Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Clinton R. Nixon, October 14, 2001, 07:24:00 PM
QuoteWin/loss condition: Can I achieve maximum power and keep my character?
QuoteOn 2001-10-19 04:48, contracycle wrote:At which point the argument has become circular - the gamist "premise" is now located in the mechanical system and its balance of probabilities, NOT in the premise of any proto-story such as "can I survive tonights bloodbath".Thus, none of the listed gamist "premises" are any such animal.
QuoteI'd like to call you on this, though. It's an interesting school of thought, and the prevailing school of thought in RPGs today, White Wolf actually being the king of espousing it. I assume you're saying (your brevity sometimes confounds this - correct me if I've misread you) that the Premise must be in the story and not in the system - that the system is rather irrelevant without a great story.[/premise]No, not precisely.The Egrian approach to premise is located in the narrative proper. This is why Egri places such emphasis on introducing your conflict straight away, not revealing anything which fails to support the premise, that sort of thing. I must point out that I don't in fact think this can be ported to RPG's en bloc, and this is a secondary criticism of the espoused model. In the Egrian sense, premises cannot be in the mechnaics.Thus, a mechanic CANNOT have anything to do with a premise. IT cannot support it or work against it, because the premise lies in the words spoken by the GM, the things that are described, etc etc. The role of mechanics supporting, umm, verisimilitude used to be described as supporting genre conventions - like the lethality of .38's in Noir - but now I am to understood that genre is also passe.Whatever we call that process - "realising the world through mechanics" perhaps - it cannot have anything to do with premise as Egri defines it. You can/will have multiple premises in sequence set in a single world with such realised mechanics.However, when Clinton tried to rationalise the listed gamist premises, all of his approaches analyse the mechanics. Not one of them addresses a specific scenario or event, as Ron's initial gamist premises did ("can I survive tonights bloodbath").Thus, I think we are trying to use two incompatible approaches to premise (one located in the narrative, one located in the mechanics). If Clinton is right and it is the mechanics which define gamist rpemise, then Rons premises are false. And if Ron is right, in essentially saying that a gamist premise is a framed competition (something else I dispute), then Clinton must be wrong.I just find the whole thing completely incomprehensible.
QuoteOn 2001-10-22 09:11, Clinton R Nixon wrote:Mechanics do not define Gamist premise - they define Premise in all games which are constructed well, wherever these games may fall. I see your point that they don't have to define Premise - but I believe you'll find a game much less enjoyable if they do not.
QuoteWhen did Egri become the issue? Later, you say the issue is muddled - no one else brought this up that I can see. Talk about one model at a time.
QuoteMechanics do not define Gamist premise - they define Premise in all games which are constructed well, wherever these games may fall. I see your point that they don't have to define Premise - but I believe you'll find a game much less enjoyable if they do not.
QuoteThis is primarily because you keep bringing new models and misapplications of quotes into the discussion - not bad
QuoteAnd... Premise in the Pool, above, anyone? I'm interested in whether my idea holds up.
Quotearen't looking for them. In Gamist games, the rules tend to stick out a little more (there's that misconception that good Gamist = more Rules, at least that's what it seems commercial games (D&D and Rune, for example) support).