Theme and GNS

[Ian Charvill]

Over in Why Should the Narrativist Premise be Pre-Set in Sorcerer? Chris suggested creating a daughter thread on the issue of theme and GNS.

Here's what I take theme and premise to mean in relation to GNS:

Premise is an open moral or ethical concern that can be expressed in the form of a question.
Theme is a recurrant concern (which may be moral or ethical but equally may be aesthetic) that is not open and hence may be expressed in the form of a statement.

Is there such thing as a just war?
vs
For evil to triumph all that is required is that good men do nothing.

Further:

The engagement of the players with Premise at a metagame level is the defining feature of Narrativism.
This engagement will lead to the production of theme one way or another by the end of the instance of play.
Theme however is accesible in all modes of play (and is common in certain forms of simulationism and gamism).

As an aside:

Theme is often wrongly used as a diagnostic for narrativism.

My aims in starting the thread:

Are any of the above points controversial?
Do any of the points require clarification?
Do any of the points require expansion?

[edited thanks to Ben's keen eyes]

[Ben Lehman]

I would drop the question mark off of your theme, there, given that the characteristic of theme is that it isn't a question.  Confused me for a couple of minutes.

I don't think that this is controversial.  I think that, if you wanted to explore the connection between Theme and Premise RP more deeply, you might find some very interesting N-S middleground.

yrs--
--Ben

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

All spot-on to me, Ian. Others' input is welcome, but I'll restrict myself to saying "Upcoming Narrativism essay." Imagine me kind of blinking from deep down in a lair somewhere.

Best,
Ron

[John Kim]

Premise is an open moral or ethical concern that can be expressed in the form of a question.  Theme is a recurrant concern (which may be moral or ethical but equally may be aesthetic) that is not open and hence may be expressed in the form of a statement.
...
The engagement of the players with Premise at a metagame level is the defining feature of Narrativism.  This engagement will lead to the production of theme one way or another by the end of the instance of play.  

OK, the recent talk about intent has clarified to me what I see as a problem with this.  First of all, use of a question-Premise sounds to me like a terrific technique.  This is parallel to the advice which Egri gives to screenwriters: word a premise, and then base your screenplay on that.  Egri is providing a useful method for creating new works, not just a way to classify your old works.  Either method is a sound basis for constructing a creative work.  

However, I don't see that it is (at present) a useful tool for classifying games which don't have an explicit theme or premise -- like my "open play" style campaigns.  Trying to apply it to, say, my Vinland campaign means saying "Well, maybe there are a bunch of different Premises that your group is subconsciously creating to make it Narrativist, or maybe not and it is Simulationist."  As far as I can see, trying to apply these labels is arbitrary.  i.e. There isn't a consistent way of figuring out from play which of these apply.  

NOTE:  Maybe Ron's Narrativism essay will help with this.  Until it is published, we just have to discuss.  

I think this is one of the reasons why GNS has been cited as a tool for dysfunctional campaigns -- but not so much for functional ones.  Because Narrativism embodies a useful technique, many people find it very helpful to understand.  However, for people who are already playing in a way which they enjoy (like me), it is quite opaque how to apply it to retroactively analyze games which worked.  

Any thoughts on how to retroactively identify a Premise as distinct from a theme?

[Mike Holmes]

For Vinland, isn't the question "What will the PCs do when confronted by the sorts of issues that Vinlanders would face?"

Sure that's really broad. So? That's by your admitted design.

Mike

[Alan]

Trying to apply it to, say, my Vinland campaign means saying "Well, maybe there are a bunch of different Premises that your group is subconsciously creating to make it Narrativist, or maybe not and it is Simulationist."  As far as I can see, trying to apply these labels is arbitrary.  i.e. There isn't a consistent way of figuring out from play which of these apply.  

Hi John,

It strikes me that good narrativist play DOES allow a bunch of different Premises under the umbrella of a more general premise.  I mean to say that each player finds some aspect of the general premise to develop a relationship with - so each has their own personal, favorite premise within the same game.

I see the general premise question of narrativist play as a hub from which radiate spokes to the players' individual answers.  Players can add new spokes as they like.  Maybe theme is the rim of the wheel, the common boundary of subject.

[Gordon C. Landis]

John,

Are you asking "How do you distinguish between play where an open-ended question is answered, and play where a pre-existing answer is illuminated?"  That's what I see as the likely thing for folks to wonder about, if/when they understand and accept the points Ian outlines (which are good enough for me if they're good enough for the blinking beast).

If so - if that's even a reasonably close paraphrase of the issue you're pointing to - I think the answer is simply to watch for the distinction as you play/observe play.  Are pre-existing answers primarily "revealed" - by the GM as regards the gameworld, and/or by the players as regards their characters?  Or is there time and attention spent on looking at a number of possible answers, by everyone involved?

Sure, these two things can sometimes look very similar.  Sometimes the distinction is subtle - perhaps even undetectable.  But often it's not.

But as far as I'm concerned, it's an excellent question, and while I think I understand abstractly how to answer it, I'm not convinced I've got a lot of concrete skill at using that answer.  So I'd add the question (in some version) on to Ian's summary as the important next/practical step in applying his points to actual play.

Gordon

[lumpley]

I think of a Premise as a whole family of themes.  "What would you do for power?" becomes, in play, "ambition destroys," "all the power in the world can't heal a broken heart," "ruthlessness is the only way to victory," whatever the people playing have to say on the subject.

Post-play, if you can identify the themes, figure out what they have in common and there's your Premise.  Like Jeopardy.  You get one answer per player and they're all answers to the same question: what's the question?

-Vincent

[Ben Lehman]

However, I don't see that it is (at present) a useful tool for classifying games which don't have an explicit theme or premise -- like my "open play" style campaigns.  Trying to apply it to, say, my Vinland campaign means saying "Well, maybe there are a bunch of different Premises that your group is subconsciously creating to make it Narrativist, or maybe not and it is Simulationist."  As far as I can see, trying to apply these labels is arbitrary.  i.e. There isn't a consistent way of figuring out from play which of these apply.  

BL>  Oddly, this is EXACTLY the sort of campaign that I like to run, encapsulated in much better words than I would use to express it.  Many electrons have been spilt on these fora about such campaigns, whether they are Nar or Sim, etc.

 I think that they are Nar.  I think that premise is not necessarily a single question, though that is a useful construct for some Premise driven games.  I think that the key to a Premise-drive game is that the important thing is how issues are addressed and what issues are addressed not how issues are resolved.  Does that make any sense?

 For instance, in my own GMing, I have an ongoing scenario which is essentially, "What if a largely selfless and enormously powerful group of people were dropped into a gritty, cutthroat rotten city?"  (see the thread Chorus d20 for a game of this) and, at a larger level, "what if power came for free?"  This isn't really a premise in and of itself -- it's an ur-premise.  It spawns other premises, which themselves occupy game sessions.  I have been told that this is still, essentially, Nar play.

 Of course, the line between that and a bunch of themes off of a set premise is very very thin...

yrs--
--Ben

[Ian Charvill]

I think the question of how do we tell the difference between theme-heavy sim and narrativism is a useful one.  I run games similar to the ones John and Ben are describing but unlike Ben I tend to conclude sim, because I do not see the players engaging with the moral questions at a metagame level.  My diagnostic for this is as follows:

We do a recap at the start of every session, sort of like a 'Last week on Homicide' bit.  I start things off and then let the players take over - pricipally to gauge what they're into, what they thought was important last week.  It's a useful tool for player feedback.  What they feed back relates more to the imagined elements of play - and how they felt about the imagined elements of play - than to metagame issues of premise.

I'm not saying that if we were playing narrativist then the recaps would turn into deep philosphical discussions about morality.  But I'd expect more of the 'that was cool last week' to focus on the moral issues.

Not particularly profound, but it is what it is.

[Alan]

I'm not saying that if we were playing narrativist then the recaps would turn into deep philosphical discussions about morality.  But I'd expect more of the 'that was cool last week' to focus on the moral issues.

In my experience, this isn't necessarily true of narrativist play.  The recaps are pretty much "what happened and how did you feel about it" not "what a cool moral issue you played out."  What's important to Narrativist play is not that the Premise be explicit, but that it be present.

[Ian Charvill]

Hi Alan

It's not simply that I'm not seeing any engagement with the premise in the recaps, I am seeing engagement with the imagined elements of play.

In your games - what's the evidence that you would see of narrativism?

I'm wary of saying that since you can imply a premise from the extant themes - especially if that premise is loose - you must therefore be playing narrativist.  Remembering that the players themselves must be engaging with the premise on a metagame level then I'd expect some at-the-table player behaviour that would demonstrate that engagement with the premise.

What form would people expect that behaviour to take if not in what the players remember from last week/their excitement in retelling what happened?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Ian,

That is the key question, and I've tried to demonstrate the answer many times, but often gets missed.

Look for social reinforcement during play itself. Statements of approval, little grunts of encouragement, suggestions for dialogue, suggestions for actions, suggestions for scenes, body language, sighs, laughter (of dozens of different types) ... all of these occur very often during play, far more often than I think most people perceive at the time and definitely more often than they remember. The only times they remember this stuff is when it breaks the Social Contract; when it doesn't, it goes "whiff" out of the mind.

So the key answer is to start paying attention. Unless everyone else at the table turns into a department store dummy while any person is talking, then you have data. Look at what the social reinforcement is directed toward (color? tactics? thematic showdowns?), and look at what is encouraged vs. what is discouraged.

It's incredibly simple and clear.

Best,
Ron

[Ian Charvill]

Ron, yeah, I'm with you 100% on the social reinforcement thing.  I was turtling a little with Alan I guess.  I'm saying that recap is part of play, and it's the part of play when I find it easiest to see what the players are into.  After the recap I'm doing GM stuff and I don't have quite as much attention to focus on player feedback - so it's a useful time for me to pay attention.

I guess my point to Alan was - in what circumstances would you be able to read player engagement during play that wouldn't show up during the recap.  The idea that the players would be engaged with one thing during play proper and another thing during the recap isn't persuasive for me.

(During the recap we are establishing things into the shared imaginative space, pure and simple)

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I guess I don't really see the recap's verbal content as being especially significant compared to the social behavior during the recap. And similarly, I don't see the recap per se as being especially significant compared to play itself. That's not to shut down this angle of the conversation, so much as to say I won't be able to contribute much about it.

Also, for anyone who hasn't checked it out yet, the thread that spawned this one is continuing, so here's the link again:Why should the Narrativist Premise be pre-set in Sorcerer?. I was building a more complete reply in this thread and then realized it was silly to repeat myself there and here.

Best,
Ron