Premise in actual play

[Paganini]

My experience is that it's best not to try and create premise artificially. We've done that a couple of times... decided on a premise ahead of time... and it tends to feel forced and unnatural.

IMO, the best way to do it is through character and situation. Give your characters lots of relationships. Make them care about a lot of things. Give them goals that are difficult to obtain, and make the unswervingly devoted to those goals. Put them in situations where they have to act. Have their relationships and the relationships of other characters conflict. Premise will start oozing out of the cracks, just by doing what "seems cool."

[Matt Wilson]

No one said (gnash teeth) word fucking one about actually verbalizing the stupid thing beforehand or ever, or, if having done so, forcing yourselves to adhere to it or some damn thing like that ...

Thanks for mentioning that, Ron. I think a lot of people who insist that Nar is weird and difficult and prioritized by an elite few assume just that.

[John Kim]

No one said (gnash teeth) word fucking one about actually verbalizing the stupid thing beforehand or ever, or, if having done so, forcing yourselves to adhere to it or some damn thing like that ...

(pant, pant, wheeze) ... (what? I'm fine)

Um, Ron?  What the heck?!?  Isn't verbalizing the thing beforehand exactly the issue which this thread is about?  From the first post of the thread:

I'd like some accounts of nar play and addressing of premise. How specific was your Premise before the start of play? Were you thinking, "man, I'm gonna sit me down and play me some narrativism tonight" or did it just sorta end up that you played that way?

So Matt clearly asked about how specific of a Premise people have before the start of play -- which I count as "word fucking one" about verbalizing it beforehand.  It seems to me that people like Luke and me and Chris were answering exactly that question.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi John,

No, it's not.

You may be missing my point, I'm not sure. What I am expressing with all the gnashing is this: the phrase "address Premise" does not necessitate verbalizing the Premise before, during, or after play.

No more than it has to be verbalized outright for anyone creating a story under any circumstances: extemporaneous storytelling, years-long novel-writing, comics scripting, screenwriting and directing, or anything else. In other words, not at all.

When I say "word fucking one" I am not talking about Matt's subject for this thread. I am talking about my own definition, explanations, and presentation of Narrativist play. I am supporting Matt's subject by calling attention to a highly pernicious false inference, made by many people (and possibly by you, although who can tell), which confounds any number of discussions about this mode of play.

I am helping Matt's point: to demonstrate that Premise may be introduced, developed, and resolved at many different rates and from many different starting points relative to the starting point of actual play.

Matt understands this perfectly.

Best,
Ron

[John Kim]

I am supporting Matt's subject by calling attention to a highly pernicious false inference, made by many people (and possibly by you, although who can tell), which confounds any number of discussions about this mode of play.

I am helping Matt's point: to demonstrate that Premise may be introduced, developed, and resolved at many different rates and from many different starting points relative to the starting point of actual play.  

Hmm.  OK, re-reading the thread, I think I may have missed the point a bit.  I had joined in thinking that there would be some compare and contrast about not having a prior-to-play Premise vs various degrees of having one.  

However, I guess the point is really to collect examples about what Nar is -- in order to demonstrate a known point about Narrativism.  Is that right?  If so, you can throw my last session Vinland example as an example of Narrativism with no prior-to-play Premise, I guess.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi John,

The point of the thread is whatever Matt says it is. All of your comments, as well as everyone else's, have been wonderful contributions.

However, I consider your comment ...

some compare and contrast about not having a prior-to-play Premise vs various degrees of having one.

However, I guess the point is really to collect examples about what Nar is -- in order to demonstrate a known point about Narrativism.

... to border on snideness. The comparing and contrasting of when Premise gets (a) verbalized or (b) realized is a valuable issue for understanding this mode of play. There's no hidden agenda at work, or some "real point" that wasn't verbalized.

Bluntly, this exact issue - that addressing Premise does not equal verbalizing Premise - is just where your posts keep stubbing your toe on the Narrativism issue in thread after thread. It doesn't surprise me that you're wriggling a little now that I'm holding the rock up, out of the mud, and into the light. As I see it, you're going ad hominem as a defense.

To bring this back into a discussion rather than a tar-baby session about who's doing what why, I'll present these two points, for everyone to comment on:

1. A Premise may be verbalized, or it may remain unvoiced or even unthought (in explicit abstract terms). This does not mean that it is absent, nor does it mean that it is not communicated among members of the group.

2. A Premise may be addressed (which means actually seeing people introduce, develop, and respond to a Premise-eligible issue, in terms of the imaginary characters' actions and any imagined events during play) early during the process, or late during the process of actual play. Any before-play Premise talk is either setup, brainstorming, or irrelevant.

There's a lot of play in those two dials, I think. They represent only one of many variables that will account for a lot of experiential diversity in Narrativist role-playing. My point in this thread so far is not to confuse #2 with misunderstandings about #1.

So what are some examples of the diversity involved, in people's experiences?

Best,
Ron

[John Kim]

Sorry, Ron.  You're right, my comment did border on snideness.  

Bluntly, this exact issue - that addressing Premise does not equal verbalizing Premise - is just where your posts keep stubbing your toe on the Narrativism issue in thread after thread. It doesn't surprise me that you're wriggling a little now that I'm holding the rock up, out of the mud, and into the light.  

On the other hand, this galls me.  Not long ago, I told you a similar statement about Threefold Simulationism.  I said that you have kept stubbing your toe and misunderstanding about what Threefold Simulationism is.  You didn't like it when I said that to you, and I don't like it when you tell me "I just don't understand" Narrativism.  I think on both our parts there should be some recognition that misunderstandings come from the speaker as much as the listener.  

Certainly theres a problem of attachment here.  Within the Threefold Model, I identify most with Simulationism.  Within GNS, you identify most with Narrativism.  At times this can become a fight.  No one wants bad play pushed into "their" corner of a model, and conversely would like to see good play included as part of "their" corner.  I'm trying to detach, but I do get annoyed sometimes.  

1. A Premise may be verbalized, or it may remain unvoiced or even unthought (in explicit abstract terms). This does not mean that it is absent, nor does it mean that it is not communicated among members of the group.

2. A Premise may be addressed (which means actually seeing people introduce, develop, and respond to a Premise-eligible issue, in terms of the imaginary characters' actions and any imagined events during play) early during the process, or late during the process of actual play. Any before-play Premise talk is either setup, brainstorming, or irrelevant.  

I agree that there can be subconscious agenda different from conscious choice for anyone.  However, it seems like an enormous can of worms to include it as a distinguishing feature -- because then nothing which people say can be accepted at face value.  I accept #1, but wouldn't that mean there is a corresponding #3?  

3. If people say or even think that there was a Premise being addressed, that doesn't mean that there really was.  

It seems like the subconcious agenda is most often taken to say that people who don't think they have a Premise actually have one and just are ignorant of their own desires.  But there can be all sorts of differences between intended and subconcious agenda.

[Ron Edwards]

Wow!

I accept and agree with every last syllable in your post, John. Thank you for, well, for all sorts of things.

Best,
Ron

[Gordon C. Landis]

Hey, I kinda-know both Ron and John (in that I've met 'em both, not that I know them well), and I'm happy to see an understanding communicated here - sincerely.  And I appreciate the interaction of the last few posts both for their human imperfection and their keen insight.

But it seems to me we have to build a bit more on those last three paragraphs from John to both a) tie this issue back in to the purpose of the thread (premise-presence, by WHATEVER means and in whatever manner), and b) make any sense of Ron's agreement (especially since I happen to know he's not overly fond of the terms "subconscious" and "conscious" in general).

My take on it - yes, it's a huge can of worms to look at actual, demonstrated agenda as distinct from self-reported agenda as a distinguishing feature (note that this is my replacement for sub/conscious).  I think Ron's take is that for the theory to get to where he wants it to, ya gotta confront this at some level.  I don't think he fails to see the bucket containing hordes of wriggling Lumbricus terrestris, but he isn't afraid of 'em either.  And thus, neither he, GNS, nor we should be afraid of the fact that John's added #3 is, of course, true.  Nor should we be troubled that all the variations on what's demonstrated vs. what's reported are valid possibilities (John's "all sorts of differences").  That we can't take what someone says at face value does not mean it has NO value - and in practice (esp. in forum posting), we often might as well take it at face value, because it's the best we're going to get.

Or put another way: a self-report is A demonstration.  It is not, in itself, THE conclusive demonstration.

So when we talk about instances where premise seemed to be the priority of play, it's always a supposition.  The opinion that "it just sorta end up that you played that way" is really all you need to hold up an example of premise.  Rigorous examination might turn out to question that conclusion - but that's OK.  I can easily imagine someone challenging my Talislanta example.  

But for purposes of this thread, anyplace someone can see premise getting prioritized seems reasonable for posting.  Whether they are rigorously "correct" or not may not be so important - because even though they might not have been prioritizing premise, someone else who was in an analogous situation might.

Hope that THIS post is actually a contribution to the thread,

Gordon

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Works for me, Gordon. Let's see if I can merely provide the necessary groundwork for anyone who might need some help understanding where I'm coming from about that issue

I think that my comments in Creative Agenda only retroactive?, GNS/Creative Agenda essay (long), and What's the bugaboo about out-of-character context? are all I need to say, or will ever say about this whole "intent," "motive," and "consciousness" issue.

I shall quote the most important summation from the last thread listed. If you want to debate it, let's do it elsewhere. But I'm posting it here to forestall false paraphrases of my position.

Excuse me, but "intent" is accounted for in the model.

You are free to insert the term wherever and however you see fit in order to clarify to yourself what's going on. As long as you don't replace or dismiss any of the other terms, it's no big deal.

I say this over and over. Few people seem to read anything except "Ron says there's no 'intent' involved," and go "aaacckk!"

I'm kind of tired of listening to the "aaacckk's," so from now on, I'll just keep quoting this paragraph.

Also, when perusing those threads, I re-discovered that John's example of "intent" was synonymous with my term "socially-reinforced Creative Agenda," so really, I don't think wrangling about the term "conscious" is really addressing any point of disagreement between us about the actual, real, process of role-playing.

Best,
Ron

[Lisa Padol]

I've only read a few of these posts, and I'm not sure I get the whole picture. But I like the thoughts bouncing around in my neurons. It's kind of like being at a really good panel at an sf con.

I never actually sat down and planned THEMES. I never got people who did. Even when I ready Listen Up You Primitive Screwheads, a really good gming aid, published for RTG's Cyberpunk, but good for all GMs, just the idea that I would sit down and Plan a Theme was alien. Still is.

But themes do happen. In  my game, there's a bit of a "the children grow up" theme. I don't hammer on it, and to the degree the theme works, that's why it works.

I don't come up with Premises. But if I do, they are indeed more likely to be of the "Can PC X find love with NPC Y?" than "What profit in betrayal?" Keeping it intimate and personal seems to work best because it is rooted in the PCs and the players.  The themes, or premises, grow out of what is happening with the people around the table, what all of them want  -- not what the GM has decided will be the Moral Lesson of the Day, or of the campaign.

And keeping it personal makes the big scale work better, even if you're not planning the big scale. As above, so below. Hail Hermes Trismegistus.

[pete_darby]

Lisa:

I'll start with the usual disclaimers: without knowing how your groups work, I can't say whether your playing N or S or what, so all this is a bit presumptive on my part.

Firstly, presence of a theme doesn't necessarily make play N. S play can hapily sit exploring theme for years (IME most WW games play this way, very rewardingly). And sure, most game worlds have a theme or two lurking inherently in them, and most play can be said to have a theme, whether it's planned or emergent from play . Sometimes you have to hold it up to the light and tilt your head to see it, and most of those times it's hardly worth the effort when you do (Theme: Orcs bad, gold good). But it's there, for the interested student.

You say you don't come up with "premisey" premises, just questions about personal issues... well, I'm working my way round the definition of a premise that sums up what it is in practical terms. At the moment, my best effort is: "A premise is the statement of a problem that can only be adequately framed in general terms, but only adequately addressed in specific terms." Frex, it could be as simple as "Can PC X find love with NPC Y" being the local case of "Can someone like  PC X find love with someone like NPC Y", or even "Can someone like PC X find love?", or, to take it to extereme, "Can love be found?"

Or, it might not be. Depends how it's played.

But your last point, that it's what matters to the players, not what the GM has decided will be "moral lesson of the day..." That's absolutely, solid gold at the heart of N play. The premise has to be personalised in the characters, and immediately "grabby" to the players. If the players end up being led through the GM's daytime movie of the week, it's not N, it's sim exploration of theme done in a manner that's very hard to pull off entertaingly.

Sure, you don't sit down to play theme of the day. But you sit down with characters you care about as characters, with issues you care about, in situations that highlight their personal issues.

Sounds like N to me...

BTW, read Ron's N essay. It;s a lot better than that twaddle above...

EDIT: Reading back through that, and your original post, I think I entirely missed your point. Are you saying "I don't build from premise first, but it feels like N to me?" If so, as the rest of the thread says, it's probably N with implied premise. I'll go back to work now...

[Lisa Padol]

But your last point, that it's what matters to the players, not what the GM has decided will be "moral lesson of the day..." That's absolutely, solid gold at the heart of N play. The premise has to be personalised in the characters, and immediately "grabby" to the players. If the players end up being led through the GM's daytime movie of the week, it's not N, it's sim exploration of theme done in a manner that's very hard to pull off entertaingly.

That is, basically, my main point, yes.

BTW, read Ron's N essay. It;s a lot better than that twaddle above...

Oh no. My -other- point is that that twaddle is invaluable. Ron's essay does a fine job of introducing the abstract concept. But here, in these posts, is where we get down to the nitty gritty details, the things that show me how -I- can use Ron's concepts in the sessions I'm planning for my group for next week, next month, next year.

[Brennan Taylor]

My recent Burning Wheel campaign spontaneously generated Premise, at least to me as GM, after character creation. One thing BW can do is allow players to create characters that don't follow the traditional fighter/thief/magic-user archetypes of fantasy role-play. When I generated a character for my wife, Krista, I made a blacksmith. No adventuring credentials, just a village blacksmith. The rest of the party followed more traditional lines: a knight, a scout, a sorcerer. This blacksmith character had no incentive to go out hunting treasure and fame, and this had a major influence on the structure of the game. In the end, this proposed a Premise to me that only became explicit (in my mind) after play began. The theme of the game became "To whom do you owe your allegiance?"

Because the villagers have an inherent conflict with the tax-collector, and the knight serves the feudal lord (lady, in this case) of the lands who is the ultimate recipient of these taxes, and the villagers have close ties to local bandits (Robin Hood style), conflict simply presents itself in the entire makeup of the group. All of these conflicting desires and allegiances have created some very rich play, and very morally complex storylines.

In this case, Premise grew organically in my mind based on the characters and setting that were established.

[John Kim]

When I generated a character for my wife, Krista, I made a blacksmith. No adventuring credentials, just a village blacksmith. The rest of the party followed more traditional lines: a knight, a scout, a sorcerer. This blacksmith character had no incentive to go out hunting treasure and fame, and this had a major influence on the structure of the game. In the end, this proposed a Premise to me that only became explicit (in my mind) after play began. The theme of the game became "To whom do you owe your allegiance?" Because the villagers have an inherent conflict with the tax-collector, and the knight serves the feudal lord (lady, in this case) of the lands who is the ultimate recipient of these taxes, and the villagers have close ties to local bandits (Robin Hood style), conflict simply presents itself in the entire makeup of the group.  

I totally empathize with this.  What characters you bring into play is central to the meaning of the narrative -- and simply following the consequences of that character leads to meaning.  For example, when I brought in my PC to the Ars Magica 767 game, I made my PC to be a medieval woman, Idelle.  Not a enlightened career woman, but a woman whose ambitions were rooted in the times: she wanted to have a husband who was wise and powerful, through whom she would exert her influence.

This turned into incoherence for the game.  The GM, Joe, wanted the PCs to go out and risk ourselves to investigate what happened to our former master Bonisagus -- that was the center of what he saw as the plot for the game.  However, what happened was that we searched for a quiet place to settle down and tried like hell to avoid trouble.  This wasn't entirely Idelle, but I think she was an important influence.  The thing was, it wasn't like she didn't want adventures.  Had she found a husband with the slightest bit of ambition, she would have meddled like mad into whatever she could dig her little fingers into.  She was quite fearless (idolizing martyrs) and would have channeled any ambitions of a husband into as much as she could get.  

The result was largely unsatisfactory for both goals, IMO.  We didn't actually attend to the conflict that Joe had in mind -- it only came up in a terribly forced way at the end of the campaign.  However, we also didn't address Idelle as a character, in part because of the plot distractions.  

Experiences like this are a lot of the influence behind my going to my more Threefold-Simulationist, open style of play.  cf. also http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=6178">Plotless but Background-based Games, http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8812">Open Play for the Soul and my http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/simulationism.html">Threefold Simulationism Explained essay.