Gamism and Premise

[Ron Edwards]

Marco,

I think you are employing "Premise" differently. In my terms, for purposes of role-playing, your two examples have tremendously different Premises that correspond exactly to your two statements about them ("being in" vs. "writing/creating"). What they share are some of the basic listed elements of play: Situation, Setting, and Character.

Thus playing (as written) Call of Cthulhu, one gets the Simulationist approach of Exploring Situation, Setting, and Character (primarily the first). The Premise remains very sketchy and personal, just an enjoyment of those elements of Lovecraft-style material.

And playing some other game, which happens not to exist, which takes a Narrativist approach to Lovecraft, one gets the Narrativist approach of beefing up the Premise of insight = alienation, or American optimism cracking in the face of the horror of the Truth. Developing that Premise into a Theme, specific to THESE protagonists at THIS time, is the task of the role-players (GM + players alike).

The casual use of "premise" which simply describes a few of the listed elements, has all the problems of the casual use of "genre" for all the same reasons. If I'm not mistaken, you are employing "premise" in that fashion.

Best,
Ron

[contracycle]

Premise is a metagame concern, wholly different from the listed elements. They are the imagined (Explored) content of the role-playing experience, and Premise is the real-person, real-world interest that instils and maintains a person's desire to have that experience. At this early point, though, Premise is vague and highly personal, as it is only the embryo of the real Premise. The real Premise exists as a clear, focused question or concern shared among all members of the group.

It is the evolution of notional, system-wide premise into specific, story-based premise.  These two appear at odds - the premise of a story/episode/whatever needs, according to the sense in which I understood you to have developed premise, a specific question, usually with a morel bent.

To play successfully, the members of the role-playing group must be, at the very least, willing to acknowledge and support the focused Premise as perceived by one another.
The developed or focused Premise is no longer a noun ("vampire") or image, but has become a question, challenge, or provocative issue.

How is it possible to have the premise be a provocative issue if, for gamists, it is obliged to emanate from a mechanical system?  The mechanical system cannot be provocative; it only sets out the bells and whistles and the levers you can push.  Furthermore, how does one relate a multitude of story-specific, provocative premises to the kind of "hook" that is being discussed in the initial conception of premise as the "cool factor" that wowed the players?  If the premise of the system is abandoned as soon as play begins and a "real" premise is developed, then what use is a discussion of the basic, system-specific premise?  

I'm not sure what value this concept of the system-premise brings.  Sure, you buy a game based on a "premise" of what kind of play you are going to have, but is this not merely a discussion of setting or situation?

Furthermore, if it is only the narrative real-premise that is a premise of the form the Egri discusses, what refences do we exploit for the theory of the gamist real-premise or the simulationist real-premise?  Necessarily, we have no sources because the very concept of premise is indeed premised on a narrative act; it is a statement about the course and methods of narrative behaviour.  So this process appears to me to negate the value of the concept of premise in RPG at all; if it only applies in a developed sense to one aspect of the GNS, then of what value is it?

Lastly, this whole architecture seems a long way from what I understood Egri to be saying about premise.  What I took from his book was the sense in which the premise is a kind of guiding principle that keeps a story focussed, bound within its own frame, and addressing a meaningful question which engaged the audience.  This I can see as a useful approach to story construction, but I have concerns about its application in RPG, which I have enumerated at some length, precisely becuase the techniques that Egri expounds upon for maintaining a coherent premise are largely unavilable to RPGers - characters simply cannot and will not be designed and played sufficiently close to the real-premise to replicate the consistency that an author exploiting Egris techniques achieves through their limitless editorial power.  Even worse, the transfer of authorial and directorial power to the players means that the very kind of central direction and "pruning" that Egri advocates becomes increasingly improbable, if not impossible.

I mean, at this point we don;t even have a coherent theory of the use of the Egrian premise in RPG at all, and yet we seem to have leaped right beyond that point and begun to deconstruct premise by GNS.  Obviously, I feel this produces some extremely weird results - the premises in the essay.  Frex the premise "Can my character gain more status and influence than the other player-characters in the ongoing intrigue among vampires?" does not appear to me to be a premise at all.  Where is the challenge, the provocation?  Where is the emotional commitment?  How does this apply to other players, or is this a "premise" specific to an individual player?  Whatb ahppens when you finish this event and want to carry on with the same character - surely, if the "premise" above indicates a player mentality, then it will be constant in all premise-possessing stories in which this player participates.  Which, once again, renders this construction useless in regards both the broad, systemic premise and the specific real-premise.

[contracycle]

And playing some other game, which happens not to exist, which takes a Narrativist approach to Lovecraft, one gets the Narrativist approach of beefing up the Premise of insight = alienation, or American optimism cracking in the face of the horror of the Truth. Developing that Premise into a Theme, specific to THESE protagonists at THIS time, is the task of the role-players (GM + players alike).

Why is that specifically narratavist?  This is the part I don't get at all - players are NOT simply happy with "the hook", they don't wander about just exploring.  They need, want, some sort of direction, an emotional investment, yada yada.  I submit that the phenomenon you describe as occuring in the Narratavist approach necessarily appears in the gamist and simulationist approach too.  In fact, it MUST do - every game is about THESE protagonists at THIS time.

[Marco]

On 2001-10-24 12:30, Ron Edwards wrote:
Marco,

I think you are employing "Premise" differently. In my terms ...

I was refering to it in Mike's terms (whose post I quoted). I believe in your terms it's *axiomatic* that narrativist premises are different from simultionist premises.

Whoever was using premise for "what makes the game worth playing" I take issue that:

What makes the game worth playing for Narrativists resembles literature and for others doesn't so much. I didn't use 'premise' unitl my last line and I regret it.

Do you believe that "what makes the game worth playing" is more similar to literature in narrativist games than sim? If so, from a writer standpoint (i.e. "I like to write literature--that's what interest me."), a reader ("I enjoy reading literature") or both? I assume you wouldn't say they're the same thing.

-Marco

[Ron Edwards]

Gareth,

It is completely opaque to me why you perceive Gamist Premises as necessarily arising from mechanics. Again and again, I have said, Premises express role-players' interest in what to do. None of my listed Gamist Premises rely on a specific system being present. No Premise does.

Now, if you perceive this to be at odds with my (presumed) claim that Gamism DOES need external, formalized circumstances of competition, then I can see where the conceptual snag is. Gamism does not need these things to be present in a given system; people with Gamist inclinations will either use them if present or will simply insert them (up to and including a standard of success/win) if necessary.

These inclinations on the part of actual role-players are real. Many people LOVE to find a role-playing game and see what they can find in it which provides a good "win" issue. If they don't find it, they are then good at competing for things like "outcome control" using Drama methods, or "screen time," or anything else that may be superimposed/inserted as an indication of winning.

Also, I am convinced you are misreading the paragraph in Chapter 1 regarding the change from individual interest ("embryonic Premise") to the general, shared interest ("developed Premise"), in assuming that the latter must be Narrativist. It does not have to be. Any, all, or other of the Premises listed in the GNS chapter are where a "developed Premise" may go.

As for Egri, his notions apply ONLY to a developed Narrativist Premise, and not for one second or for any other purpose to the other sorts. I referred to him only in the context of such Premises. Egri does not provide the foundation for my FULL explanation of role-playing Premises. His book is the foundation for discussing the Narrativist sub-set of them only.

I am baffled by your claim that:
"... characters simply cannot and will not be designed and played sufficiently close to the real-premise to replicate the consistency that an author exploiting Egris techniques achieves through their limitless editorial power. Even worse, the transfer of authorial and directorial power to the players means that the very kind of central direction and "pruning" that Egri advocates becomes increasingly improbable, if not impossible."

My entire experience of role-playing, and over the last six years specifically, suggests that you are not crediting role-players enough. People who are inclined to play in this direction do so with ease, enthusiasm, and vast creativity.

To address your second post, I agree with you that role-playing is necessarily about these characters at this time, but that "developing Premise into a Theme" is specific to Narrativism. I have written at length in the past about how diversity of characters in (say) a Call of Cthulhu scenario does not represent the same impact on the outcome of play that a diversity of characters has in (say) Hero Wars. (By diversity, I do not mean among the group, but from group to group.)

You ask for references regarding Simulationist ones, and I refer you to any of the Scarlet Jester's or Seth ben-Ezra's treatment of Exploration, which is quite explicit about it ("shared daydreaming" and so on). Regarding Gamist Premises, I am confident that any rigorous discussion of organized competition would suffice.

And that brings me to more baffling claims and questions about Gamism, for instance:
"'Can my character gain more status and influence than the other player-characters in the ongoing intrigue
among vampires?' does not appear to me to be a premise at all. Where is the challenge, the provocation? Where is the emotional commitment? How does this apply to other players, or is this a 'premise' specific to an individual player? Whatb ahppens when you finish this event and want to carry on with the same character - surely, if the 'premise' above indicates a player mentality, then it will be constant in all premise-possessing stories in which this player participates."

I'm not even sure where to begin with this material. I'll try ...
1) The challenge, provocation, and emotional commitment are explicit given that competition is a source of enjoyment. These things absolutely rely on the expectation of the other players to compete regarding the same issues. If you cannot see that many people enjoy competing with one another regarding status and influence, via imaginative circumstances, then I'm afraid you are failing to see a very common, very well-acknowledged form of recreation.

2) Regarding carrying on with the same character, as time progresses during play, circumstances of that competition change. If we are playing D&D3E and this Premise happens to be extant, the competition among the players is rather different at 10th level than it is at 1st. Or, to stick with Vampire, the competition among players is similarly different when they are Princes of their territories rather than shivering newbies. It is baffling to me that you cannot perceive that many role-players will enjoy the changing circumstances of competition as the characters and events of play develop.

3) At the very end, unless I am mistaken, you imply that such a player is absolutely constrained to compete in just such a fashion under any and all circumstances. Why? I have stated clearly that a given role-player is not constrained either to a Premise nor to a whole GNS mode. This fellow we are discussing may well enjoy a hard-core Simulationist role-playing experience, with no competition at all, next week. Or perhaps he does indeed bring the player-player competitiveness to every table. Either way is permitted in the context of my points.

Gareth, something about the way you perceive this Gamism issue is really, really hampering the discussion. I place the responsibility on you because I have just reviewed all my replies to you about it starting with "Ron's new essay" thread, and putting them together, I'm pretty much finished presenting my case. I have yet to see an argument that refutes that case. I see a lot of material that illustrates the confusions or, shall we say, skewed readings that I've tried to dissect in the above post.

Best,
Ron

[Ron Edwards]

Marco,

I am getting the impression that I keep agreeing with your central point and you are not seeing that I agree.

Yes - Simulationist experience (at least of certain kinds, when "story" is involved) is much like reading, although in a kind of "experience it directly" way.

Yes - Narrativist experience is much like writing.

I agree. I'm not sure how to be much clearer than that.

Regarding the differences in Premise, it's explicit in my essay. The Premise in Narrativism permits one to act as an author regarding issues by the setting, situation, etc.

In Simulationism, the Premise consists only of INTEREST in the setting, situation, etc, and the priority is to EXPERIENCE whatever might be happening.

These Premises could not be more different to me. Their reliance, in our present example, on the same literature is utterly trivial.

Best,
Ron

[ This Message was edited by: Ron Edwards on 2001-10-24 14:35 ]

[Mike Holmes]

On 2001-10-24 13:41, Marco wrote:
I was refering to it in Mike's terms (whose post I quoted). I believe in your terms it's *axiomatic* that narrativist premises are different from simultionist premises.

But as I keep pointing out, I am trying to elucidate Ron's point. If you don't like the use of the term Premise here, replace it with something else that better fits Ron's meaning. Or define what you mean by Premise, and we'll talk about that instead. Take your pick.

Whoever was using premise for "what makes the game worth playing" I take issue that:

What makes the game worth playing for Narrativists resembles literature and for others doesn't so much. I didn't use 'premise' unitl my last line and I regret it.

Do you believe that "what makes the game worth playing" is more similar to literature in narrativist games than sim? If so, from a writer standpoint (i.e. "I like to write literature--that's what interest me."), a reader ("I enjoy reading literature") or both? I assume you wouldn't say they're the same thing.

That last part is confusing. And I feel like I should take what I said about literature back. I was just trying to employ the allusion to make a point. I'll try to be more clear:

Those things that make a Simulationist game interesting to Simulationists - what Ron would call a Simulationist Premise , but whatever - are things like "participating in Lovecraft's New England" or "participating in a world where the things that Lovecraft wrote about are real."

Those things that make a Narratitivist game interesting to Narrativists - what Ron would call a Narrative Premise - are things like "alienation" or "optimism vs. dread", which happen to be more like the Premises of literature (no surprise that this sort of premise interests people who are more interested in story).


And I'll repeat, yet again. That doesn't mean that the Narrativist game can't have verisimilitude in it, or that the Simulationist game can't lead to a story. It only means that, as written the game's mechanics tend to support one or the other.

Am I just talking in circles, or does this make sense?

Mike

(edited to say, dangit, Ron beat me to it)

[ This Message was edited by: Mike Holmes on 2001-10-24 14:53 ]

[Mike Holmes]

On 2001-10-24 13:22, contracycle wrote:
Why is that specifically narratavist?  This is the part I don't get at all - players are NOT simply happy with "the hook", they don't wander about just exploring.  They need, want, some sort of direction, an emotional investment, yada yada.  I submit that the phenomenon you describe as occuring in the Narratavist approach necessarily appears in the gamist and simulationist approach too.  In fact, it MUST do - every game is about THESE protagonists at THIS time.

People can't be hooked or emotionally invested by competition, problem solving, and simple simulation? Jeeze must really be wasting all that time with all those war games I play; I wonder why I do it?

Sorry. That's not right. What I mean is that Gamists do prefer these sorts of hooks, become emotionally invested in them, and are sometimes not even at all interested in the others. Sometimes. Simulationists are sometimes engaged even if no story ever presents itself (and I've got some that will really rail against using mechanics to cause story).

Gareth, I'd venture to say that you are like me and many other players what I like to call Tri-Modal. You like bits of each. Wouldn't want to play without considering all three. But there are others who are exclusionists, as well. The point is that Gamist mechanics will satisfy the Gamist in you. Same for Sim and Narr.

Not really all that far out, is it?

Mike
(edited to ameliorate effects of snarky comment)

[ This Message was edited by: Mike Holmes on 2001-10-24 15:42 ]

[Marco]

Hi, Ron,

That's really clear :smile: My post was about "that thing which makes you want to play" being 'more like literature in narrativist games' (my pharaprhase) I read your post as saying "but that isn't exactly what I mean by Premise--" which I knew.

It was all about:

"For a Narrativist game, these things happen to resemble (to a certain extent only superficially) the Premises of literature. The others don't very much."

As I said, I wished I hadn't used the term because I *wasn't* using premise as you've defined it.

I, of course, agree with you about the different approach (authorial vs. experiencing--which I'm calling reading as a lit-analogy). Mike, I think, tied "that thing which makes you want to play" to "resembling Premises literature." If his use of capital 'P' means *writing* literature, I've got no problem then. If it doesn't, I disagree with him.

But if that's true then what he said in effect was:

"Writing literature is like writing literature and reading it isn't very much like writing it."

Which I'd find a strange thing to be asserting (true as it is).

Take care,
-Marco

[Mike Holmes]

Marco, your logic is off.

A tree needs water.
I need water.
Therefore I am a tree.

You know that I was not trying to assert anything like what you said. I'm just making some statements.

All games have a premise (defined here by Ron as thing that makes ya wanna play). Simulationist premises (in this context) are about participation in a simulation. Narrativist premises are statements that resemble the premises of literature as described by Egri.

Now, which part do you disagree with?

Mike

[Marco]

Hi Mike,

What I took issue with was NOT

Simulatist Premises == that which interests Simulationists. As I said, that's pretty unarguable.

It was:

Those things that make a Narratitivist game interesting to Narrativists - what Ron would call a Narrative Premise - are things like "alienation" or "optimism vs. dread", which happen to be more like the Premises of literature (no surprise that this sort of premise interests people who are more interested in story).

I'm not using the word 'Premise' here at all. I *am* talking about "that which makes the game worth playing."

The thing that makes me want to play Call of Cthulhu was the same thing that made me want to read the books. It isn't the act of getting to 'be' a CoC progagonist (that wouldn't actually be any fun, would it?) and I don't like the term Exploration since I think if I said "I want to find out what happens at the end" it'd be seen as exploratory but, going to a play and watching King Lear and wanting to "stay until the end to see what happens" would be described by few as 'exploratory.'

I think:

" ...this sort of premise interests people who are more interested in story ..."

under the heading of Narrativists Premises may be what I find misleading. A better way of saying it might be:

"Those people that are interested in literary themes in their gaming (literary being a terrible word--but I can't think of a better one) will like scenarios which employ those themes."

--Aside--
It seems to me that how you want to experience those themes (be it 'writing' or 'reading') determines whether or not you're Sim or Nar--not the theme itself.

As someone who is 'more interested in story' and in, say, Lovecraft's themes, I'm unsure of the value of directoral power (a key point of Narrativisim over Simulationism, no?) in experiencing/exploring those themes.

Clearer?
-Marco





[ This Message was edited by: Marco on 2001-10-24 16:58 ]

[Mike Holmes]

On 2001-10-24 16:37, Marco wrote:
What I took issue with was NOT

Simulatist Premises == that which interests Simulationists. As I said, that's pretty unarguable.

It was:

Those things that make a Narratitivist game interesting to Narrativists - what Ron would call a Narrative Premise - are things like "alienation" or "optimism vs. dread", which happen to be more like the Premises of literature (no surprise that this sort of premise interests people who are more interested in story).

I'm not using the word 'Premise' here at all. I *am* talking about "that which makes the game worth playing."

The thing that makes me want to play Call of Cthulhu was the same thing that made me want to read the books. It isn't the act of getting to 'be' a CoC progagonist (that wouldn't actually be any fun, would it?) and I don't like the term Exploration since I think if I said "I want to find out what happens at the end" it'd be seen as exploratory but, going to a play and watching King Lear and wanting to "stay until the end to see what happens" would be described by few as 'exploratory.'

Would you be more satisfied with Experience than Exploratory? Sure you want to see the end. But do you care more about it being a "realistic" portrayal of Cthulhuania or should it be more of a Lovecraft story? CoC does the first, not the second.

I think:

" ...this sort of premise interests people who are more interested in story ..."

under the heading of Narrativists Premises may be what I find misleading. A better way of saying it might be:

"Those people that are interested in literary themes in their gaming (literary being a terrible word--but I can't use a better one) will like scenarios which employ those themes."

Uh, sure, if it makes you feel better.

--Aside--
It seems to me that how you want to experience those themes (be it 'writing' or 'reading') determines whether or not you're Sim or Nar--not the theme itself.

Never said anything about theme, personally. And that, too, unfortunately has a loaded meaning around here. But if you mean setting here, you're absolutely right. But we're not talking about the setting. We're talking about the mechanics.

As someone who is 'more interested in story' and in, say, Lovecraft's themes, I'm unsure of the value of directoral power (a key point of Narrativisim over Simulationism, no?) in experiencing/exploring those themes.

A couple of things. First, I think that you are less concerned with story than you are with the simulation being good, which is why you don't like Director Power and other Narrativist trappings. Or, maybe I'm wrong and you really do prefer to push story. But if you do, then I can only suggest that you try Director power. What is the downside of Director Power? The only answer I've ever heard is that it kills SOD. If you prioritize SOD over the story, then by definition you're a Simulationist.

I'd suggest that you are just like me and Mike Sullivan in that you like story but want a good amount of SOD as well. Well, to the extent that you want this SOD and reject Narrativist methods, I'd say that you are a Simulationist. But that hardly matters. What matters here is that CoC has a Simulationist Premise (Ron's def. for Premise) of "Playing a part in a Lovcraftian Plot". Whereas the theoretical Narrativist game would have the exact same Setting, but a Premise of Optimism vs. Loathing. The difference? The mechanics would be vastly different including, potentially, such stuff as Author and Director Powers, and other Narrativist stuff.

Still circling?

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

If I'm reading correctly, Marco is now spot-on. He was right to spot that Mike should have said WRITING or CREATING literature as the Narrativist premise, which is one little weeny word difference in what Mike said, not worth posts and posts of debate.

I'm pretty sure Mike, I, and Marco are all saying the same thing now. I suggest we back up, look over the whole thread, and see if we can call it done. There's been a bit too much narrow-focus on one-little-word per thread - we haven't realized that we're all agreeing.

Best,
Ron

[contracycle]

It is completely opaque to me why you perceive Gamist Premises as necessarily arising from mechanics. Again and

I have said repeatedly that I find the notion absurd.

conceptual snag is. Gamism does not need these things to be present in a given system; people with Gamist inclinations will either use them if present or will simply insert them (up to and including a standard of success/win) if necessary.

And as I have mentioned previously, I find your imposition of a competitive motive innapropriate.

These inclinations on the part of actual role-players are real. Many people LOVE to find a role-playing game and see what they can find in it which provides a good "win" issue.

I fully accept such people exist.  How do you cater for non-competitive gamists?  You perstitenly avoid answerring this question, becuase you keep identifying gamism with competition.

As for Egri, his notions apply ONLY to a developed Narrativist Premise, and not for one second or for any other purpose to the other sorts. I referred to him only in

Why?  This is a central part of my objection to the scheme as it exists in your essay.

Premises. His book is the foundation for discussing the Narrativist sub-set of them only.

Just to be explicit, why only that subset?

My entire experience of role-playing, and over the last six years specifically, suggests that you are not crediting role-players enough. People who are inclined to play in this direction do so with ease, enthusiasm, and vast creativity.

I find the idea that 5 people are able to exert authorial consistency with coherency indistinguishable from the coherency exerted by a single author very strange.  Is there any supporting evidence?

To address your second post, I agree with you that role-playing is necessarily about these characters at this time, but that "developing Premise into a Theme" is specific to Narrativism. I have written at length in the past about how

Fair enough, this distinction is clarifying some of our conifusion.  Why do you believe this to be the case?

("shared daydreaming" and so on). Regarding Gamist Premises, I am confident that any rigorous discussion of organized competition would suffice.

I am quite confident it would necessarily fail, as competition is not IMO a significant part of the appeal for gamists who have, with malice aforethought, selected a cooperative hobby.

1) The challenge, provocation, and emotional commitment are explicit given that competition is a source of enjoyment.

As I have poibnted out at great length, that is not a give.  I repeat the question: whats the hook?

circumstances, then I'm afraid you are failing to see a very common, very well-acknowledged form of recreation.

And as you also pointed out, most of them left when MtG came out.  Can we address RPGers now, please?

2) Regarding carrying on with the same character, as time progresses during play, circumstances of that competition change. If we are playing D&D3E and this Premise happens to be extant, the competition among the players is rather different at 10th level than it is at 1st. Or, to stick with Vampire, the competition among players is similarly different when they are Princes of their territories rather than shivering newbies. It is baffling to me that you
cannot perceive that many role-players will enjoy the changing circumstances of competition as the characters and events of play develop.

It is not baffling to me at all.  It strikes me that this implies that one single premise (competition in your view) operates at all periods of the characters existance.  Which suggests that such a premise is embodied in the mechanics, as previously discussed, or in the style.  Which is merely to say that gamists don't really have premise - which I object to.

3) At the very end, unless I am mistaken, you imply that such a player is absolutely constrained to compete in just such a fashion under any and all circumstances. Why? I have

That is the inference I draw from premise located in the mechanics, which as I point out, I disagree with.

stated clearly that a given role-player is not constrained either to a Premise nor to a whole GNS mode. This fellow we are discussing may well enjoy a hard-core Simulationist role-playing experience, with no competition at all, next

Exactly.  So then why above do you construct a scenario in which a single form of competitive premise is persistent?

thread, and putting them together, I'm pretty much finished presenting my case. I have yet to see an argument that refutes that case. I see a lot of material that illustrates the confusions or, shall we say, skewed readings that I've tried to dissect in the above post.

This is because you keep imposing interpetations on my words.  Where I talk about gamism, you read competition, frex.  I did not propose that premise were located in the mechanics, I have been objecting to the idea, and yet you have attributed it to me.  This is not helping.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Gareth,

I'm using my essay format to answer rather than a line-by-line, because I find that the latter loses focus really quickly. If this has led me to miss one of your points or fail to address something important, please let me know. I have also attempted to paraphrase your points in order to make sure that I am dealing with them, rather than caricaturing them.

THING ONE: GAMISM AND MECHANICS
We apparently agree on one thing quite nicely - no Premise arises independently from game mechanics.

It appeared to me that you were attributing the mechanics-based outlook to my essay. That is what I was objecting to. It appeared to you that I was attributing the mechanics-based outlook to you, and that's what you were objecting to.

Given that we both agree that Premise is a people-want thing, not a rules-say thing, and also that neither of us is accusing the other (or ever has) of holding the silly view, we can stop there.

THING TWO: COMPETITION AMONG WHOM?
I have been very careful to state that my construction of Gamism does NOT specify precisely who is competing with whom. All it requires is that the competition exists, and that the participants are real people.

Players may compete with other players in the same group. Players may compete as a group against other groups of players. Players may compete as a group with the GM. Players may compete, via the GM, with the designer of the scenario (who is indeed a real person and therefore eligible).

I think it is reasonable to say, for a given period of play (a session, a campaign so-called, whatever), that a group of role-players must agree about which of the above they are according with. The range of such agreements is what I have based my diversity of Gamist Premises upon. I freely admit this list may be added to or otherwise modified.

Therefore, to suggest that my construction of Gamism always relies upon inter-player competition (and conflict of interest specifically among players) is not accurate.

THING THREE: COMPETITION AND APPROPRIATENESS
Is competition an "appropriate" basis for role-playing? You suggest, for instance, that the main reason for bringing such a thing into role-playing is "malice aforethought," and also that the competitive-player exodus to Magic has left us with non-competitive "real" role-players. These suggestions and other points you've made lead me to think that your answer to the question is No - that competition is imposed upon, or perhaps even ... soils? diminishes? the acts of role-playing.

At one point in your post, when you refer to "with malice aforethought," you have identified any competitive role-player with a disruptive person whose goals are not to be granted consideration. I agree that disruptive persons are NOT welcome or necessary to fit into the framework (it's mentioned in my essay). However, I do not agree that bringing competition to the table constitutes disruption. When a group of competitive role-players meet and play, they have fun together; similarly, when a group of (say) habitual Narrativists get together expressly to compete instead for an evening, they have fun together. When a group of (or a group containing) disruptive pseudo-players meets, they do not have fun together.

Therefore, I simply have a different view of the constructive role of competition among like-minded people. It applies most especially to those people who, in the face of Magic's lure, DID prefer role-playing. In other words, those to whom Exploration of setting, system, situation, color, and character DOES afford the context in which they prefer to compete. To my certain knowledge, this behavior is popular. We even have a game well-suited for some aspects of it: D&D3E caters to it far better than any version of D&D so far.

To remove these people (or more accurately, these preferences) from the sphere of "proper" or "real" role-playing appears to me to be classic synecdoche and rather unfair.

That outlook informs the substance of my treatment of Gamism in the essay. If it comes down to you seeing competition as utterly at odds with role-playing ("cooperative" as you put it), then we simply disagree. You are free to do so, but such a fundamental disagreement is not going to be worked out BETWEEN US, but among those who review all the points that have been made and decide for themselves, individually.

THING FOUR: GAMISM WITHOUT COMPETITION
As I mentioned at one point, the notion of "testing one's skill" or "deal with a challenge" does not strike me as a goal/mode of play at the same level as the three that I have defined. Instead, it strikes me very much like "story" or "be my character" or any of the other, similar terms that I have acknowledged but not fitted into the framework. This is because these terms are best considered nuances of Exploration that may show up in multiple ways across all three of the stated modes, as well as across multiple Premises within those modes.

So if a person states that he has "testing my skill" as a goal of role-playing, I treat it very much as if he had said, "space opera," in which case I would ask more questions to discover what setting, situation, etc, he is referring to with his genre label. Or if he said, "story," in which case I'd ask more questions to discover which of creating or experiencing the story was the highest priority.

Questions for "testing my skill" would include "against what?" in which case an answer that included an active fellow human with opposed interests in-game (or more subtly, a scenario design that could be said to have "opposed interests") would indicate Gamism. Other answers would indicate, perhaps, versions of Simulationism that focused on Situation. Still others would indicate one or another version of Narrativism.

Therefore, to my view, I have not avoided the question of non-competitive Gamists because it simply does not exist. Gamists who prefer to compete against scenario designers, for instance, relying on cooperation among the "team," are in fact Gamists too. All persons (or rather, preferences) are accounted for in my scheme. No one has to be "explained" or "explained away."

The only thing that has to get tossed out is the insistence that a non-competitive role-playing behavior has any claim to the term Gamist. Again, if this comes down to a very fundamental disagreement between you and me, then we have to live with it. I do not foresee any budging on my part if the disagreement exists at this level, rather than at the "adjustable" or "negotiatory" level. On the other hand, I certainly think no less of you for holding an alternate view, and will refer to that view with respect.

THING FIVE: EGRI AND PREMISE
Egri's book is about playwriting. It is the only analytical treatment of writing I know of that distinguishes between the ISSUE as perceived/productive by the audience early in the experience, and the OUTCOME as perceived/constructed by the audience at the end, or near the end, of the experience. Most other analyses, and the way writing is often presented in school, tend to confound these together into "theme" in a very generalized sense.

Egri uses the term "Premise" for the first part (the issue). He spends less time on the second part, but I think that it corresponds very nicely to the strict usage of Theme, which might be "message," or "point," or "lesson." Egri also does a fine job of stating that the goal of the author is to render Premise TREMENDOUSLY clear early in the experience.

My own use of this material is very much the same as Egri's purpose - to render the act of CREATING a story more intelligible to the practitioner. The role-playing group, to me, is in the position of the author. I modify his presentation slightly by consistently stating Premise as a question

Now, all of this back-story is to set up for my point: Egri only concerns himself with the active, self-reflective construction of a story. This act corresponds exactly with my definition of Narrativism (which preceded, by the way, my discovery of Egri). Therefore his points only apply to the various permutations of Narrativist Premises.

My use of Premise elsewhere - the embryonic form in part 1 of the essay, and the developed forms in the various GNS modes - is much larger and broader than Egri's topic, and, as I say, his topic fits neatly into ONE of those modes. In other words, trying to broaden his use of the term to fit ALL the role-playing Premises is nonsensical, as would be any other mix-and-match of his Premise to anything but Narrativism. (I am not claiming that you are doing anything nonsensical; I am only attempting to clarify my present point.)

Part of your discussion concerns the actual practicality of group authorship. I do not claim that the coherency of such group authorship is "indistinguishable" from the coherency of a single author. I do claim that it is TOLERABLY coherent, and reliably so among like-minded role-players, enough such that stories of some merit may be constructed.

As for references to support this claim, those would require a literature on role-playing that has undergone academic review and years of published, rigorous studies. We don't have any such thing. You are of course free to disbelieve my above claim of tolerable coherence, if you'd like.

THING SIX: SOME STUFF I THINK IS MUDDLED
I am very disinclined to get into a I-said-that-you-said-that-I-said tangle about anything. I suggest that the material in our posts about a continuing character and shifting goals is leading to that kind of tangle. I will present my claims and hope that they get us out of it. Both of these claims refer to potential aspects of Gamism as defined by me, but neither claim is intended to hold for any and all examples of Gamism.

Gamist play, if desired (not by definition), may be sustained over long-term play because the changing events and power levels present new arenas for competition.

Gamist play, however, is NOT constrained always to lead to more Gamist play, either within the context of a given group or game, nor during the history of the person from game to game.

I think that elements of these claims were being seen as definitive. They are not. They are observations about different aspects of Gamism, as I have defined it, in response to specific questions. Nor do I see any substance to the claim that these observations lead to a "mechanics-based" interpretation of Gamist Premises (not to say you made this accusation, either; I'm simply being clear about my present point).

IN CONCLUSION
I have done my very best to present both my view and a respectful, accurate restatement of your view, in order to make sure we are communicating. Again, if I have elided or simply missed any of your points, please let me know. Also, if it is true (as it appears) that our disagreement is at a very deep level, regarding the "appropriateness" of competition in role-playing, then I suggest we stand up, put on our hats, pay for one another's drinks, and walk out of the tea-club arm in arm - disagreeing, but seeing one another's views and happy to meet again for the next conversation.

Best,
Ron

P.S. Edits were to fix a word or two (bad cut/paste) and an apparent inability to count


[ This Message was edited by: Ron Edwards on 2001-10-25 13:05 ]