Premise in Situation and how it relates to Character

[Kesher]

I realize that there're probably gallons of digital ink that have been spilled about this, but help a poor newbie out:

What's an example of Premise being addressed in a Situation, and how does that differ from Premise being addressed through Character?  Isn't a Character, reacting to a particular situation where Premise is present, actually dealing with the issue in terms of how they react to the Premise?

I know I'm just misunderstanding something here...

[Paganini]

Kesher, this is related to my reply to you in this thread: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=126314

But basically, remember how in math class they taught you that "an algorithm is an exponent," and you had to repeat it over and over again? Do that with "a premise is a conflict."

All the elements you mention are interdependent for Exploring Premise. Situations involve Characters, and they take place in Settings.

[Kesher]

I actually do get the fact that Premises are conflicts (though I never took high school algebra :) )  I think I'm probably just trying too hard to understand Narr play in light of GNS; something which Ron warns against at least twice in the text...

Sooo, that being said, I'm going to ask another question (or pose a situation, or whatever...) :

You can have multiple Premises being addressed by the same character at the same time, whichever "node" of Exploration they happen to be filtered through:

{Situation}Cop has to decide whether or not to shoot-to-kill the hostage along with the mook (Character) so that the enriched uranium doesn't fall into the hands of the uberterrorists (Setting){/Situation}

Thanks, btw, for helping me out on two fronts... or threads... well, you get it...

[Paganini]

Not sure if there was a question in that last post, but it looks like you're on track. You can indeed have multiple premises. (Although, if they pile up too high, things can get disorganized. :)

[Kesher]

Yeah, sorry.  I was trying to see if I was on the right track and you answered that, so, thanks again!

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Kesher,

Lemme see if I can help with the basic question you've raised ... bear in mind that none of the following are separated from one another by barbed wire.

Character-based Premise - This guy sure has a crisis, based on special features of his past decisions or background. We really don't know which way he's going to jump, because this time the crisis really hits him low. Think Sorcerer.

Setting-based Premise - No matter who he is or what he's done already, the crisis is upon everyone, including him. All kinds of things about the world might change due to the decisions he makes. Think HeroQuest.

Situation-based Premise - The hero is pretty together in his way, and the world is what it is, but right here in this spot and right now, things are pretty whacked. The hero might or might not change, and might not even behave in an unusual fashion for him, but the situation's resolution sure makes a point. Think Prince Valiant.

Important: over time, play which starts as one of these tends to expand into the others as well through added elements, such that the three categories really aren't very useful later on.

Best,
Ron

[Kesher]

Thank you, Ron for the examples; I luvs the examples...

Okay, let's see:

The scenario I presented, then, really shows Premise(s) being addressed through the mediums of Character & Setting in the context of needing to resolve a particular conflict at that moment.

A Situation-based Premise for the same scenario might really include, then, say, stripping out the uranium/terrorist angle (although I guess not necessarily) & leaving us with:

Cop, who understands his perceived moral duty (as he understands it; say he has a "Never shoot innocents" trait at some high score) has to make a decision; whatever decision he makes, whether in line with perceived beliefs or not, is an addressment of Premise because the situation is, as you said, whacked :)  Yah?  Nah?

What you mention about Genesis ---> Blending of Premise(s) affirms what I had figured would be the case.  An example might be how in the beginning of LotR, Frodo & Sam don't have much in the way of Character to address any Premise(s); it's all Setting (they can't avoid it, because it's going to affect everyone, one way or another.)  By the time they're clinging to the cliffs over the Witch King's palace, being played left & right by Gollum (& the Ring, & their memories) so many "elements" have been added that Premise-addressment, for them, has become Character largely blended in with/intensified by Setting (& their chances to address Premise are freeeeeeking undending...)

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

Cop, who understands his perceived moral duty (as he understands it; say he has a "Never shoot innocents" trait at some high score) has to make a decision; whatever decision he makes, whether in line with perceived beliefs or not, is an addressment of Premise because the situation is, as you said, whacked :) Yah? Nah?

Actually, you're tying yourself up in knots a little. What you're describing is Situation, period. It could occur in any Narrativist context.

I think ... well, I think you might be trying to apply the distinction among Situation, Setting, and Character bases for Premise way too finely. I use these terms for prepping to begin entire games, and perhaps establishing entire frameworks for game design, not for moment-to-moment decisions within play.

If you want to discuss scene-specific decisions and actions, I kinda think you'd be better off just leaving the issue of "where Premise comes from" aside entirely.

Best,
Ron

[Kesher]

I think you might be trying to apply the distinction among Situation, Setting, and Character bases for Premise way too finely. I use these terms for prepping to begin entire games, and perhaps establishing entire frameworks for game design, not for moment-to-moment decisions within play.

You know, Ron, you're right; I was looking at it from a small, as opposed to a big, picture-kinda-way.  And really, it's exactly what Paganini was telling me too (in two different posts, nonetheless!!)

I actually replied to this post earlier & the system ginked it, but it was really for the best; it was a musical analogy gone awry.  Literally.  However, after having some time (& a car ride) to think about it, I'll post a revision, because I think my sudden understanding fits the point of what we've been talking about here (& questions I've seen arising on other recent posts to this particular forum).  Here goes:

As has been previously stated, Narr play is like jazz; Story Now is the improvisation.  You could also view Sim play (where most of us have come from) as Classical music (I'd be surprised if this analogy hasn't been made before, actually); the Dream is the score.  Jazz is more "natural"; people just sitting down & making music has been going on for tens of thousands of years.  It can be beautiful, but it ALWAYS has the potential to not work out.  Classical music is beautiful, but not natural (not that this invalidates it as music worth listening to); the beginning, middle & end are ALWAYS quite clear, & usually known ahead of time, because the pieces are played the same way each time.  

This is really why Narr/Sim hybrid play/design is possible, because you can because you can play jazz within formal structures.  Sim/Narr hybrid play doesn't work because there's no place in a Classical score for improvisation; you may lend your own interpretation to your part of the score, but you're expected to play it "correctly".  You have to!  It's part of what makes that particular kind of music beatiful!  Just as jazz, without improv, becomes... I dunno, Muzak.  Classical music is safer, because you've practiced, you know your part.  Jazz can be scary because you might screw up, & there's a social and aesthetic price to that.  End of ridiculously extended analogy...

Anyhow, I laid all of this out because, you know, the end of the Narrativism essay bothered me.  "Why", Ron asked, "do you spend your time on this & not on some other art form?"  Good question.  I couldn't answer.  It bothered me.  Did I mention the bothered part?  I mean, I've been playing music & doing theater for, I dunno, forever.  At least, really, as long as I've been gaming.  

As I rode in the car tonight I thought about what it was that might connect these things, & that's when the analogy became clear (at least to me).  The music & theater I like are, to a large extent, improvisational, or at least originally created that way.  They have/had a Premise, even if at some point it becomes a Theme.  And live performance always changes things, in theater as well as non-Classical musics I listen to.  Gaming has potential for the same dynamic (as well as other dynamics; that is, after all, why there is a GNS & not just an N).  I'd always sensed it, but never really had the language to express it.  My friends & I played the way it seemed we should (according to incoherent texts), & sometimes we achieved pure Sim & sometimes pure Narr & sometimes a bit o' the Gamist fuel, but mostly it was an unsatisfying muddle.  But always I got enough of what I wanted to keep going.

In my posts above (& elsewhere), I was, I think, groping safely; trying to apply Narr theory to what I thought role-playing was supposed to be like: nicely contained & defined.  

The essays can be a bit...misleading?...because they lay out a lot of the theory in very well-defined manner.  Which is necessary, because there's been so much muddle written.  However, none of these things, as I've been told twice above, are quite that clean.

Okay, I think I'm done.  Ron, you mention (In the Pastiche section of Narr essay?) that many of us just need to write this stuff out ourselves before our brains will settle down (& get to work!)  Proven.

Thanks again to all.