How much Premise does it take?

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

I want to support Gareth in questioning whether Premise always connotes a moral conundrum. I think that this concept only applies when we narrow the focus to Narrativist games.

And furthermore, once we're in that smaller box of Narrativist play, by "moral conundrum," I think that term itself can be specified mean, "perplexing and relevant concern of humans."

So if we're talking about any role-playing, Premise is nothing more nor less than "what, concerning those listed elements, interests the pack of us in play." Bam.

If we're specifying to Narrativism, then Premise is specified to, "damn, that's a really troubling issue when it comes to being a a human being. We gotta deal with it, but no one-size-fits-all answer really comes to mind."

Best,
Ron

[Paganini]

If we're specifying to Narrativism, then Premise is specified to, "damn, that's a really troubling issue when it comes to being a a human being. We gotta deal with it, but no one-size-fits-all answer really comes to mind."

I'm not sure about this. What reasons do you have for limiting Narrative play to dealing with moral conflicts? Maybe I'm just thinking of "moral" in a different way from what you're using it, but it seems to me that any sort of conflict (in the traditional literary sense) will work in a narrative game.

In Gateway, for example, it was pure Man vs. the Universe. The characters woke up, didn't know where they were, didn't know who they were (other than their names), had no clue what was going on. The exploration was literal... exploring their surroundings and themselves. The players didn't even have a complete idea of their characters... no background, because I didn't tell them what the setting was beforehand. It was a really cool "develop in play" experience.

Of course, after I introduced the nasty alien beasties there was a whole new element... Monster vs. Man in a Predator vs. Prey relationship. ;)

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

I agree with you that "any literary conflict" will do. However, at that point, our views diverge sharply.

I argue that, to function, a literary conflict must be much more than the catch-phrases usually memorized in college classes, and that creating and utilizing a literary conflict takes much more understanding (at verbal or non-verbal levels) than is generated in those classes.

Current models of teaching literary conflicts and themes are, in my opinion, seriously degraded. Saying Man vs. Monster" ultimately says nothing, nor or does "Man vs. Society," or any such thing. These are memorizable phrases used by badly-educated grad students to grade undergraduates' essays quickly, resulting in further miscarried education. (Repeat annually for thirty years, including these grads becoming profs ...)

No conflict in a story means anything to an audience unless it engages them; engagement relies on raising an "issue" of emotional weight. I will be happy to dissect any story of any demonstrable audience interest in these terms.

My favorite starter is Aliens, about which any amount of babble regarding "woman with gun," or "penis symbols" has been perpetrated. In the terms you use, it is "(Wo)man vs. Monster." In my terms, Aliens does no more nor less than present two mothers with a direct conflict of interest. It raises the already-existing understanding of the audience that motherhood carries with it a great deal of ruthless power; thus the expectation of a truly engaging, no-compromise climax is "promised." When the movie later delivers on that promise, tremendous enjoyment is generated.

To clarify my point, consider two other movies: Predator and Losing Isaiah. The first one pits a man vs. a monster and thus ought to "go with" Aliens in a thematic way, by the classroom logic. The second concerns a court case between a birth-mother and an adoptive-mother, and thus "goes with" Aliens in a thematic way, by my logic.

The first outlook would stare at my Aliens + Losing Isaiah box with surprise and point to the monsters; I shrug at the Aliens + Predator box and point to the mothers.

My own research into these matters (and I do mean research, academically, nothing to do with RPGs per se) finds its only literary parallel in the writings of Lajos Egri, in his book The Art of Dramatic Writing, originally published in 1946. It's the best book on problems, themes, and audience engagement I've ever seen, and I borrowed (and extended slightly) his use of "Premise" for my discussion of Narrativism.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

The answer to the Narraivist Premise Question are themes. Players don't create Premise, they create themes. And since there is a difference in how a Narrative Premise is constructed from a literature based one, I'd speculate that a player can answer with more than one theme. Especially given the potential long term nature of RPGs. Or perhaps more accurately, the player can change his theme over time, adressing the Premise in one fashion and later changing to another. That, I'm sure is possible. The only question is will it satisfy the Narrativist player.

Paganini, Gateway was a Simulationist game, very much by your description, so the Narrativist Premise rules do not apply.

Mike

[Paganini]

I agree with you that "any literary conflict" will do. However, at that point, our views diverge sharply.

Very good! I think the rest is just a case of you not liking the terminology I used. As a matter of fact, I agree with you about the condition of education in the US. Fortunately, I never had to experience very much of it. :) In any case, this is all a bit outside of the scope of RPG design.

The traditional conflict nomenclature *is* limited, especially if you approach it from a creation standpoint. Can you imagine what it would be like if a teacher told you "I want you to write a Man vs. Man story today!" Boy, *that's* a big help! OTOH, I think the nomenclature is useful for identifying conflicts in existing works. It is also widely recognized, which makes it useful when talking about a subject such as the one at hand, where you need some terms in a hurry to make a point. The quality of the existing literary conflict definitions themselves is a separate issue, IMO.

[Paganini]

Paganini, Gateway was a Simulationist game, very much by your description, so the Narrativist Premise rules do not apply.

Well well... this is certainly something I've never been accused of before! Paganini the simulationist. What *will* Larry think...

:)

I'm wondering what you base that conclusion on. What was Gateway a simulation of? Character simulation maybe, but I think that for character simulation you'd need predefined characters. How can you judge whether or not a character's actions and emotions are accurate if you don't have a character definition for them to spring from?

Gateway was DIP character narrativism I think.

[Mike Holmes]

In Gateway, for example, it was pure Man vs. the Universe. The characters woke up, didn't know where they were, didn't know who they were (other than their names), had no clue what was going on. The exploration was literal... exploring their surroundings and themselves. The players didn't even have a complete idea of their characters... no background, because I didn't tell them what the setting was beforehand. It was a really cool "develop in play" experience.

Of course, after I introduced the nasty alien beasties there was a whole new element... Monster vs. Man in a Predator vs. Prey relationship. ;)

First, I'm not sure if this was the same Gateway that I played at Gencon frequently in the early nineties, but if so, then from first hand experience I can say it was Simulationist system.

Assuming it was some other Gateway: You mention that it was all about exploration. This is the primary defining characteristic of Sim games. Not that other games don't also allow exploration, but they have to go further to be Gamist or Narrativist. What narativist rules were there in your Gateway?

Or did you just drift to Narrativist play with a Simulationist game? How did you drive the story, if so? Just by player agreement to play in a Narrativist fashion? What was the story about, then? Narrativist play drives towards a story. What Premise existed that was the central topic of the story? Perhaps, "How should one behave when one does not know who one is?" Sounds likely.

Or am I totally off here?

Mike

[Paganini]

In Gateway, for example, it was pure Man vs. the Universe. The
First, I'm not sure if this was the same Gateway that I played at Gencon frequently in the early nineties, but if so, then from first hand experience I can say it was Simulationist system.

Oops! Major confusion, Mike! Gateway was the name of a PBEM I ran without a system a year or two ago. I didn't realize there was another Gateway out there. I should have linked to the post where I mentioned it, sorry!

Gateway was run with the assumption that I outlined elsewhere, that is, narrative enjoyment is derived from the creation process rather than the finished product. I used the traditional dichotomy where the GM presents the situation, and the players controll their characters in the situation. It worked well because both myself and the players understood the boundries of controll and were open with each other. A PBEM gives you a luxury in time that other games don't. I spent a significant amount of time discussing the outcomes of an important actions with the players.

[Marco]

I've got a few comments about Premise and game design.

1. If you tie your game's Premise to the system/setting and the group likes the setting but not your Premise, aren't they a bit out of luck? This could be the group having G/S-proclivities or N-proclivites but wanting a different Premise.

If I had a rich setting that could work with a number of different Premises I'd have to think hard about tying mechanics to any single one. An example of such a setting, as little as I like the games themselves, is the WoD.

2. I've always objected to Ron's using all the literary themes in the Narrativist Premise section. It isn't that I don't think they're "story oriented" it's that Narrativism has a lot to do with *method* (as opposed to intent) and tying up the 'big questions' with player-authorial power seems unnecessary.

I don't think there's such a thing as a Narrativist Premise vs. a Simulationist Premise (or Gamist) since those words imply things that aren't related to story-themes (specifically player authorial power).

So when designing a game, I would balance a whole lot of premise enhancement vs. flexibility of the system and set the question of Narrativist and Simulationist apart.

-Marco

[Mike Holmes]

I've got a few comments about Premise and game design.

1. If you tie your game's Premise to the system/setting and the group likes the setting but not your Premise, aren't they a bit out of luck? This could be the group having G/S-proclivities or N-proclivites but wanting a different Premise.

Yes, out of luck. The players should agree to the premise before hand or not play. That having been said, a Premise is usually wider in oportunity than a Setting. Take Sorcerer's "What would you do for Power?" Premise. That can be used in most settings. So, as long as the system promotes the Premise, it is usable in a wide range of games.

Choosing a setting first is probably more limiting, overall, and more likely to cause players to dislike a game (and thus, again, they should play another).

If I had a rich setting that could work with a number of different Premises I'd have to think hard about tying mechanics to any single one. An example of such a setting, as little as I like the games themselves, is the WoD.

Odd statement. Why do you dislike those games? Perhaps becuse they have Premises that don't match their systems? If they did, then the settings might become more palatable. That's what all the Narrativists around here complain about, at least. Consider, that the WoD games do try and tailor the same setting to many different systems intended to promote each particular Premise. Right idea, bad execution.

2. I've always objected to Ron's using all the literary themes in the Narrativist Premise section. It isn't that I don't think they're "story oriented" it's that Narrativism has a lot to do with *method* (as opposed to intent) and tying up the 'big questions' with player-authorial power seems unnecessary.

Well, design is about method and execution, and intent means nothing if you don't get there. Again, that's the problem with WoD. Sure, they can say that their Simulationist systems give the player the power to actively create stories. But the systems just don't work to do so.

I don't think there's such a thing as a Narrativist Premise vs. a Simulationist Premise (or Gamist) since those words imply things that aren't related to story-themes (specifically player authorial power).

Confusing. But keep in mind that a Simulationist or Gamist Premise could be literary as well. Just because Narrativist ones must be that way, doesn't mean that G or S ones can't be. Thus the Simulationist Premise for Feng Shui is, "Can the characters leave their mundane lives behind to participate in the campaign to save the world?" That's pretty literary sounding, IMO.

So when designing a game, I would balance a whole lot of premise enhancement vs. flexibility of the system and set the question of Narrativist and Simulationist apart.

As I've said a jillion times, flexibility is good because you can use one system for many Premises, however, it will do none of those Premises as well as a system designed speciffically for that Premise. Thus, if you have an interesting Premise that you want to play, and no time to write an effective system, get the flexible RPG out. OTOH, if you want better Premise support, find a Premise specific game with an engaging Premise that looks like fun to play.

Mike

[James V. West]

"Holy quills, Batman! Its an army of academics!"
"Quick Robin, ask a question of grave moral concern. They'll be too busy trying to decide how to answer it to notice us playing the game!"

Heheh.

Hey, thanks for all these great responses and debates. There were several times I felt like I was actually a Sim in denial while reading the thread. But in the end, I'm still N-heavy..I think.

Its like this. I want emotion and dramatic stuggle. Tragedy and love. All that juicy stuff that makes Romeo and Juliet so damn good. How do I get it? Jeez, I don't know. Probably never HAVE gotten it before. Never knew what I was doing wrong to obstruct it. All I knew was that in 1 out of every 3 games I've ever ran, I ended up feeling extremely drepressed and dissappointed with the whole deal.

Imagine this: most of my gaming years were so blind that when I found GURPS (literally found it on a shelf, never heard of it before even though it was 3rd edition), the mere idea of Quirks was radical, new, and inspriational to me.

This past year has taught me a whole lot of new junk. Maybe my games won't be so crappy anymore.

I used to fall asleep a lot in my college classes (and high school too). Education, as it stands, is frightfully boring. So its no big shock to me that in most of the artistic stuff I do I go into it blindly. Its when I try to think about it that the stuff starts to stink.

Lately I've been too concerned with these ideas of Premise and GNS. I know its an inevitable stage when actually learning about them that you must misuse and misunderstand them to some degree. The only way to really learn anything at all is to do it wrong. And I've done that. And I'm learning.

Now its time to make some cool games and shut the hell up.

Randomly yours

JVW

P.S. Just wanted to say I agree with Ron's discussion of Premise to a huge degree. His example of the movie Aliens easily drives it home. That's a film I've loved since 1986 and I always always knew it was far superior to most other films of its kind. Why? The emotional touches. More than touches, they were the very drive of the movie. Ripley's fear of the aliens was one thing, but it wasn't until you see her maternal instincts emerge that the true power of the film is unleashed. So, by my reckoning, Premise is all about human concerns.

[contracycle]

Hmm, well I'm still shaky on premise, but this whole line of thought has crystallised my approach to the emotional behaviour of NPC's perhaps.  I agree with James, inadvertant abuse during the learning process is inevitable, soo there will be erros, but its looking better.  Actively seeking out not so much Problems but Personal Dilemmas for the NPC's, and framing conflicts around those, does appear to be having much more success than my usual structure.  At the very least, if an NPC has a violent emotional response to certain things, this causes repercussions, and anyone related to them on an emotional level - even if just the sympathy of friendship - cannot help but be affected.  This is totally different to the Bad Old Days, in which NPC's only expressed emotion when begging for help or exercising their power.  I'd have to say there was an intermediate step for many years, but I think at the very least the "grabby" approach to NPC's and their emotions is correct; although not tested yet, I hope my new designs will be much more emotionally satisfying.

And, with any luck, terrifying :) Borrowing from Aliens, as it happens, I had a visions of "a mad, naked Orlanthi running around loose with a broadsword in the dark".  But how we GET to that point, why he goes loopy tunes, is where the emotional bite will be generated.  I hope, anyway.