(split from here)

The idea of exploring theme without adressing premise: well, I'm falling into a state that I deplore in others, of having proposed a theoretical statement without an easy practical example to hand. IIRC, Ron gives an example in one of the essays of a Vampire group playing through a chronicle in which each session involved loss of some sort, yet no-one grabbed a related premise and worked through what loss means to that character, it was just the background theme, everything passes, or whatever.

In fact, take that one, everything passes as theme. You could base a whole campaign on that, without adressing anything about it as a premise. The Imperium falling in MegaTraveller, for example, provided a whole thematic unity along those lines to pretty much the whole MT line, but play could continue throughout the whole fall of the Imperium without the players addressing the premise of loss or impermanence at all.

So that's what I'm talking about in terms of exploring theme without adressing premise.

Possibility of being bass-ackwards? Pretty high, but let's go...

Hey Pete,

That sounds like creation of theme through play to me (or frontloaded through setting). Not the "exploration of theme" which is exactly equal to "addressing Premise".

It's usually not too difficult to find theme being produced as a result of play of any sort. It's a whole different bag to push for creation of theme and explore it as your primary goal of play.

-Chris

Hiya,

I'd really like to discuss this, but the whole point is de-railed by using the phrase "exploring Premise." It forces us to use "explore" in two ways, (1) the jargon sense for the Big Model and (2) the incredibly vague sense employed toward many fine arts.

Pete, can you re-phrase your inquiry without saying "explore Theme?" Can you use some other verb that doesn't have any jargon status that will cause confusion?

Again, I know exactly what I want to say about this, and I think it's incredibly easy once a person grips the point, but there is literally no way I can do it when we have to cope with non-Exploration "exploring," as a term.

Best,
Ron

Ron,

How about "establishing"? Establishing theme without addressing Premise?


-Landon Darkwood

I think "establish" has potential, but its a very different implication than "explore"

The way I see it, there are only 3 ways for theme to be created.

1) GM Fiat: The GM is the custodian of the theme. The theme is either provided by the game, by GM choice, or in cooperation with players before play. Subsequently the GM is incharge of manufacturing situations that serve to feature that theme. Essentially the theme is scenery and the players get to enjoy watching how it falls into place.

2) By coincidence: There is no manufactured theme and players and GMs give no thought to thematic elements during play. Only in retrospect can participants tease out a theme from the series of in play events, and often times this retrospective involves no small amount of revisionist remembering and retrofitting. I call this the million monkeys method.

3) Through addressing premise during play by participants at the table, GM and players alike. AKA, narrativism

To me, the word "explore" carries with it an active "on purpose" element that makes it synonomous with #3.

"Experience Theme" on the other hand is much more what is going on in #1 and IMO is usually what is meant by theme in a sim context.

"Establish" has a much more proactive meaning which works in the context of establishing the theme for the campaign pregame. Or retroactively establishing it post game. But any sort of "establishing theme" during actual play in a sim setting would be 100% the balliwick of the GM while the players are merely "experiencing it".

If the players are engaged in "establishing" theme, we're back to narrativism.

Valamir wrote: But any sort of "establishing theme" during actual play in a sim setting would be 100% the balliwick of the GM while the players are merely "experiencing it".

Actually, I thought I was pretty much using exploration as per the big model jargon term: theme, like system, colour, setting or situation is as much up for exploration (which implies both discovery and creation as possible modes of exploration) as any other part of the game, as far as I understand it.

So, in line, with Ralph's post, the theme of a game can be established by GM preparation, or can be a recognized pattern in hindsight, or it can, with reference to MJ, and especially with hefty doses of non-actor stance by the players, be communally generated without adressing premise. Much advice is given in the World of Darkness games to emphasizing a pre-established theme through colour and setting, which is exactly the sort of exploration of theme I'm referring to. You could even typify such advice as promoting sim theme, above other avenues of exploration.

And yes, I'm including the ability of the players to explore in an active, interested sense, theme without addressing premise, by emphasising thematic elements of setting, colour and character, even system, without adressing premise, without actively playing in a way that puts the premises suggested by the theme into active play, even shunting the dramatic confrontation element inherent in a address of premise aside in favour of exploring more avenues of thematic expression.

Thus if you have a simulationist game in which all players have the freedom to create setting and situation within, say, genre expectations, you would inherently have a "GM-full" game, and the players could "establish theme" without addressing premise.

Ralph, what if the players don't excercise the power to challenge or question theme, but just keep on truckin with it, piling on more and more thematic elements without once putting them up to any Egri style test of premise, accepting it without addressing it?

I think the confusion here probably lies here with what the title of the thread implicitly excludes without explicit statement: that sim exploration of theme excludes authoring of theme in play. That boundary can, I think, only be crossed with Nar play. Where I've been talking about exploration of theme, with creation & discovery, I've been talking about creation and discovery of elements or expressions of a single theme, probably immutable to intentional change of theme, rather than exploration of what the theme is to be.

Does that help? Do I mean exemplification rather than exploration?

pete_darby wrote: Ralph, what if the players don't excercise the power to challenge or question theme, but just keep on truckin with it, piling on more and more thematic elements without once putting them up to any Egri style test of premise, accepting it without addressing it?

Does that help? Do I mean exemplification rather than exploration?

Ralph, you're mystifying me a little by this insistence on GM as keeper of the faith: I see no reason why this can't be a gestalt tacit or explicit agreement to keep within a thematic set of elements, adding to those elements only where they maintain the established theme. Insisiting that, even when this happens and folk are happy within a fixed, unchallenged theme, that somehow this is still imposed by GM fiat is somewhat cirular argument.

Also, I don't see where exploration has to, by definition, move into uncharted territory and author or challenge the theme being explored.

But I definitely see where the application of pastiche is relevant, and is probably at the heart of what I'm thinking of when I say "exploration of theme".

Gah! curse these sausage fingers!, posting before I was ready!

Also, I don't see where exploration has to, by definition, move into uncharted territory and author or challenge the theme being explored.

pete_darby wrote: Ralph, you're mystifying me a little by this insistence on GM as keeper of the faith: I see no reason why this can't be a gestalt tacit or explicit agreement to keep within a thematic set of elements, adding to those elements only where they maintain the established theme. Insisiting that, even when this happens and folk are happy within a fixed, unchallenged theme, that somehow this is still imposed by GM fiat is somewhat cirular argument.

Okay: I think we've played this out now, yeah? It's possible, maybe only with a tight hand at the tiller, but folks who would groove on it would probably groove more on nar play than sim theme after a short time inside an unchallenged, mandated theme, even if mandated by assent of the group.

I think that a group focussing on exploration of theme would quickly run up against it: maybe in a game where theme was a supporting element to system, setting, situation, colour or character, it could sit there happily in the same way, but once theme becomes an avenue for active exploration, it gets exhausted fairly quickly before either being dropped for exploration of other elements, or drifts to Nar.

And with that, I think you can stick a fork in my ass.

I'm with Pete.

When Ralph wrote: When visions clash you need to have either a) a GM like figure reigning things in and making sure the core vision is adhered to. or b) the freedom for players to explore individual interpretations and thematic elements

Well I don't know about "no-one has attempted it", because, as far as I can see, this is just the sort of play nominally promoted by the Storyteller's section of the Vampire 1st ed rulebook.

But, just as I've only in the last week accepted the inherent nar drift in Universalis and kpfs, I think the energy required to maintain exploration of theme without address of premise becomes too great for any reward over time. To a great extent, looking at Vampire, you can see how it would ultimately become a form of illusionism of colour, rather than the usual illusoinism of situation, with the usual variations of illusionism.

Frex, participationism being the mutual policing of the boundaries of theme, trailblazing being pretty much what the Vampire text suggests of placing thematic colour throughout play without explicitly referring to it.

Of course, with trailblazing, once the players recognize and begin to co-author and challenge theme, we have nar drift.

I think he missed A.5) in the absence of a designated referee, the players by consensus defined and enforce the core vision, utilizing group veto over individual actions which violate that vision.

I'll note here that I also include in this the voluntary willingness of the players to abide by the stated expectations so that the GM never actually has to enforce them. Abiding by the law is still abiding by the law even if the police aren't looking over your shoulder while you do it.

pete_darby wrote: Of course, with trailblazing, once the players recognize and begin to co-author and challenge theme, we have nar drift.

I'll tell you, after looking at the thread here and the replies thus far, it seems to me like two things are a-goin' on with this topic. The first is Oujia Board Roleplaying as explained in the Narrativism: Story Now article. The second is a bizzare question on the order of "How can you swim without getting wet?"

For the most part, though, it sounds like an element of metaplot, as per Pete's MT example. I had thought that we had established that while metaplot can indeed be a story, it is story that may be beside the point of play. What the theme of a metaplot means will vary wildly depending on the actual play. It could mean nothing. It could be seized and used in narrativist play.

I don't know about "swimming without getting wet" as a metaphor, but I'd say it's more like "exploring London without leaving the M25"

for those who don't know, the M25 is a 3-5 lane highway that completely encircles Greater London. You can go all the way round and say, only slightly mendaciously, that you've been "all around London", and you can certainly say you know where London is, but you've never "been to London".

Oh yeah, ouija board RP... defiinitely.

AS for metaplot: I'd say more generally it's use of colour to emphasize theme, but meh. same thing.

pete_darby wrote: I don't know about "swimming without getting wet" as a metaphor, ...