traditionalists are going to balk mightily at that statement). There seems to be a general feeling out there of "Why play if it's all set in stone from the beginning?" or what I called "Titantic Syndrome" ("Why see it if you know how it's going to end?").

Or, more accurately, why see it if you know who's going to be in it? (Sorry! :)

IMO, RPGs are all about the journey, not the destination. I tried to incorporate this into several of my games (in InSpectres, there really shouldn't be any doubt as to whether or not the agents complete the job...In Schism, the characters will all die, etc. etc.). So I don't see any problem with the idea that Premise sets up the end as well as the beginning of a story. In fact, I'd say that's its strength.

Interesting. I'm wondering, are those games designed to facilitate narrative play? (I haven't seen them.) I ask because "focusing on the journey" is a big part of how I think of simulationism. Perhapse I need to do some reevaluating.

[Ron Edwards]

Jared,

My good friend, you have gummed up the discussion with some bullshit.

No one saw Titanic in breathless suspense of whether the ship would sink. They saw it in breathless suspense regarding the outcome of (a) romantic conflict and (b) who gets the very pricey jewel. Both of these were featured prominently in the previews, and we do not know how they turn out. The ship sinking is a matter of placing these conflicts into "dangerous ground."

The same goes for playing InSpectres. We know the characters will investigate funky-duty stuff; we know they will live. The conflict is whether they get so stressed out that their spunky startup-venture (franchise) falls apart, which is only resolved through play.

Nathan, do not let plausible-seeming talk about "knowing how it comes out," or "journey vs. destination," confuse you. Narrativism = resolving conflict regarding Premise (in the Egri sense). That's it.

Best,
Ron

[Paganini]

Nathan, do not let plausible-seeming talk about "knowing how it comes out," or "journey vs. destination," confuse you. Narrativism = resolving conflict regarding Premise (in the Egri sense). That's it.

Booyah! Then I think I've got it! :)

Just to be sure, here's the premise I sent to the Self System list this morning as a proposal for the PBEM we're setting up:

"When an immovable instinct for self preservation confronts the
unstoppable certainty of annihilation what will give way?"

Is that a premise? Is it interesting? :)

[Paul Czege]

Hey Nathan,

"When an immovable instinct for self preservation confronts the unstoppable certainty of annihilation what will give way?"

I think it's a Premise. It's a little inaccessible. You should trust me on this because I'm the master of inaccessible Premises, and Ron has blasted me for them many times. I think you should loosen it up a bit, give the players some room to author in it. The "what will give way" part implies a chipping away of the character, almost a steady, predictable progression. I get the impression you want to reduce, reduce, and reduce the characters to some primal condition, incrementally. Why not something like, "What's truly significant when you're faced with certain annihilation?"

Paul

[Jared A. Sorensen]

My good friend, you have gummed up the discussion with some bullshit.

No one saw Titanic in breathless suspense of whether the ship would sink. They saw it in breathless suspense regarding the outcome of (a) romantic conflict and (b) who gets the very pricey jewel. Both of these were featured prominently in the previews, and we do not know how they turn out. The ship sinking is a matter of placing these conflicts into "dangerous ground."

Well duh, Ron. I know this and you know this...but I'm going for the whole schtick of people who said they didn't want to see it because they knew how it ended...har har har.

Hello?  Hello? Is this thing on?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Jared,

Sorry 'bout the "bullshit" part. Ummm, invalid nonsense, that is what I should have said (true).

Sense of humor, sense of humor, I left it around here somewhere. Did anyone see my ...?

Nathan, Paul's right. My description of your Premise suggestion is "bloodless intellectualism." How about ...?

What's more valuable, family or pride?
Can one owe loyalty to a dead man?
Who wields more effective power in a crisis, a woman or a man?

(Premises do not allow for mealy-mouthed, "Gee, guess it all depends" answers.)

Best,
Ron