Exploring theme without addressing premise

[pete_darby]

(split from here)

The idea of exploring theme without adressing premise: well, I'm falling into a state that I deplore in others, of having proposed a theoretical statement without an easy practical example to hand. IIRC, Ron gives an example in one of the essays of a Vampire group playing through a chronicle in which each session involved loss of some sort, yet no-one grabbed a related premise and worked through what loss means to that character, it was just the background theme, everything passes, or whatever.

In fact, take that one, everything passes as theme. You could base a whole campaign on that, without adressing anything about it as a premise. The Imperium falling in MegaTraveller, for example, provided a whole thematic unity along those lines to pretty much the whole MT line, but play could continue throughout the whole fall of the Imperium without the players addressing the premise of loss or impermanence at all.

So that's what I'm talking about in terms of exploring theme without adressing premise.

Possibility of being bass-ackwards? Pretty high, but let's go...

[C. Edwards]

Hey Pete,

That sounds like creation of theme through play to me (or frontloaded through setting). Not the "exploration of theme" which is exactly equal to "addressing Premise".

It's usually not too difficult to find theme being produced as a result of play of any sort. It's a whole different bag to push for creation of theme and explore it as your primary goal of play.

-Chris

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

I'd really like to discuss this, but the whole point is de-railed by using the phrase "exploring Premise." It forces us to use "explore" in two ways, (1) the jargon sense for the Big Model and (2) the incredibly vague sense employed toward many fine arts.

Pete, can you re-phrase your inquiry without saying "explore Theme?" Can you use some other verb that doesn't have any jargon status that will cause confusion?

Again, I know exactly what I want to say about this, and I think it's incredibly easy once a person grips the point, but there is literally no way I can do it when we have to cope with non-Exploration "exploring," as a term.

Best,
Ron

[Landon Darkwood]

Ron,

How about "establishing"? Establishing theme without addressing Premise?


-Landon Darkwood

[Valamir]

I think "establish" has potential, but its a very different implication than "explore"

The way I see it, there are only 3 ways for theme to be created.

1) GM Fiat:  The GM is the custodian of the theme.  The theme is either provided by the game, by GM choice, or in cooperation with players before play.  Subsequently the GM is incharge of manufacturing situations that serve to feature that theme.  Essentially the theme is scenery and the players get to enjoy watching how it falls into place.

2) By coincidence:  There is no manufactured theme and players and GMs give no thought to thematic elements during play.  Only in retrospect can participants tease out a theme from the series of in play events, and often times this retrospective involves no small amount of revisionist remembering and retrofitting.  I call this the million monkeys method.

3) Through addressing premise during play by participants at the table, GM and players alike.  AKA, narrativism

To me, the word "explore" carries with it an active "on purpose" element that makes it synonomous with #3.  

"Experience Theme" on the other hand is much more what is going on in #1 and IMO is usually what is meant by theme in a sim context.  

"Establish" has a much more proactive meaning which works in the context of establishing the theme for the campaign pregame.  Or retroactively establishing it post game.  But any sort of "establishing theme" during actual play in a sim setting would be 100% the balliwick of the GM while the players are merely "experiencing it".  

If the players are engaged in "establishing" theme, we're back to narrativism.

[M. J. Young]

But any sort of "establishing theme" during actual play in a sim setting would be 100% the balliwick of the GM while the players are merely "experiencing it".

I'm not certain on this point.

The point I see at which this breaks down is when GM Tasks are more widely distributed within simulationism. Historically it is normal for simulationist play to have very limited stance options for character players and wide stance options for referee players; but theoretically stance choices are wide open for simulationism, given the agreement of the group to cooperate within the confines of the express goals of play.

Thus if you have a simulationist game in which all players have the freedom to create setting and situation within, say, genre expectations, you would inherently have a "GM-full" game, and the players could "establish theme" without addressing premise.

I agree that someone would probably mess it all up by insisting on addressing premise; but narrativist play begins when someone wants to say something about the theme/premise, and as long as all we're doing is creating events around the theme without any commentary (that is, choices made to make statements about the premise) we haven't crossed the line.

It thus seems perfectly reasonable for theme to be cooperatively developed in simulationist (or to a lesser degree gamist) play, intentionally, without becoming narrativist. Difficult, but not implausible.

--M. J. Young

[pete_darby]

Actually, I thought I was pretty much using exploration as per the big model jargon term: theme, like system, colour, setting or situation is as much up for exploration (which implies both discovery and creation as possible modes of exploration) as any other part of the game, as far as I understand it.

So, in line, with Ralph's post, the theme of a game can be established by GM preparation, or can be a recognized pattern in hindsight, or it can, with reference to MJ, and especially with hefty doses of non-actor stance by the players, be communally generated without adressing premise. Much advice is given in the World of Darkness games to emphasizing a pre-established theme through colour and setting, which is exactly the sort of exploration of theme I'm referring to. You could even typify such advice as promoting sim theme, above other avenues of exploration.

And yes, I'm including the ability of the players to explore in an active, interested sense, theme without addressing premise, by emphasising thematic elements of setting, colour and character, even system, without adressing premise, without actively playing in a way that puts the premises suggested by the theme into active play, even shunting the dramatic confrontation element inherent in a address of premise aside in favour of exploring more avenues of thematic expression.

[Valamir]

Thus if you have a simulationist game in which all players have the freedom to create setting and situation within, say, genre expectations, you would inherently have a "GM-full" game, and the players could "establish theme" without addressing premise.

I think that's just a nuance of the GM Fiat application.

If an accepted genre structure containing theme has been established, either by book, mandate, or discussion, and the players are allowed to use author and director stance to manufacture instances of theme which reflect that established theme...

...I would disagree with the idea that the players are "establishing theme" or acting in a GM-full way.  Ultimately the GM is still the GM and can still crack the whip and turn the screws of genre enforcement.  Ultimately this situation is not "the players choose how to establish theme", but rather "the players predict how the GM would establish theme, and then do it for him".  Their control in this is generally limited to color and flavor elements of minimal impact.

...If, on the other hand, you have players fully empowered to stick to their guns, establish elements that not only support the predetermined theme, but challenge or question it (and give the opportunity to refute it in play); if you have a GM who is ready, willing, and able to not interfere with the player's choices in this regard and is not forcing the issue back to the original mandate, then I fail to see how this is anything other than addressing premise its its completely Nar sense.

If the players don't have the power to challenge, question, or refute the theme, but merely to parrot it, then it is still GM fiat.  Just GM fiat where the players do the work subject to GM veto.  Which is a fine way to play, but still just plain old theme-from-on-high.



Somewhat tangental to this question is where this whole premise vs. theme, nar vs. sim confusion stems from.

Personally I think the confusion comes from individuals (not directed at present company) who have a vested interest in declaring themselves "Simulationists".  Whether they adopted this label from the three fold, or whether they associate sim design with rigorous realistic accuracy and nar design with artsy fartsy winging it, or whatever the reason; they self identify as simulationists and it is important to them to have that label.

In reality, however, these individuals are Narrativist.  They are just that particular breed of Narrativist who prefer to play with the Exploration dial cranked to 10 (which is why their style is easily confused for Sim).  They are Narrativist because ultimately, when you dig down through all of the sim seeming elements what they are actually doing in real actual play (even if they don't talk about it in this fashion) is addressing premise.  That's the real source of the enjoyment of their games.  That's what trips their trigger and differentiates between a good campaign that clicked and a poor one that never did.  Thats what comes through in their reports of actual play experience.

BUT, they refuse to accept that they are really Narrativists at heart, and instead insist that they must be in the Sim category.   Therefor, to support what they actually do in play, they pull over a bunch of Nar stuff into the sim category so that they can sit back and say "ok, now sim accurately reflects what we do".  Threads and threads and threads have been spent on this.

But all this accomplishes is to blur the line between Nar and Sim which is where such confusing ideas as "exploring theme" comes from.

[pete_darby]

Ralph, what if the players don't excercise the power to challenge or question theme, but just keep on truckin with it, piling on more and more thematic elements without once putting them up to any Egri style test of premise, accepting it without addressing it?

I think the confusion here probably lies here with what the title of the thread implicitly excludes without explicit statement: that sim exploration of theme excludes authoring of theme in play. That boundary can, I think, only be crossed with Nar play. Where I've been talking about exploration of theme, with creation & discovery, I've been talking about creation and discovery of elements or expressions of a single theme, probably immutable to intentional change of theme, rather than exploration of what the theme is to be.

Does that help? Do I mean exemplification rather than exploration?

[Valamir]

Ralph, what if the players don't excercise the power to challenge or question theme, but just keep on truckin with it, piling on more and more thematic elements without once putting them up to any Egri style test of premise, accepting it without addressing it?

Does that help? Do I mean exemplification rather than exploration?

Well, it all boils down to what "keep on truckin" means.

If it means they are assembling a pastiche of thematic elements within boundaries defined by book, mandate, or prior agreement, then this would be one way to have theme through Sim.  I would find exploration to be a fairly misleading term for this since the word kind of implies blazing a trail through uncharted territory to see what's on the other side.  

In this case if the GM is the final "keeper of the faith" in terms of judging what are and aren't appropriate thematic elements to pile on, then you pretty much have theme by GM fiat as noted above.  I'll note here that I also include in this the voluntary willingness of the players to abide by the stated expectations so that the GM never actually has to enforce them.  Abiding by the law is still abiding by the law even if the police aren't looking over your shoulder while you do it.


If the GM isn't the final "keeper of the faith", then I don't see any other thing this could be other than narrativism.

[pete_darby]

Ralph, you're mystifying me a little by this insistence on GM as keeper of the faith: I see no reason why this can't be a gestalt tacit or explicit agreement to keep within a thematic set of elements, adding to those elements only where they maintain the established theme. Insisiting that, even when this happens and folk are happy within a fixed, unchallenged theme, that somehow this is still imposed by GM fiat is somewhat cirular argument.

Also, I don't see where exploration has to, by definition, move into uncharted territory and author or challenge the theme being explored.

But I definitely see where the application of pastiche is relevant, and is probably at the heart of what I'm thinking of when I say "exploration of theme".

[pete_darby]

Gah! curse these sausage fingers!, posting before I was ready!

Also, I don't see where exploration has to, by definition, move into uncharted territory and author or challenge the theme being explored.

By which I mean to say, I fail to see where the exploration of theme, a single theme explored through mutually supported pastiche, maybe, has to force authoring of said theme in play.

All that being said, sure, if it continues in play, it will probably drift to narrativist play, without an effort by the group to avoid challenging theme.

I don't see it as common for extended play, or especially satisfying beyond a sub-Tarantino pastiche thrill of recognition, an "ain't I cool for putting a scene with the Joker in a performance of Pagliacci"* theme-as-wallpaper kind of buzz, but it's a real form of play that's promoted in, especially, early editions of Vampire.

*again... sigh...

[Valamir]

Ralph, you're mystifying me a little by this insistence on GM as keeper of the faith: I see no reason why this can't be a gestalt tacit or explicit agreement to keep within a thematic set of elements, adding to those elements only where they maintain the established theme. Insisiting that, even when this happens and folk are happy within a fixed, unchallenged theme, that somehow this is still imposed by GM fiat is somewhat cirular argument.

Hmmm.  Let me try a different tact.

There are 2 things you need to establish a pastiche of theme.  
1) deciding what that theme should be.
2) making sure that that choice is adhered to in play.


#1 can come from a variety of sources: a game book, a chosen genre, GM mandate, a cooperative discussion among players.  A huge portion of Universalis prep (to reference back to the original thread) is exactly this.

#2 is where the rubber hits the road.  Genre and pastiche and theme are all very personal elements.  We all might have a pretty compatable idea of what "Tarantino Action Film" or "Kurusawa Samurai Film" means.  But they aren't going to be identical -- one party might draw more from more early work, while someone else draws from later work (as an example of one source of difference).

You also are going to have individual differences between what theme means and why its important.  For example, say you have a samurai game and the theme is about honor, duty, and family loyalty.  Does the protagonist exist to exemplify a perfect avatar of these ideals?  or does the protagonist exist to be a window into the problems and failures of these ideals to show how the individual is subsumed by them?  or does the protagonist exist to challenge and defy (successfully or un-) these ideals?

The likely hood of any given group of gamers 1) agreeing to a given theme, 2) all having very close and compatable ideas about what the elements of that theme are/should be and which should be emphasised and which can be deemphasised, and 3) all having identical ideas about how their player characters should relate to that theme as a protagonist, is in my view so highly unlikely as to represent a largely theoretical construct (or at best a tiny fragment of gamer dom).

Under such a controlled set of circumstance, then perhaps you can get away without someone (typically the GM) serving as "keeper of the faith" / "enforcer of expectations".  But by and large visions are going to clash.

When visions clash you need to have either a) a GM like figure reigning things in and making sure the core vision is adhered to.  or b) the freedom for players to explore individual interpretations and thematic elements.

If you have b) you get either a confused befuddled mess of conflicting notions...or the potential for narrativism.

[pete_darby]

Okay: I think we've played this out now, yeah? It's possible, maybe only with a tight hand at the tiller, but folks who would groove on it would probably groove more on nar play than sim theme after a short time inside an unchallenged, mandated theme, even if mandated by assent of the group.

I think that a group focussing on exploration of theme would quickly run up against it: maybe in a game where theme was a supporting element to system, setting, situation, colour or character, it could sit there happily in the same way, but once theme becomes an avenue for active exploration, it gets exhausted fairly quickly before either being dropped for exploration of other elements, or drifts to Nar.

And with that, I think you can stick a fork in my ass.

[M. J. Young]

I'm with Pete.

When visions clash you need to have either a) a GM like figure reigning things in and making sure the core vision is adhered to.  or b) the freedom for players to explore individual interpretations and thematic elements

I think he missed A.5) in the absence of a designated referee, the players by consensus defined and enforce the core vision, utilizing group veto over individual actions which violate that vision.

Rare? Sure. Impossible? No.

Maybe it's rare because someone will almost always push it into narrativism at some point (how long can you play with the theme before someone wants to challenge it?). Or maybe it's rare because no one has ever attempted to design a game that does this, and gamer expectations don't go that direction.

--M. J. Young