[Primetime Adventures] Premise: Established vs. Emergent?

[IMAGinES]

Hello, everyone. This is the first thread I've ever started on the Forge, so I hope you'll forgive me if this thread was started in the wrong place for its content or whether this is ground others have already covered.

A few months back, I bought myself a copy of Primetime Adventures. I love it and would love to play it sometime (although given the paucity of gamers in my area and the tastes of those I've found, I feel though that won't happen for another oh, six to twelve months).

I've also been reading Ron's Creative Agenda essays again recently, and paying special attention to to the Narrativism: Story Now (although it looks like he's gone and tweaked it again since the last time I printed it out), mainly because PtA seems to be a prime example of a game that facilitates Narrativist play.

One thing that intrigues me, though, is that PtA, as written, seems to diverge from my understanding of Narrativism based on Ron's essay, which is thus: Narrativism places emphasis on the creation/choosing by the "players" (GM, if there is one, included) of a particular Premise (as laid out by Egri) and exploring that Premise through the means of a roleplaying game session/campaign; ideally, that exploration will result in a theme (the "uh!" moment Ron describes in the essay).

Now, from my reading of PtA, the game does have some very Nar-facilitating rules, like distributing conflict resolution, both at the broad-stroke and detail level, between the players based on die-rolls. It also maintains that every character must have an Issue, an internal conflict that can be used to create external conflict in order to address Premise. However, in the chapter on "Theme", starting on page 67, it seems as though -

Now, this is probably going to get a bit confusing, as PtA defines premise along the lines of the idea being discussed by Mike Mearls and over on RPGnet at the moment as "core story" (who the characters are, where they are and what they get up to) and theme as the Statement/Question that Ron identifies as Premise. I'll try and differentiate where I can.

- as though Premise isn't fixed in place at the beginning of campaign-design phase (so its expressions can be determined not just in the creation of the player characters, but also the world they inhabit). In fact, although characters, setting and sources of conflict are intended to be defined as a group, there's an expectation that a PtA group (or at least, the Producer) should not consciously attempt to create a Premise for addressing while defining the series (what I will call for the purpose of this thread "Established Premise"), that Premise is determined during actual play, possibly over the course of several Episodes (what I will call "Emergent Premise").

Now, there've been quite a few PtA actual play postings on the Forge (and I've read every last one drooling with envy, you lucky, lucky >CENSORED<, you) and I'm curious to know the following, based on your experiences:

[*]Has your PtA series wound up generating a single, centralised Premise as the text says it likely will?
[*]If so, has your group had any difficulty consciously incorporating the Premise into subsequent play?
[*]If not, was it able to continue to operate adequately (hmm, that's a rather nice, vague term) without it anyway?
[/list:u]

So, basically, can a Narrativist agenda (which seems to need an Established Premise for everything else to flow on from) work in a by-the-book PtA series where the Premise is Emergent from play?

Or, and I guess this might be the stealth question that's been lurking under all this talk of Established vs. Emergent Premises: I've had this sneaking suspicion for a while that PtA actually supports a Sim CA more than it does a Nar CA (which was probably staring me in the face from the title cover anyway; the game does bill itself as "the game of television melodrama").

What do you think?

<Added in Edit:> Ultimately, this post is my attempt to see whether I understand what Ron's on about in those essays, so please point out any gaps in my understanding.

[Alan]

Hi,

Welcome to the Forge.  Is this your first post?  What's your real name?

As you're asking about how PTA relates to narrativist play, I think this message does belong where you posted it.

Here's some questions, offered in the Socratic spirit:

Does coherant narrativist play require that every player address the same premise?

In a particular "series," are PTA Issues actually separate, or are they bound together somehow?

[IMAGinES]

Welcome to the Forge.  Is this your first post?  What's your real name?

Thanks, Alan. No, I'm pretty sure I've posted a couple of times elsewhere, but not often. And it's Rob.

Does coherant narrativist play require that every player address the same premise?

Now that's a damned interesting question, and I don't think I can really answer it. I've ever played any game with a specifically narrative ruleset; from memory, all of the games I've ever participated have either been Gamist (probably with a Sim drift, I think) or Sim.

So has anyone participated in a Nar game that explored multiple Premises, with at least one separate Premise per character?

In a particular "series," are PTA Issues actually separate, or are they bound together somehow?

Reading the book, I can't find any particular admonition or recommendation which insists that each character's Issue has to work in with each other character's. It encourages the group to create the show and lead characters together, so the characters' Issues aren't kept a secret (as they're only painted in broad strokes in character creation, giving players/GM to introduce new details during play). The Screen Presence mechanic encourages everyone to contribute to the development of each other's Issues and paces the development and contribution, so while there's no explicit "binding" of their issues during creation, I think it's expected that it works out that way. I think.

[Joel P. Shempert]

You know, this all raises an interesting general question: Can Simulationist play exist when the material being affirmed and celebrated is something like "Those really good stories that you read that grippingly, gut-wrenchingly address Premise?" According to the Sim model, whatever features are inherent in the source material--the "Star Wars-iness" of Star Wars, the "West-iness" of the Old West--are what Simulationist play adheres to, with implicit or explicit reward for success in emulating them. So what if "What we're Simming" is a style of story with lots of Premise? Is it still Narr? Or is this a nonsense concept? Come to think of it, one could ask the same question of Simming something that has a lot of competition in the source material--sports, for instance--and I doubt anyone would deny that Step On Up is occuring in such a game ("What, we're just supposed to pretend to compete?").

I guess one way one could have Premise imbedded in the material and still be Simming would be the use of Pastiche--which is not really addressing Premise but aping sources that do: "I'm agonizing over killing my Father's murderer because Hamlet agonized over killing his father's murderer", which is an example that comes up in one of the GNS essays, I believe.

Peace,

[IMAGinES]

Hi, Melinglor. Thanks for reading!

I believe the answer to your question lies in th question itself. If I may:

Can Simulationist play exist when the material being affirmed and celebrated is something like "Those really good stories that you read that grippingly, gut-wrenchingly address Premise?"

I think the key part is "the material being affirmed and celebrated". Even if the material has tons of Premise, the group, through its act of the affirmation and celebration, is restricted to, as you say, using "whatever features are inherent in the source material" (gripping and gut-wrenching as those methods may be) to address those Premises.

Such restriction pretty much prevents the group from addressing the Premises from their own angle and, therfore, they can't directly produce their own, personal themes. This doesn't mean the members of the group won't find or get a theme, but any themes would most likely match those they probably already got from the source material.

So if in other words, the agendum of affirming the source (which I see as Simulationist) would be taking priority over any Narrativist leanings the group or the game text might have. Any non pre-existing personal judgmental points (themes) would be a by-product instead of a direct result of play.

Does that make any sense?

[Alan]

Does coherant narrativist play require that every player address the same premise?

....
So has anyone participated in a Nar game that explored multiple Premises, with at least one separate Premise per character?
....
Reading the book, I can't find any particular admonition or recommendation which insists that each character's Issue has to work in with each other character's. It encourages the group to create the show and lead characters together, so the characters' Issues aren't kept a secret (as they're only painted in broad strokes in character creation, giving players/GM to introduce new details during play). The Screen Presence mechanic encourages everyone to contribute to the development of each other's Issues and paces the development and contribution, so while there's no explicit "binding" of their issues during creation, I think it's expected that it works out that way. I think.

Hi Rob,

In the games I've played that are specifically designed to support narrativist play, there is always a shared situation or "boundary" and a "axis" around which the important player choices rotate.  In Trollbabe, the boundary is being a half-breed with special gifts and the axis is your effect on other people.  In Sorcerer, the boundary is being someone with access to great power, and the axis is that that power violates Humanity (whatever it is defined as for a game.)  

The Riddle of Steel is an interesting example, because each character can have individual "issues" as defined by their Spiritual Attributes.  For example, a character might Love The Lady de Winter.  This invites the GM to offer the player chances to choose how much love and/or the lady is worth fighting for.  However, I still think there's a more general shared boundary.  All player character's remain exert deathbringers.  And all have the common axis of the deadliness of physical or magical combat.  The individual Spirtual Attribute only define one "vector" within the boundary that is attached to the axis.

In PTA, I would suggest that boundary and axis are somehow created by the elements you mention.  The very admonition to create a coherent TV show and cast encourages the group to define a "boundary" and an "axis."  They define the show's (little 'p' premise) -- what everybody is involved in.  I think a group often knows when they've gotten a show right because it "clicks" -- they have a subconscious recognition that a thematic environment has been created.  The Issues then become the vectors, as in TROS, pointing to the axis.  

I think the "axis" is always the (big 'P') Premise as Ron defines it in his essays.  It gives the players a Premise to address, while the Boundary adds pressure, making the address important.  An Issue intensifies that pressure in a particular area, just as Spiritual Attributes do in TROS, or individual Demon-Master relationships do in Sorcerer.

As for playing a successful and enjoyable (ie not dysfunctional) narrativist game where every player character has its own unique premise -- I haven't experienced that.  Games that might allow this are The Pool and, maybe, Heroquest, but I've never played either.

I wonder if, given an environment that supports narrativist play, players don't naturally seek congruence, counterpoint or relationship between their player characters' Premises.  Theme is always more meaningfull when you have foils to play off.  I think its a natural human tendency to look for these elements in the play environment, including other player's contributions, and relate to them, even unconscously.  I suspect there would be a tendancy, even in a system open to multiple Premises, to focus on one.

[Matt Wilson]

Hey Rob:

So has anyone participated in a Nar game that explored multiple Premises, with at least one separate Premise per character?

I think with the issues, if you're all really collaborating when you create the series, you have the issues being several variations of a Premise, and the overall theme is born from that.

Pick a cast, and come up with a unifying factor. Say it's Bootleggers, one of the sample series in the book. They're all family. Okay, so part of the Premise has to do with family, let's say. Doesn't have to be, but let's say it is. The other half has to do with whatever each of them is struggling with. So it would be something like 'family vs. X" for each protagonist.

The producer's job is to look at that similarity between the characters and use that when turning the screws and providing the adversity. So if Roxy's issue is all about being a socialite, the producer says, 'oh yeah, is she willing to hurt her family to do that?'' If Robert's is getting over the hard stuff from the war, the producer says, "oh yeah, what if drugs will ease the pain quicker than family support?" If Billy's is to get the respect he craves from his father, the producer says, "oh yeah, what will he do if he doesn't get it?"

Then you'll get this whole theme going about the importance of family, of which each character's story is an element.

Reading the book, I can't find any particular admonition or recommendation which insists that each character's Issue has to work in with each other character's.

Well, honestly, I don't think you have to do more than provide the Franchise, and they really can't not work in with each other's.

[TonyLB]

Are you suggesting that the Producer has an Issue, in the same way that the characters do?  And that any scene happens at the intersection of Issues of at least two players (with the Producer included as one of those possible players)?

[IMAGinES]

Actually, folks, I think all this stems from something I missed in my last re-reading of the Narrativist essay:

Issues of "consciousness" in terms of Premise are collectively a complete red herring. People daily address Premise without self-reflecting, both as audience and authors. There's no special need to say to one another, "This is the Premise" in order to be playing Narrativist. Laws' term "conscious" and my "mindful" only refer to the attention to and social reinforcement of the process - not to self-analytical or abstract discussion about the content.

I'm doing sh- stuff like that a fair bit lately.

So, yeah, I think I'll go over, you know, there now.

[ricmadeira]

Has your PtA series wound up generating a single, centralised Premise as the text says it likely will?
If so, has your group had any difficulty consciously incorporating the Premise into subsequent play?
If not, was it able to continue to operate adequately (hmm, that's a rather nice, vague term) without it anyway?

Hey Rob! Long time no see! How's Australia?

I can surely see how you might find PTA a sim-game. In the first series I took part in, Heritage, the game went that way pretty strongly. I think it was a combination of factors: too much emphasis on getting things just right like on TV, us starting the game after the producer had barely skimmed through the rules which made him miss some important details about issues and story arcs, etc. The bit our game was missing is simply that someone (namely the producer, who has the power to do this in any scene he wants to because he controls NPCs and setting) has to press the issues and bring them to the table, not matter-of-factly (just to copy what we see on TV or to put the issues on display), but with the aim to put the players through some difficult choices/questions. I'd prefer more Nar, but still Heritage was a blast, and the Scene-Framing and Next Week On mechanics allowed me, has a player, to set up bangs to my heart's delight.

I learned a lot from Heritage, and I recently tried my hand at producing a series, Dirtside, which was a smashing success; not like any other game or campaign I GMed before in almost a decade and a half of roleplaying.... and 100% Narrativistic to boot, too. Matt makes a big point when he says the "unifying factor" between the cast also ends unifying premise/theme to some extent. No matter how different the issues between the characters, they have at least a few goals/interests in common; that's why they work as team in the first place, isn't it? At the very least, there's a central question asked that keeps coming up, something like "How much will you sacrifice for doing your job/duty/task right?" Since the general job/duty/task is the same for every protagonist, you can see where this goes. The "sacrifice" bit is what varies between each PC, and it's  pretty much tied to his issue. So it's just what Matt said, only in different words.

Also Ron is right: there's absolutely no need to be conscious of Premise to have it alive and kicking.

The actual play example I have for you, from our six first-season Dirtside episodes, is simple enough. The series is sci-fi, and revolves around a team of "Space Marines" (think a mix of the new Battlestar Galactica, Starship Troopers, Space Above and Beyond, Aliens, the RPG 2300 AD, etc, and you can't go wrong) in a future where man has conquered the stars. Instead of using aliens as enemies, we created a setting where the Earth Federation was at war with itself; think Star Wars, and substitute Empire for a not so bad fascist Federation, and substitute Rebellion for, well, a Rebellion where the rebels are mainly idealistic terrorists set on making the universe a more just and fair place to live by bombing the hell out of it. The PCs are soldiers/officers in a platoon of the Federation army, sent to a far-away mining colony in a desert planet (jokingly baptized as Eden by the first settlers) to keep the peace in these times of restlessness.

I realize this might strike some unfortunate 9/11 chords, now that I think about it, but that was never our intention. We just aimed for a militaristic setting with no clear-cut good or bad guys, that's all. The desert planet setting was just a coincidence, to reinforce the idea of some guys in a military unit sent to the middle of nowhere to do a job some of them are not proud of.

Anyway, the issues for the PCs were:

Loyalty - the commanding officer of the platoon had done things for the Federation he was not proud of, and was having second thoughts about his commitment to the military/Federation.

Revenge - a simple guy who had his family killed, in their own sweet home, by the army during some "peace-keeping" mission; he had now infiltrated the army to search for those responsible for the deaths, with a little help from the rebellion who had him working for them in exchange.

Self-Worth - a girl trying to hold on to her feminine side while working her way to prove to herself and others she is a good soldier... in spite of a serious setback in the past, an over-protecting father who is a general in the army and wants her out of the military life, and a Nemesis lesbian army sergeant who, curiously, wants no goddamn girlies in her goddamn army.

I just banged away at the issues, and banged them some more, with no regard for anything else, and still a unified central theme (I think) ended up emerging. The setting conflict between the not-that-bad-Federation and the not-that-good-Rebellion never ceased to be present. It was just too good to ignore and an endless source of inspiration for more problems and bangs.

Case in point: a guy makes our girlie soldier look like an ass because he found something she overlooked (remember her issue, Self-Worth) in a terrorist crime scene after a failed conflict roll... still he is the only guy in the unit kind enough to buy her a coffee and chat with her. Bang! She accepts his offer, thereby stating Friendship overcomes Career priorities. Okay, but then he leaves hurriedly after other soldiers enter the bar, evidently because he doesn't want to be seem talking to her. Bang! She is furious, and there's no wrath like that of a woman scorned, but, still, he's only guy in the entire goddamn army who ever said a nice thing to her, so she forgives him in her heart. In fact, she falls silently head over hills for him and sets her heart on catching his attention and his heart... so, for the next Bang, he turns out to be a probable infiltrated rebel! Does she tell on him? No. Okay, what if - Bang! - she herself is being wrongfully accused of being a rebel spy and is in danger of losing her career and freedom if the real culprit isn't found? Still, she doesn't deliver him to the authorities; instead she talks to him and tries to get him to "behave", or else she's sorry but she'll have him arrested... Later, they start dating, and everything's looks great, our girl got plenty of her self-worth back even though her career is still in shambles and them, Bang, it all disappears into thin air when, right after they make love for the first time, the guy has a slip of the tongue and, without even realizing it, calls her by the name of another girl, a rebel agent that got killed on the previous episode and that had short blonde hair and green eyes, just like our poor dear soldier girl. So, is he dating her because he really loves her or only because she reminds him of his dead girlfriend? Or maybe because her father is commander-in-chief of the armed forces and he, a rebel spy, wants to get to him through her? Or maybe he is pretending to love her simply to keep her from turning him to the authorities? It was painful to watch all that hard-conquered self-worth go up in smoke at the sound of a mere word... but keep trying dear, still a few episodes until the season ends! :)

And the story goes on, and on, and on, bang after bang after bang. This is just a couple of episodes worth of a particular story-arc for a particularly bangable protagonist (just six sessions but endless great stories to tell!). The only thing I wanted to demonstrate was how, even in these private character moments/bangs, a central premise for the show (Federation vs Rebellion, and the values they represent) kept emerging even though I was only setting my aims on the PCs personal issues. Soon everybody had some strong connections or stakes in both sides of the Federation/Rebellion conflict (and even to a third side, that showed up later), and it was not simple for them to take sides or make a stand. Having our favorite woman soldier again as an example, how do you cope when a) your father is the commander-in-chief of the Federation armed forces and you want to make him proud; b) the love of your life is a rebel spy and you've helped him enough to be charged as an accomplice and can't turn him in without destroying yourself; c) your closest familiar, a caring brother, has just been killed by a rebel bomb; plus some minor bits too. Very powerful... and it drove my

Not sure how this maps to other shows/series, though. Without us realizing it at first, we created a great background for setting-based narrativism, and one of the PCs' issue (Loyalty) made sure that angle kept being developed. So the setting itself ended grabbing the protagonists by the collars even though I was only trying to entangle them in their personal issues.

If you use google or altavista to translate them from Portuguese into English, you can always read more actual play posts at url=http://rpg.turnodanoite.com/dirtside

Take care!
Ricardo

[IMAGinES]

Hey Rob! Long time no see! How's Australia?

Ricardo, hello! Good to see you! Australia's pretty good, better actually since I moved from Sydney to Cairns (although the gaming has become nigh-on nonexistent).

I can surely see how you might find PTA a sim-game.

Actually, I think that's just because I needed a slap in the face with a large haddock (see my above post about going over there) for not reading properly. Sim-Show or not, I think PtA meets the basic Narrativist requirement of allowing players to explore Premise as they wish. Like Ron wrote, there's no need to stand Premise up in front for everyone to see, and as Matt himself wrote in the book, the character's decisions are what allow it to come about.

Also Ron is right: there's absolutely no need to be conscious of Premise to have it alive and kicking.

Precisely.

The actual play example I have for you, from our six first-season Dirtside episodes, is simple enough. The series is sci-fi, and revolves around a team of "Space Marines" (think a mix of the new Battlestar Galactica, Starship Troopers, Space Above and Beyond, Aliens, the RPG 2300 AD, etc, and you can't go wrong) ... At the very least, there's a central question asked that keeps coming up, something like "How much will you sacrifice for doing your job/duty/task right?" Since the general job/duty/task is the same for every protagonist, you can see where this goes. The "sacrifice" bit is what varies between each PC, and it's  pretty much tied to his issue. So it's just what Matt said, only in different words.

I love each pair of shows and movies (although I've never played 2300AD) and I'm hanging out for Mongoose's Starship Troopers RPG.

Can I say an envy-laden, "I hate you!"?

Anyway, the issues for the PCs were...

Okay, correct the above to, "I hate you all!"

I just banged away at the issues, and banged them some more, with no regard for anything else, and still a unified central theme (I think) ended up emerging. The setting conflict between the not-that-bad-Federation and the not-that-good-Rebellion never ceased to be present. It was just too good to ignore and an endless source of inspiration for more problems and bangs.

Ah. Okay, I'm starting to get it. I blame the following comment in Steve Darlington's Firefly Diaries for my confusion:

Lots of TV shows run on (the duty to the family) theme – as soon as you have a regular cast of friendly faces in your living room, the theme cannot be avoided. But Firefly isn't about it by accident or by necessity of the medium. Firefly is consciously and deliberately about family, through the entire show, and so the stories it tells are a million times more powerful than the gang at the office getting together to support the comic relief character's struggle with dyslexia, or whatever.

That's why I found it difficult to take a statement like:

It's not for the producer to determine ahead of time what the theme is... How the protagonists answer is what determines the theme.

... at face value. Thank you for showing me not only that it can be done, but also how it happened for you and your group.

And while you're here, I'll just upgrade that "I hate you all!" to: "I hate you all a lot!"

If you use google or altavista to translate them from Portuguese into English, you can always read more actual play posts at url=http://rpg.turnodanoite.com/dirtside

I tell you, Ricardo, it's an adventure in an of itself. As an example, here's the first paragraph of the write-up for the Pilot episode as translated by Babelfish:

Therefore, with the 25 of April to offer one end-of-week to us of three days, it had that to use to advantage to play until falling for the side, not? However, Friday to the night it are PTA (the last episode of Heritage), Saturday to the night it are preparation for Sorcerer and... now what it is that if could make in the Sunday? It was presumption to be the continuation of our campaign of 2300AD, but a marriage confused the logistic one and people did not give to congregate all.

Anywya, I'm hoping to get a Primetime Adventures game going across the web with some mates from Sydney. It's my fervent hope that we can all hook up via a voicechat application like TeamSpeak and play rather than using keyboard-chat.