Topic: How much Premise does it take?
Started by: James V. West
Started on: 1/15/2002
Board: Indie Game Design
On 1/15/2002 at 2:58am, James V. West wrote:
How much Premise does it take?
How much Premise do you need to create an egaging rpg?
This is me asking because I’ve suddenly become very aware of Premise or lack of it in my ideas. At least, I’ve become aware of what I think is Premise.
Help me out. If you create a game in which players are fantasy heroes like knights and wizards, and they fight monsters for good over evil purposes...is there a Premise in there? Can it be that simple and still be engaging?
You could expand the good vs evil idea into a major war between the two and put the pcs smack in the middle of the fray. That would be a more substantial Premise, right? But what if you didn’t do that. What if players were just given clever tools to create interesting characters and pretty much left to do what they will (maybe with some minor guidance in the form of adventure seeds and what not). Does that mean the Premise is weak or non-existent?
What if the game was generally light fantasy adventure along the lines of the typical fantasy rpg, but the characters were somehow unusual. PC items for example. You play a sword or a magical brooch or something. Or perhaps the PCs are all children and every humanoid character in the world is child-like. Would that alone be enough to constitute an interesting Premise, or am I confusing the term Premise capitol “P” with simple idea little “i”?
I’m very curious about this.
On 1/15/2002 at 5:30am, Zak Arntson wrote:
RE: How much Premise does it take?
I would say that if your concept can be summarized in a single (with maybe a semicolon) sentence, that's your Premise. It's up to you to decide how refined it should be.
Most of my Premises are simple:
- Roleplaying antisocial wackos from an online sketchbook.
- Emulate pulp science fiction, with an emphasis on naive science.
Others are more complicated:
- Reward creativity and practicality, while allowing for player-driven complications and a high price for ambition.
- The anthropomorphized and competitive evolution of species.
Some are just nutty:
- Sitcom.
- Cubicle workers trying to avoid management while dealing with office problems.
-----
As for "engaging," I would say that after Premise, you need Presentation. Nobody would take a Sitcom game seriously, so I couldn't give it a serious treament. On the other hand, Courts & Corsets needed to carry effete airs so the language and gaming terms are flowery.
The problem with some games is that they nail one or the other, but not both. And this isn't taking into account the System. Fading Suns has both a great Premise and Presentation, but the System (at least 1st ed) seemed like a Sim-heavy White Wolf retread with some "narrative" afterthought. Planescape is one of the best games for Premise and Presentation, but it's laden with the D&D system that does little to promote the feel of the setting. The list goes on ...
Then you have games like Zero & Sorcerer, where the all three are intimate and make the game unbelievable.
Enough out of me!
On 1/15/2002 at 5:59am, hardcoremoose wrote:
RE: How much Premise does it take?
Are we talking about Premise or premise. I think the examples Zak gives are more related to the lower case version.
From Ron's GNS article:
The real Premise exists as a clear, focused question or concern shared among all members of the group.
I can't really do this concept justice, but Premise is a question - whose importance is shared by the players - which will be answered through game play. In a Gamist game, the Premise often sets up the "victory" conditions, while in a Narrativist game the exploration of Premise reveals the story's theme (don't ask me for Simulationist explanations, I'll just end up quoting Ron's text).
As far as James' inititial question goes, I'm not sure you can have too much or too little. Games tend to have Premises* whether their designers meant them to or not (with a possible exception being made for truly generic systems), and the only question is how far do the game mechanics go towards supporting that Premise. That's something I'm struggling with myself at this point in time.
- Moose
* This is not to say that these Premises are readily evident, or that other Premises are not possible within a given game. A great deal of dysfunction probably arises from play groups who are not sharing the same Premise, and it's one of the reasons I'm such a proponent of up front, OOC discussion of Premise at the character generation stage of any game to be played.
On 1/15/2002 at 6:03am, Gordon C. Landis wrote:
RE: How much Premise does it take?
hmm . . . OK, I'll take a stab here. I suspect this'll mstly be obvious stuff, but maybe I'll stumble on an insight or two . . .
James V. West wrote:
How much Premise do you need to create an egaging rpg?
Well, not everyone needs a Premise to be engaged. And many folks who do will take whatever scrap you give 'em and run with it, creating the Premise as needed. I suspect the issue here isn't so much "how much Premise do you need? as it is "are you clear about how your game deals with Premise?"
James V. West wrote:
Help me out. If you create a game in which players are fantasy heroes like knights and wizards, and they fight monsters for good over evil purposes...is there a Premise in there?
Depends on how you build the game, and what other details you put in. Certainly, a play group can put Premise in there - have you given them tools to help with that? Or left them to handle Premise issues entirely in social contract terms?
James V. West wrote:
Can it be that simple and still be engaging?
Sure . . . if the group is engaged by that kind of thing.
James V. West wrote:
You could [. . . ] What if players were just given clever tools to create interesting characters [. . .] Does that mean the Premise is weak or non-existent?
It means the GAME provides very little direct support for any particular Premise. It might be quite suited for some, and unsuited for others, but the game designer has apparently not done anything in particular with the issue.
James V. West wrote:
What if the game was generally light fantasy adventure along the lines of the typical fantasy rpg, but the characters were somehow unusual. PC items for example. You play a sword or a magical brooch or something. Or [. . . ]
OK, time to reread the Premise part of Ron's essay . . . let's see if it helps.
"Premise is whatever a participant finds among the elements to sustain a continued interest in what might happen in a role-playing session. Premise, once established, instils the desire to keep that imaginative commitment going."
And,
"Premise is the real-person, real-world interest that instils and maintains a person’s desire to have that [the RPG] 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. The initial Premise only takes shape and shared-focus when we move to the next chapter"
That next chapter discusses the differences between Gamist, Narrativist and Simulationist Premises.
Which brings me to say . . . any of the stuff you've mentioned could be engaging, even in terms of Premise, if that's the sort of stuff the folks involved happen to be engaged by. Most of your described situations work fine as Simulationist Premises (Premisi?) that could support their Exploration as an end in and of themselves. Some folks would love to explore the "We're magic items!" thing, others would love the "we are, and everyone else is, child-like" situation - and that would be all they'd need. If your game doesn't provide some (or enough) mechanics that help reinforce that experience, the group will come up with ways to do it themselves - or they'll walk away in search of something that does a better job for them.
Let me try another cut at it . . .
James V. West wrote:
Would that alone be enough to constitute an interesting Premise, or am I confusing the term Premise capitol “P” with simple idea little “i”?
It seems to me that a little "i" idea can be a capitol "P" Premise, for people who are sufficiently engaged by the idea. In GNS terms, it's not enough for a Gamist or a Narrativist Premise, but as a Simulationist Premise . . . that's really all it takes.
I suppose the real question at this level becomes "what can you do to help them be or become engaged?"
Anyway . . . hope that helps.
Gordon
On 1/15/2002 at 6:27am, Zak Arntson wrote:
RE: How much Premise does it take?
hardcoremoose wrote:
Are we talking about Premise or premise. I think the examples Zak gives are more related to the lower case version.
I would argue that my examples are big-P Premise. Most just don't address lofty or incredibly emotional issues for the players. If I'm in the mood for heavy emotional gaming, I will use something like Sorcerer or Zero, where the Premise has tons of emotional punch. I certainly wouldn't use the same game for playing a Tex Avery cartoon or over-the-top dungeon crawling.
I don't want to see a line drawn between "fine art" and "pop culture" gaming; I believe both have their place in the world of rpgs.
On 1/15/2002 at 6:42am, hardcoremoose wrote:
RE: How much Premise does it take?
Hey Zak,
No offense intended. For me - and this is strictly me speaking, because Ron's article does not explicitly state this - it's the wording of the Premise as a question that makes it so. I'm not exactly sure why I feel that way, but it may have something to do with the fact that questions require answers, and that makes for a nice division of power between the GM and the players (the GM asks the question, the players answer it).
They certainly do not need to be deep or emotionally challenging questions. Even something as simple as "should we put an end to the villain's reign of evil" is valid.
- Moose
On 1/15/2002 at 6:56am, Zak Arntson wrote:
RE: How much Premise does it take?
No offense taken, don't worry. I hope I didn't react too strongly. (short Zak bio: Dropped out of college shortly after a prof told him: "Illustration isn't art.") I do jump up and down when I worry about lines being drawn between legit and not-legit forms of expression!
I see what you're saying about it being a question brought up to the Players. I wonder, though, if you couldn't take any premise and make it Premise by rewording into a question. Mostly, "What would it be like to XYZ?" Granted, that plants the game into escapism or pure fantasy ("What would it be like to be a dragon?"), but that's okay, too.
I do like your answer to why it should be a question: Questions require answers.
But then, why do we need answers? Why not a dialogue? I think the most powerful literature offers a question and its implications, and leaves answers (plural! there's hardly ever an easy answer) up to the reader.
So then, instead of Players trying to answer the question, the Players should be exploring it. Roleplaying is a form of dialogue tied around the Premise. What do you think of that?
On 1/15/2002 at 7:19am, hardcoremoose wrote:
RE: How much Premise does it take?
Hey Zak,
Now we're talkin' (and probably hijacking this thread).
I wonder, though, if you couldn't take any premise and make it Premise by rewording into a question. Mostly, "What would it be like to XYZ?" Granted, that plants the game into escapism or pure fantasy ("What would it be like to be a dragon?"), but that's okay, too.
I'm sure you could, although I've been mentally trying to reword the Premises from your initial post since we started this discussion, and while some of them are easily expressed as a question, others would take on a slightly different skew once you try it. Do you think they come out the same after rewording them, and if not, do they suffer or benefit from it?
And as far as the escapism/dragon thing goes, that is the basic Premise implied by many Sim games. There are others of, of course, but I think that's the most common.
Why not a dialogue? I think the most powerful literature offers a question and its implications, and leaves answers (plural! there's hardly ever an easy answer) up to the reader.
Yeah, plural answers are great. Each player should be free to come to whatever conclusion he sees fit, as it relates to the Premise. Depends on the game - some questions will be easier or more obvious than others - but the whole point of the question/answer thing is to not predicate the answer, but to leave to that to each individual player.
So then, instead of Players trying to answer the question, the Players should be exploring it. Roleplaying is a form of dialogue tied around the Premise. What do you think of that?
I think that's perfect. When people ask me what Premise is, I give them a sort of Narrativist skewed answer, where I tell them that "Premise is a question of moral significance, that, through exploration by the characters, allows theme to arise." So yeah, if you want to say that playing a roleplaying game is a form of dialogue, I'm right with you on that. Many times on this forum I've likened roleplaying to literary criticism, where the critics (the players) consider and debate meaning through the proxy of their characters. Sounds like a dialogue to me.
Before signing off I just want to say that I absolutely will never claim one form of expression to be more "legit" than another (specific game designs, on the other hand...). I like to deal with some fairly highbrow conepts, but every so often I need a good dungeon crawl to change things up. It's all good in my book.
- Moose
On 1/15/2002 at 9:50am, contracycle wrote:
RE: How much Premise does it take?
Hmm, well I still struggle somewhat with premise too. Have to say I am unconvinced by the necessity that it be morally relevant. But more importantly, I have troubles marrying up some of the above discussion, which contains a number of ideas I like. However, while the idea of multiple premises seems intuitive, this appears to mitigate against the use of an explicit premise up front. Secondly, if there are multiple premises for the players, how is it that a game proper can have a premise, or be answered by a theme. Would not each character ben answering their own premise according to their own theme.
All in all I don't think the dramatic concept of premise really translates to RPG, or more accurately that it does not translate without severe modification, which I am not able to do because I have only a shaky comprehension of what behaviour terms like premise, theme and protagonism are deployed to describe. Part of my problem is that I am seeing the "premises" I come up with as, not to beat about the bush, the most railroady thing I'm doing. I'm not sure what virtue there is to making a premise explicit, if not in attempt to manipulate the players. Perhaps thats an overstatement, but its all still very fuzzy IMO.
On 1/15/2002 at 3:52pm, Paul Czege wrote:
RE: How much Premise does it take?
Hey Zak,
But then, why do we need answers? Why not a dialogue? I think the most powerful literature offers a question and its implications, and leaves answers (plural! there's hardly ever an easy answer) up to the reader.
I disagree with this. I think the most powerful literature definitely does answer the questions it raises. Macbeth offers an answer to its question about the price of ambition. Answering the question positions the reader to either agree and be galvanized in his understanding of humanity, or to disagree and still be galvanized in his understanding of humanity. The kind of writing that throws out a bunch of questions and flops back and forth on the issues it raises doesn't resonate for the reader the same way. It just deconstructs him. He doesn't know what he thinks afterwards.
So then, instead of Players trying to answer the question, the Players should be exploring it. Roleplaying is a form of dialogue tied around the Premise. What do you think of that?
Again, yuck. If it's a gamist Premise..."Who among these brave companions kicks the most ass?"...you definitely want an answer when all is said and done. The same thing is true of a narrativist Premise. "Can man avoid paying too high a price for his ambition?" must be answered by each protagonist. They may come down on different sides of the issue, but they have to answer the question. They aren't a protagonist and it's not a story if they fail to do so.
Paul
On 1/15/2002 at 4:09pm, Zak Arntson wrote:
RE: How much Premise does it take?
contracycle wrote:
Hmm, well I still struggle somewhat with premise too. Have to say I am unconvinced by the necessity that it be morally relevant.
It doesn't! Most Simulationist games play on the Premise of "What would it be like to be XYZ," often without moral ramifications in the Premise.
After the above discussion the only criteria I have for Premise is that it's a Question that causes the gaming session to be a Dialogue. So plain-vanilla D&D asks the question: What if I were a hero in constant physical struggle? (at least, it seems to: A whole chapter on combat rules, combat Feats outnumber the others, etc.) There's no moral implications (heck, you can slay orcs left and right without worrying about their mothers' feelings, according to its System).
Paul ...
You've got a good point about literature also answering the question. But we can always see the motivations behind even the author's antagonists. Dragonlance, with it's how-good/how-evil-am-I-meter, encourages the PCs to fiddle with morality. Though they all generally have a big Answer (i.e., don't be bad), the Dialogue occurs with how to approach this. The D&D alignment system bolsters this with Lawful, Chaotic and Neutral bent towards Good & Evil.
So even if the Answer is plain and inevitable, there should be an exploration of this within the game (or literature).
Paul Czege wrote:
Again, yuck. If it's a gamist Premise..."Who among these brave companions kicks the most ass?"...you definitely want an answer when all is said and done.
...
They may come down on different sides of the issue, but they have to answer the question. They aren't a protagonist and it's not a story if they fail to do so.
The G & N Premises are fine, but you don't need an answer at the end of the game. With a Gamist game, if it's Player-cooperation (D&D), the Premise is more of a "can we survive," with the answer never entirely certain (as long as there are more challenges to face). Uncertainty is what makes the game interesting.
Sorcerer's Premise (which I read to be: How much would you pay for your ambition) doesn't have any clear-cut answers at all. Each protagonist explores their own way. And that's what makes the story.
But why yuck? You're going to have to explain your feelings better, because the two Premises you listed seem fine, and a good game will encourage exploration and decision-making based on the Premise. So a game that ties Premise to its System will force protagonism (waffling on issues is also a valid part of literature; see the Elric series).
slight edit for clarity
On 1/15/2002 at 4:11pm, contracycle wrote:
RE: How much Premise does it take?
Paul Czege wrote:
I disagree with this. I think the most powerful literature definitely does answer the questions it raises. Macbeth offers an answer to its question about the price of ambition. Answering the question positions the reader to either agree and be galvanized in his understanding of humanity, or to disagree and still be galvanized in his understanding of humanity. The kind of writing
OK sure, the Reader, the Audience. But in RPG, the audience IS the character who answers the question, and the other players who can only access that answer OOC. I guess that with a linear media, I can see this as an explicit necessity; after all the audience cannot read the characters mind, so they must take action to portray their thoughts . But in RPG, this is unnecessary for the individual player, and difficult for the group. So I guess my problem is this: I don't have the freedom to frankly construct characters that support my premise, as an author of linear media does, or to script up events that portray this premise and characters reactions to it.
On 1/15/2002 at 4:23pm, Zak Arntson wrote:
RE: How much Premise does it take?
contracycle wrote:
So I guess my problem is this: I don't have the freedom to frankly construct characters that support my premise, as an author of linear media does, or to script up events that portray this premise and characters reactions to it.
You do, if the System is designed to support the Premise! That's what I'm getting at: The Premise and System should be intimately tied, so that the roleplaying session is forcibly centered around the game's Premise.
But then, that's why I'm not a big fan of generic games. Even lauded ones like GURPS or Fudge (though Fudge promotes tweaks towards a Premise, which I like).
On 1/15/2002 at 4:27pm, Paganini wrote:
RE: How much Premise does it take?
Well, this is just my take on Ron's essay, but I think it offers a worthwhile view. YMMV.
James V. West wrote:
How much Premise do you need to create an egaging rpg?
I think that this is a totally subjective question. Whether or not an RPG is engaging is going to depend on who you ask. How much premise does it take? How many different gamers are there in the world?
James V. West wrote:
Help me out. If you create a game in which players are fantasy heroes like knights and wizards, and they fight monsters for good over evil purposes...is there a Premise in there? Can it be that simple and still be engaging?
I think what you've got here are some game elements that can be formalized into a Premise. More below...
hardcoremoose wrote:
I can't really do this concept justice, but Premise is a question - whose importance is shared by the players - which will be answered through game play. In a Gamist game, the Premise often sets up the "victory" conditions, while in a Narrativist game the exploration of Premise reveals the story's theme (don't ask me for Simulationist explanations, I'll just end up quoting Ron's text).
I don't quite see Premise this way. Premise is also not required to be a question; it can also be a concern. One of Ron's primary examples of Premise is from the X Files: The Truth Is Out There. When it comes down to it, I think Premise is inextricably tied to Passions. If a character can have Passions about something, then that something can be a Premise for a game. If a player is interested in exploring the Passions associated with that Premise, then he's engaged by that game.
To expand on James' (James's?) example:
JVW wrote:
If you create a game in which players are fantasy heroes like knights and wizards, and they fight monsters for good over evil purposes...is there a Premise in there? Can it be that simple and still be engaging?
We've got some game elements here that can be organized into a Premise... not neccesarily a question, but something that the characters can have Passions about. Like this, for example:
Evil monsters kill and loot in pseudo-medieval society.
Can powerful heros overcome dangerous monsters?
Passions tied to this sort of premise could be something like "Magic will prevail!" or "Swords will overcome Sorcery!" or "We must save the townsfolk!" or "I'll get rich by killing monsters for their loot!"
If you as a player are interested in exploring these passions, then then the premise is engaging to you. If you couldn't care less about the townsfolk, or you aren't interested in capturing monster loot, then it isn't.
So what do you think... is this a usefull approach?
On 1/15/2002 at 4:29pm, Paganini wrote:
RE: How much Premise does it take?
For some reason, my post appeared twice. How do I delete the extra one? The "edit" button has a tool tip that says "Edit / Delete," but after I push it I don't see any way to delete the message...
On 1/15/2002 at 4:32pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: How much Premise does it take?
Hey,
I want to support Gareth in questioning whether Premise always connotes a moral conundrum. I think that this concept only applies when we narrow the focus to Narrativist games.
And furthermore, once we're in that smaller box of Narrativist play, by "moral conundrum," I think that term itself can be specified mean, "perplexing and relevant concern of humans."
So if we're talking about any role-playing, Premise is nothing more nor less than "what, concerning those listed elements, interests the pack of us in play." Bam.
If we're specifying to Narrativism, then Premise is specified to, "damn, that's a really troubling issue when it comes to being a a human being. We gotta deal with it, but no one-size-fits-all answer really comes to mind."
Best,
Ron
On 1/15/2002 at 4:44pm, Paganini wrote:
Narrative Premise
Ron Edwards wrote:
If we're specifying to Narrativism, then Premise is specified to, "damn, that's a really troubling issue when it comes to being a a human being. We gotta deal with it, but no one-size-fits-all answer really comes to mind."
I'm not sure about this. What reasons do you have for limiting Narrative play to dealing with moral conflicts? Maybe I'm just thinking of "moral" in a different way from what you're using it, but it seems to me that any sort of conflict (in the traditional literary sense) will work in a narrative game.
In Gateway, for example, it was pure Man vs. the Universe. The characters woke up, didn't know where they were, didn't know who they were (other than their names), had no clue what was going on. The exploration was literal... exploring their surroundings and themselves. The players didn't even have a complete idea of their characters... no background, because I didn't tell them what the setting was beforehand. It was a really cool "develop in play" experience.
Of course, after I introduced the nasty alien beasties there was a whole new element... Monster vs. Man in a Predator vs. Prey relationship. ;)
On 1/15/2002 at 5:26pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: How much Premise does it take?
Hi there,
I agree with you that "any literary conflict" will do. However, at that point, our views diverge sharply.
I argue that, to function, a literary conflict must be much more than the catch-phrases usually memorized in college classes, and that creating and utilizing a literary conflict takes much more understanding (at verbal or non-verbal levels) than is generated in those classes.
Current models of teaching literary conflicts and themes are, in my opinion, seriously degraded. Saying Man vs. Monster" ultimately says nothing, nor or does "Man vs. Society," or any such thing. These are memorizable phrases used by badly-educated grad students to grade undergraduates' essays quickly, resulting in further miscarried education. (Repeat annually for thirty years, including these grads becoming profs ...)
No conflict in a story means anything to an audience unless it engages them; engagement relies on raising an "issue" of emotional weight. I will be happy to dissect any story of any demonstrable audience interest in these terms.
My favorite starter is Aliens, about which any amount of babble regarding "woman with gun," or "penis symbols" has been perpetrated. In the terms you use, it is "(Wo)man vs. Monster." In my terms, Aliens does no more nor less than present two mothers with a direct conflict of interest. It raises the already-existing understanding of the audience that motherhood carries with it a great deal of ruthless power; thus the expectation of a truly engaging, no-compromise climax is "promised." When the movie later delivers on that promise, tremendous enjoyment is generated.
To clarify my point, consider two other movies: Predator and Losing Isaiah. The first one pits a man vs. a monster and thus ought to "go with" Aliens in a thematic way, by the classroom logic. The second concerns a court case between a birth-mother and an adoptive-mother, and thus "goes with" Aliens in a thematic way, by my logic.
The first outlook would stare at my Aliens + Losing Isaiah box with surprise and point to the monsters; I shrug at the Aliens + Predator box and point to the mothers.
My own research into these matters (and I do mean research, academically, nothing to do with RPGs per se) finds its only literary parallel in the writings of Lajos Egri, in his book The Art of Dramatic Writing, originally published in 1946. It's the best book on problems, themes, and audience engagement I've ever seen, and I borrowed (and extended slightly) his use of "Premise" for my discussion of Narrativism.
Best,
Ron
On 1/15/2002 at 5:35pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: How much Premise does it take?
The answer to the Narraivist Premise Question are themes. Players don't create Premise, they create themes. And since there is a difference in how a Narrative Premise is constructed from a literature based one, I'd speculate that a player can answer with more than one theme. Especially given the potential long term nature of RPGs. Or perhaps more accurately, the player can change his theme over time, adressing the Premise in one fashion and later changing to another. That, I'm sure is possible. The only question is will it satisfy the Narrativist player.
Paganini, Gateway was a Simulationist game, very much by your description, so the Narrativist Premise rules do not apply.
Mike
On 1/15/2002 at 5:48pm, Paganini wrote:
RE: How much Premise does it take?
Ron Edwards wrote:
I agree with you that "any literary conflict" will do. However, at that point, our views diverge sharply.
Very good! I think the rest is just a case of you not liking the terminology I used. As a matter of fact, I agree with you about the condition of education in the US. Fortunately, I never had to experience very much of it. :) In any case, this is all a bit outside of the scope of RPG design.
The traditional conflict nomenclature *is* limited, especially if you approach it from a creation standpoint. Can you imagine what it would be like if a teacher told you "I want you to write a Man vs. Man story today!" Boy, *that's* a big help! OTOH, I think the nomenclature is useful for identifying conflicts in existing works. It is also widely recognized, which makes it useful when talking about a subject such as the one at hand, where you need some terms in a hurry to make a point. The quality of the existing literary conflict definitions themselves is a separate issue, IMO.
On 1/15/2002 at 5:52pm, Paganini wrote:
RE: How much Premise does it take?
Mike Holmes wrote:
Paganini, Gateway was a Simulationist game, very much by your description, so the Narrativist Premise rules do not apply.
Well well... this is certainly something I've never been accused of before! Paganini the simulationist. What *will* Larry think...
:)
I'm wondering what you base that conclusion on. What was Gateway a simulation of? Character simulation maybe, but I think that for character simulation you'd need predefined characters. How can you judge whether or not a character's actions and emotions are accurate if you don't have a character definition for them to spring from?
Gateway was DIP character narrativism I think.
On 1/15/2002 at 8:18pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: How much Premise does it take?
In Gateway, for example, it was pure Man vs. the Universe. The characters woke up, didn't know where they were, didn't know who they were (other than their names), had no clue what was going on. The exploration was literal... exploring their surroundings and themselves. The players didn't even have a complete idea of their characters... no background, because I didn't tell them what the setting was beforehand. It was a really cool "develop in play" experience.
Of course, after I introduced the nasty alien beasties there was a whole new element... Monster vs. Man in a Predator vs. Prey relationship. ;)
First, I'm not sure if this was the same Gateway that I played at Gencon frequently in the early nineties, but if so, then from first hand experience I can say it was Simulationist system.
Assuming it was some other Gateway: You mention that it was all about exploration. This is the primary defining characteristic of Sim games. Not that other games don't also allow exploration, but they have to go further to be Gamist or Narrativist. What narativist rules were there in your Gateway?
Or did you just drift to Narrativist play with a Simulationist game? How did you drive the story, if so? Just by player agreement to play in a Narrativist fashion? What was the story about, then? Narrativist play drives towards a story. What Premise existed that was the central topic of the story? Perhaps, "How should one behave when one does not know who one is?" Sounds likely.
Or am I totally off here?
Mike
On 1/15/2002 at 9:16pm, Paganini wrote:
RE: How much Premise does it take?
Mike Holmes wrote:
In Gateway, for example, it was pure Man vs. the Universe. The
First, I'm not sure if this was the same Gateway that I played at Gencon frequently in the early nineties, but if so, then from first hand experience I can say it was Simulationist system.
Oops! Major confusion, Mike! Gateway was the name of a PBEM I ran without a system a year or two ago. I didn't realize there was another Gateway out there. I should have linked to the post where I mentioned it, sorry!
Gateway was run with the assumption that I outlined elsewhere, that is, narrative enjoyment is derived from the creation process rather than the finished product. I used the traditional dichotomy where the GM presents the situation, and the players controll their characters in the situation. It worked well because both myself and the players understood the boundries of controll and were open with each other. A PBEM gives you a luxury in time that other games don't. I spent a significant amount of time discussing the outcomes of an important actions with the players.
On 1/15/2002 at 9:28pm, Marco wrote:
A few comments ...
I've got a few comments about Premise and game design.
1. If you tie your game's Premise to the system/setting and the group likes the setting but not your Premise, aren't they a bit out of luck? This could be the group having G/S-proclivities or N-proclivites but wanting a different Premise.
If I had a rich setting that could work with a number of different Premises I'd have to think hard about tying mechanics to any single one. An example of such a setting, as little as I like the games themselves, is the WoD.
2. I've always objected to Ron's using all the literary themes in the Narrativist Premise section. It isn't that I don't think they're "story oriented" it's that Narrativism has a lot to do with *method* (as opposed to intent) and tying up the 'big questions' with player-authorial power seems unnecessary.
I don't think there's such a thing as a Narrativist Premise vs. a Simulationist Premise (or Gamist) since those words imply things that aren't related to story-themes (specifically player authorial power).
So when designing a game, I would balance a whole lot of premise enhancement vs. flexibility of the system and set the question of Narrativist and Simulationist apart.
-Marco
On 1/15/2002 at 11:08pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: A few comments ...
Marco wrote:
I've got a few comments about Premise and game design.
1. If you tie your game's Premise to the system/setting and the group likes the setting but not your Premise, aren't they a bit out of luck? This could be the group having G/S-proclivities or N-proclivites but wanting a different Premise.
Yes, out of luck. The players should agree to the premise before hand or not play. That having been said, a Premise is usually wider in oportunity than a Setting. Take Sorcerer's "What would you do for Power?" Premise. That can be used in most settings. So, as long as the system promotes the Premise, it is usable in a wide range of games.
Choosing a setting first is probably more limiting, overall, and more likely to cause players to dislike a game (and thus, again, they should play another).
If I had a rich setting that could work with a number of different Premises I'd have to think hard about tying mechanics to any single one. An example of such a setting, as little as I like the games themselves, is the WoD.
Odd statement. Why do you dislike those games? Perhaps becuse they have Premises that don't match their systems? If they did, then the settings might become more palatable. That's what all the Narrativists around here complain about, at least. Consider, that the WoD games do try and tailor the same setting to many different systems intended to promote each particular Premise. Right idea, bad execution.
2. I've always objected to Ron's using all the literary themes in the Narrativist Premise section. It isn't that I don't think they're "story oriented" it's that Narrativism has a lot to do with *method* (as opposed to intent) and tying up the 'big questions' with player-authorial power seems unnecessary.
Well, design is about method and execution, and intent means nothing if you don't get there. Again, that's the problem with WoD. Sure, they can say that their Simulationist systems give the player the power to actively create stories. But the systems just don't work to do so.
I don't think there's such a thing as a Narrativist Premise vs. a Simulationist Premise (or Gamist) since those words imply things that aren't related to story-themes (specifically player authorial power).
Confusing. But keep in mind that a Simulationist or Gamist Premise could be literary as well. Just because Narrativist ones must be that way, doesn't mean that G or S ones can't be. Thus the Simulationist Premise for Feng Shui is, "Can the characters leave their mundane lives behind to participate in the campaign to save the world?" That's pretty literary sounding, IMO.
So when designing a game, I would balance a whole lot of premise enhancement vs. flexibility of the system and set the question of Narrativist and Simulationist apart.
As I've said a jillion times, flexibility is good because you can use one system for many Premises, however, it will do none of those Premises as well as a system designed speciffically for that Premise. Thus, if you have an interesting Premise that you want to play, and no time to write an effective system, get the flexible RPG out. OTOH, if you want better Premise support, find a Premise specific game with an engaging Premise that looks like fun to play.
Mike
On 1/16/2002 at 4:45am, James V. West wrote:
RE: How much Premise does it take?
"Holy quills, Batman! Its an army of academics!"
"Quick Robin, ask a question of grave moral concern. They'll be too busy trying to decide how to answer it to notice us playing the game!"
Heheh.
Hey, thanks for all these great responses and debates. There were several times I felt like I was actually a Sim in denial while reading the thread. But in the end, I'm still N-heavy..I think.
Its like this. I want emotion and dramatic stuggle. Tragedy and love. All that juicy stuff that makes Romeo and Juliet so damn good. How do I get it? Jeez, I don't know. Probably never HAVE gotten it before. Never knew what I was doing wrong to obstruct it. All I knew was that in 1 out of every 3 games I've ever ran, I ended up feeling extremely drepressed and dissappointed with the whole deal.
Imagine this: most of my gaming years were so blind that when I found GURPS (literally found it on a shelf, never heard of it before even though it was 3rd edition), the mere idea of Quirks was radical, new, and inspriational to me.
This past year has taught me a whole lot of new junk. Maybe my games won't be so crappy anymore.
I used to fall asleep a lot in my college classes (and high school too). Education, as it stands, is frightfully boring. So its no big shock to me that in most of the artistic stuff I do I go into it blindly. Its when I try to think about it that the stuff starts to stink.
Lately I've been too concerned with these ideas of Premise and GNS. I know its an inevitable stage when actually learning about them that you must misuse and misunderstand them to some degree. The only way to really learn anything at all is to do it wrong. And I've done that. And I'm learning.
Now its time to make some cool games and shut the hell up.
Randomly yours
JVW
P.S. Just wanted to say I agree with Ron's discussion of Premise to a huge degree. His example of the movie Aliens easily drives it home. That's a film I've loved since 1986 and I always always knew it was far superior to most other films of its kind. Why? The emotional touches. More than touches, they were the very drive of the movie. Ripley's fear of the aliens was one thing, but it wasn't until you see her maternal instincts emerge that the true power of the film is unleashed. So, by my reckoning, Premise is all about human concerns.
On 1/16/2002 at 10:14am, contracycle wrote:
RE: How much Premise does it take?
Hmm, well I'm still shaky on premise, but this whole line of thought has crystallised my approach to the emotional behaviour of NPC's perhaps. I agree with James, inadvertant abuse during the learning process is inevitable, soo there will be erros, but its looking better. Actively seeking out not so much Problems but Personal Dilemmas for the NPC's, and framing conflicts around those, does appear to be having much more success than my usual structure. At the very least, if an NPC has a violent emotional response to certain things, this causes repercussions, and anyone related to them on an emotional level - even if just the sympathy of friendship - cannot help but be affected. This is totally different to the Bad Old Days, in which NPC's only expressed emotion when begging for help or exercising their power. I'd have to say there was an intermediate step for many years, but I think at the very least the "grabby" approach to NPC's and their emotions is correct; although not tested yet, I hope my new designs will be much more emotionally satisfying.
And, with any luck, terrifying :) Borrowing from Aliens, as it happens, I had a visions of "a mad, naked Orlanthi running around loose with a broadsword in the dark". But how we GET to that point, why he goes loopy tunes, is where the emotional bite will be generated. I hope, anyway.