Why do games have to have a 'Premise' ?

[AndyGuest]

[Should this be in RPG Theory ? If so can one of the admins move it for me]

Maybe it's just something that bugs me but how come every time someone posts a new game round here the first round of replies all say what's the premise ? I can see that a premise is sometimes good in a game, but I can't see why it is essential.

Is every game that links a premise really incomplete ? Do we really have to assume gamers are so stupid that they cannot look at a game and find the premises in that game that suit their interests ?

Most commercial games don't have a premise, at least not one that is stated outright and most certainly not one which the entire game is based around. So why the desperate need to have a premise ?

[ethan_greer]

Thank you Andy.  I agree completely that incorporating a Premise into a game is optional, at least as I understand the term as it used around there parts.

Basically, I feel that it should be left up to the players and GM to determine the premise of their own games.  I tend to strongly dislike game mechanics which specifically assume that the players and GM should be exploring the issue that the game designer feels important.  It's good for some people, I'm sure, and it's often cool to see how the mechanics support the stated premise.  But that's all theory.  When I'm playing or running a game, I like the lattitude that a "premise-neutral" generic ruleset affords.  The end-user should be the one who ultimately decides what an RPG is really "about."

Does a game need a premise?  Absolutely not.
-e.

[Mike Holmes]

This may be part of a common confusion about the meaning of the term Premise. Or rather it's multiple meanings. Many people assume incorrectly that Premise refers only to Narrative Premise. But this is not the case. A careful reading of Ron's essay shows that by Premise in general, we mean "What you do in the game." Every game has one of these. If the game is a Supers game, then the premise may be "Seeing what it's like to be a superhero" or "Fighting crime" or whatever.

So, if you're saying that not all games need a Narrativist premise, then, I'd agree. Only Narrativist games need them, and a game can even be "vanilla narrativist" without one.

But all games need that something that says, "this is what the game is about" that grabs the player and makes him want to play.

Mike

[Matt Wilson]

[Should this be in RPG Theory ? If so can one of the admins move it for me]

Maybe it's just something that bugs me but how come every time someone posts a new game round here the first round of replies all say what's the premise ? I can see that a premise is sometimes good in a game, but I can't see why it is essential.

I'm a little new at the terms, but my take is that the game should have something upon which the players can build a story. If you don't have a premise, then you probably have a really interesting setting.

[Shreyas Sampat]

Even an interesting setting is a kind of Premise: What's it like living in the world?

[Valamir]

that's exactly right willows.  

That would be an excellent example of a possible Simulationist premise.  As Mike noted above premise exists on many different levels.

It is one of the unfortuneate features of the way the GNS lexicon developed that premise is used in several different ways.  I get confused by it myself.

[jburneko]

As someone who is really not that fond of Ron's decision to broaden the use of the word premise to encompass all three modes of play described in his essay, I'd like back Mike up with my own thoughts on the matter.  

Indeed as Mike points out Ron's essay uses basically two versions of the word premise.  There's the braod applicable to all modes of play premise (which I usually denote with a lower case p) and then there's the specific to Narrativist play only Premise (which I usually denote with a capital P).  This in my opinion yeilds a shit load of confusion because when someone asks, "What's the premise of your game?" you have no idea if they're just asking you what the game is about or if they have a particular vested interest in Narrativist play and want to know if your game is compatable with their interests.

Thus I usually use the phrase "point of play" in place of lower-case p premise.  So you'll find me asking things like, "What's the point of this game?" or "What do the players do?" or simply, "What is the point of play?"  This is also a way of asking the designer WHY they are building the game and WHY they are making the design decision they are.  It's an excercise in clearly definining one's design goals so that the setting/system you end up with supports those design goals, regardless of style of play that results.

Example By Bias:

The following reflects my personal preferences and biases and in no way is meant to reflect poorly on those who enjoy the game I'm about criticise.  If you would like to discuss my specific example please do so through a private email as I think a detailed discussion will just throw this thread off topic.  

A while back I tried to run a game of Werewolf and it was a mess because I couldn't for the life of me find a focus for play.  When reading the game text I found myself torn between these points of play: Adressing the emotion of Rage through the metaphore of being a Werewolf.  Fighting the forces of the Wyrm.  Climbing the socio-political ladder of tribal politics.  Addressing the needs of the individual vs the needs of group.  Exploring the reconciliation of the industrial side of man and his natural place in the world.  And probably a couple more I can't think of.

Now, you could say, that's the great thing about Werewolf and games of it's ilk.  It's got so many things you COULD do with it and it will reach a broader audience and it's up to the play group to find the focus they want.  That's all well and good but there are two problems.

1) I find that MOST play groups never give this issue any thought and so different players latch onto to different focuses and thus the gaming group pulls itself appart from within.  This is precisely what happened to my group even thought I DID try to address this issue up front with the group.

2) The system itself tries to accomodate all these things and ends up aiding the problem of pulling everyone in different directions.

My little catch phrase for the WoD games in general tends to be: What the game SAYS it's about, what the game IS about, and what the system MAKES it about are often three different and opposing things.

Thus to obtain any kind of focus not only must the play group extrapolate out of the vast amounts of game text the elements that interest them, they must also reshape the system to accomodate those needs as well, thus White Wolf's god awful "Golden Rule."

If you want flexibilty of focus for your game far better to take a game like Sorcerer or Paladin's approach.  Both of these games NEED customization before they are playable.  Those customizations DRASTICALLY impact what the game is about and what player's do.  BUT they do not alter the fundamental game underneath.  The rules do not change.  The nature of the GAME does not change.  The need for customization was considered and built in AT THE TIME OF DESIGN.  So, that rather than just throwing together a lot of cool ideas and letting the play group sort it out, these games draw attention to the points: Define this, customize that, make sure to pay attention to this other thing before you start playing.

Just my two cents.

Jesse

[talysman]

to carry on with some of the comments mike and valamir made:

a premise is the unifying concept of the game. if you don't have a unifying concept for your game, you won't know what to include or what to leave out, nor will you be able to design game mechanics that will support your central concept.

every RPG has a premise. some premises are very broad: the game concept includes many possibilities. some games have a vague premise or more than one premise, usually in conflict; these games tend to be hard to figure out.

some games that clone other popular games have the premise "I want some of Game X's action". you can always tell these games, because the designers never seem to be excited about the setting or system they are describing.

even a game that isn't about much of anything has the premise "stuff happens, then more stuff happens, and then we break for pizza".

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

All right already, yes, the multiple-meanings of Premise in my essay are confusing. I haven't seen a good solution for it yet (and no, extra terms are a lousy solution). We can talk about that later.

Andy, the most general meaning of Premise, and the only one that a game "has" to have, is just this: ... what interests a group of people about playing a given RPG. So ipso facto, if they wanna play, there's a Premise. It is literally impossible to be interested in playing an RPG without one, even if that Premise is the most basic thing imaginable (e.g. "I like hosing Cody when he brags about his character, by strategizing better than him" - to pick one of many possible examples).

I think the problem you're struggling with reflects a specific misunderstanding on your part. Premise is a feature of the people and not the game. Therefore, when we say that "Game X has Premise A," we are really saying, "Features of Game X prompt most people who read it to get pumped up about Premise A." That's a big difference and an important one.

The focus on "what's the Premise" in many game discussions at the Forge is based on the idea that a game design often benefits by identifying, as an author, what Premise or range of them you want to prompt in readers (potential players). "Anything" is non-functional; it usually leads to incoherent (which in practice = unhappy) play. Specifying to a GNS-mode (which is to say focusing Premise) is, I think, much more useful.

However, three things make this constraint much more relaxed than I think you're seeing. (1) Premise arises from any combination/emphasis of the five elements of role-playing, not one in particular. (2) The range of possible Premises for a given game design can be very broad (e.g. Scattershot); granted, many Forge-active authors like to focus tightly, myself included, but that's not obligatory. (3) Literally hundreds of possible focused Premises are possible, scattered all over and throughout the GNS categories - there's so much room that it's hardly a constraint at all in terms of content. Related to this last point, a game-author might "work backwards" from any number of envisioned aspects of play, in order to articulate Premise, rather than starting there.

Best,
Ron

[AndyGuest]

This may be part of a common confusion about the meaning of the term Premise. Or rather it's multiple meanings. Many people assume incorrectly that Premise refers only to Narrative Premise. But this is not the case. A careful reading of Ron's essay shows that by Premise in general, we mean "What you do in the game." Every game has one of these. If the game is a Supers game, then the premise may be "Seeing what it's like to be a superhero" or "Fighting crime" or whatever.

So, if you're saying that not all games need a Narrativist premise, then, I'd agree. Only Narrativist games need them, and a game can even be "vanilla narrativist" without one.

But all games need that something that says, "this is what the game is about" that grabs the player and makes him want to play.

Mike

I understand what you are saying but I don't agree.

Take the Star Trek game for example. Given the core rules (of whichever version you prefer) what is the premise. There is none. Or to be more specific there is no core premise. What exists is the basis on which to build about a billion premises, premises that can be as specific as a narrative premise (ex: Klingon game - am I willing to sacrifice personal honour for the good of the empire) to the inanely general (play a character in the Star Trek setting).

Premises can be good, they have their place. Some games come alive because of them - but to say that a game must state its premise is to say that a game must limit itself. Not every game requires a premise.

I can't believe that anyone seriousy disagrees with this. Well I can almost believe it. I've seen responses to SLA Industries that say 'yeah, it's a great setting but what am I supposed to do with it'. If you can't take a ruleset and a setting and come up with a premise of your own then how the hell do you think you're going to be able to come up with a campaign that will keep anyone's interest ?

Don't get me wrong, some games are heavily premise driven and that makes them very good at what they do but it limits them to doing something very narrow. You can change the setting of Sorceror as much as you like, change the nature of demons and sorecerors but you will still be playing a game that is very focused on the nature of power and sacrifice. It will be a very good game with that focus, but it is limited to that.

This is probably getting dangerously close to a rant, it isn't meant to be, it is just a request for people to think before screaming 'what's the premise ?'.

Honestly, if a game is meant to be premise driven that premise will jump out at you without it ever having to be stated. If you don't instantly see the premise then it is probably becasue there are so many applicable to the game/setting.

[jburneko]

Hey Andy,

I get what you're saying.  And Ron's post clicked something into place for me.  As he said, a tight focused premise is not an obligatory part of design AND premise is what the PEOPLE are excited about.  So really the fundamental problem underlying is this: If the game does not provide a tightly focused premise then how to do you solve the incoherency problem that results when six people at a game table are all excited about six different potential premises?

This is why I like the game itself to have tightly focused premise because it guarantees that if I'm excited about the game then everyone else who says they're excited about the game MUST be excited about the same thing because there's a very limited focus.  Thus when the game starts up, everyone is guaranteed to be on the same page.

Here's a concrete example of the problem I'm talking about.

So, our group is getting together to play D&D3E game set in the Forgotten Realms.  After two whole months of play the game's going no where.  We're wandering around with no aim or purpose and nothing's happening.  The players are frustrated, the GM is frustrated.  Finally, I take a step back and look back on everything that's happened and it hits me.  The GM and the players are playing two entirely different games.

The players were all fired about playing good old classic D&D.  We were looking forward to crafting our characters, going on quests, overcoming some challenges and walking away heroes at the end of the day.  The GM on the other hand was all fired up about The Forgotten Realms and looking forward to game that was all about dealing with the socio-economic climate that the realm produces.  It's not that there weren't quests to go on or challenges to over come, it's just that we couldn't find them or when we did find them we didn't know how to deal with them because we were on two different pages.  

Things the GM gave us that were supposed to be MAJOR clues (like the currency we were paid in or the description of architecture of a given building) we took to be color and fluff.  We kept waiting for the adventure to begin and the GM kept waiting for us to put all the clues he thought he'd been dishing out all along together and finally act on it.  For the players the Forgotten Realms was just the environment in which a D&D game was taking place.  For the GM the vary nature of The Forgotten Realms was the game being played.

So, if the game itself doesn't provide a tight focus, which I agree it doesn't HAVE to, then I'd be very interested in hearing proposals for solutions to the problems I've stated about my Werewolf experience and the D&D3E-Forgotten Realms experience.

Thanks.

Jesse

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Jesse, that was very nicely stated; I agree in full.

Andy, I'm interested in your feedback regarding my post.

Best,
Ron

[ethan_greer]

Whether or not you embrace Ron's essay and terminology, I feel that the question, "what's the point of playing your game?" is a frustrating question to try and answer, and I don't see much value in asking it.  Check that, I see absolutely no value in asking it whatsoever.

Bottom line is, there is no point to playing any game, if you get down to brass tacks.

What is a worthwhile question, OTOH, and gets closer to the meat of the matter is, "why are you writing this game?"  I think that's what the question "what's the premise" means in most cases.  As such, I question the validity of the using the word premise.  As a concept from the GNS essay it is helpful to think about.  In casual discussion of a specific game, it's less so because it can refer to so many different aspects of game theory.

[talysman]

Take the Star Trek game for example. Given the core rules (of whichever version you prefer) what is the premise. There is none. Or to be more specific there is no core premise.

isn't the core premise "what's it like to live in the star trek universe?"

sure, you can narrow the premise down and think in terms of klingons and their honor, or play an all-cadet game at star fleet academy... but in terms of what I said about premises, the game is about star trek... and in terms of what ron said, the premise that the players are excited about is also "star trek".

or, again, it could be about waiting for the pizza to arrive.

but it is definitely about something.

[AndyGuest]

So, if the game itself doesn't provide a tight focus, which I agree it doesn't HAVE to, then I'd be very interested in hearing proposals for solutions to the problems I've stated about my Werewolf experience and the D&D3E-Forgotten Realms experience.

Thanks.

Jesse

Okay I can see where we are.

Perhaps we should clarify what we are talking about.

By using the word 'Game' I am referring to the product you buy in the store, the game book (or box-set in the good old days :)), or the PDF you download off the web.

This is distinct from the game as it is played. Which I would call the campaign.

Now your FR description describes how the D&D game can support two different styles of campaigns.

A good campaign needs a premise or you can get the problems you describe. The premise can be anything from a one liner 'anyone fancy a good old style monster-bash in D&D' to a thousand pages of player primer.

There seems to be an assumption round these parts that the premise has to be an inherent part of the game and that the rules/systems should be designed around that premise. You can do this, a lot of the games round these parts do indeed do this. But games don't need to, you can trust the players to talk before they start and decide on their premise themselves.

I'd imagine (because of my experience I suppose) that very few GMs say 'we are going to play Game, create a character and bring it along, we start the campaign at 6pm sharp.' I've never done that, at a bare minimum its been 'we are going to play Game where all the PCs are x'.

I've never been asked 'do you want to play Game ?' without at least saying 'sure, what's the setting/idea/campaign about'.

So premise is useful sure, it makes sure everyone's singing from the same hymn sheet, but it should be at the campaign level rather than the game level. If you put the premise at the game level then you might have produced a game that I'll like for one campaign, but you've reduced the options for me to play your game a different way.

Am I stumbling into a different topic here ? It seems similar to discussions on mechanics. These discussions are often on how to ensure the game is played the 'correct' way, why is playing the game the correct way important ? [/i]