Spun off from the Devilry over in IGD. Sorry Ron, I am a monkey.

hardcoremoose wrote:
Which brings me to this thought: Is it possible for a ruleset to be Premise-less? As Matt and Drew just pointed out, it is possible to look at a game and suss out a Premise, even when one isn't presented as such by the author. Can we do the same with other games? The Pool (not TQB)? WYRD? GURPS?

I shoulda' just kept my trap shut. I'm not especially convinced that every game has a Premise either, but it seems like they might. I mean hell, an rpg is just a piece of writing, with an author (or authors) who had to be working from some common principle, right?

The common principle in Vampire is vampires, am I correct? And unless I miss my guess, the Premise of Vampire is something like "What would it be like to be a Vampire in a shadowy hidden world of vampires?".

The focus of D&D's text is to provide power-ups for characters, distributed through treasure and combat. And the hell if that aint the Premise - "How powerful can my character get?".

GURPS is a tough one, and in light of Ron's discussion down in the Sorcerer forum, it's got me stumped. I could pull a Brian Gleichman and to say that it's not even really a game (at least not until you saddle with a supplement), but that might be railroading the argument to meet my own hypothesis rather than honorably admitting defeat. Hmmm...I dunno.

Oh well, I'll think some more on it, while other, more informed people, chime in on this.

- Scott

hardcoremoose wrote:
I shoulda' just kept my trap shut. I'm not especially convinced that every game has a Premise either, but it seems like they might. I mean hell, an rpg is just a piece of writing, with an author (or authors) who had to be working from some common principle, right?

The common principle in Vampire is vampires, am I correct? And unless I miss my guess, the Premise of Vampire is something like "What would it be like to be a Vampire in a shadowy hidden world of vampires?".

The focus of D&D's text is to provide power-ups for characters, distributed through treasure and combat. And the hell if that aint the Premise - "How powerful can my character get?".

GURPS is a tough one, and in light of Ron's discussion down in the Sorcerer forum, it's got me stumped. I could pull a Brian Gleichman and to say that it's not even really a game (at least not until you saddle with a supplement), but that might be railroading the argument to meet my own hypothesis rather than honorably admitting defeat. Hmmm...I dunno.

erithromycin wrote:
Is a Premise essential to Narrative play, or could we get by without it?

Drew,

Premise is essential to Narrative play. It's damn near the only thing that is essential Many, many people here at The Forge have confused Directorial and/or Authorial stance with being the defining element of Narrative play, but they have absolutely nothing to do with it. Premise is all you need.

And I think we're arguing different things here. It seems like you're specifically arguing Narrative Premise, where I'm taking the much broader definition of the word.

For instance, Humanity is an afterthought in Vampire, more part of the pitch than the way the game plays out. The game plays out with a bunch of people sitting around trying to decide how their vampire would act given the setting of the game, and that's classic Sim Premise right there.

There isn't a word in D&D about peace. It's a video game played out on a tabletop. It really, really is. You have multiple lives and everything. The only goal systematically encouraged is to become more powerful, and that's Gamist Premise.

And finally, in regards in RPGs being writing, I mean that in the strictest, most literal sense when I say it. I'm talking about the physical tome of a rulebook, which is nothing more than pages with writing on them. And looking at it that way, without thinking about the shared authorship that comes from playing the game, I'm thinking about the people who wrote the game and what the hell they were thinking when they were doing it. There has to be some intent behind the choices they made, and it seems like you could suss out a Premise from that alone (of course, actual play will determine whether they were successful authors or not, by whether we play the game the way they meant us to play it).

So there we go.

- Scott

Silly erith, mooses are subtle.

Right, I get it. Though I'd have said Vampire was trying to be a narrativist game, and failed. Hell, they can't have been joking when they called it Storyteller.

I think I was overly Narrativisting, or something. Though I'll have to say that I think what we're looking at with your definition of premise, moose, is closer to what I call pitch. What I was looking for here was a systemically reflected implied narrativist premise [1].

Anyway, what is the pitch/implied narrative premise of GURPS?

The pitch is one ruleset to rule them all, no?

The premise? If everyone's fundamentally the same, how do we show our differences? [Maybe not]

drew

Drew,

I'm pretty sure you missed this thread:

Edwardian Premises

I broke down the different categories of Premise pretty carefully, and I think you ought to specify what you're talking about in those terms.

And check the essay, too. Simulationist play is distinctive in that "premise" is not an overt player/metagame priority so much as a mode of experience - Exploration squared, if you will. So when you talk about the premise of GURPS, realize that it's firstly about "experiencing in-game causality" in pure system terms, and secondly about "experiencing the nifty-cool world" that's being presented.

Right now, it looks as if you're trying to tack Narrativist Premise onto all and sundry, which ain't gonna work too well.

Best,
Ron

Well, I may still be confused about your defintion of "pitch", but since you made it up, I'll take your word for it. Rest assured, I'm pretty comfortable with my definitions of Premise in regards to both of the above examples, mainly become I've stolen them wholesale from other people (mostly from Ron).

I don't think we'll find an implied narrativist Premise for GURPS. It's not a very narrativist game, and I think the system gets in the way of drift. And as others point out, playing GURPS isn't about exploring Character, it's about exploring System. So yeah, I'm still stumped.

But to fret over one game is to ignore the bigger picture. Either we can or can't find Premise buried in game text, and if we do, we either are or aren't fooling ourselves when we do so.

Interesting side thought here - if a Premise seems to be present within a game, how much of the rules have to contradict/fail to support that Premise before it ceases to be Premise and instead becomes Pitch. For instance, Vampire has the implied Premise of "How far can I fall from my Humanity?", which is played up heavily in the text, but the rules barely touch it, and instead deliver the means to play towards an entirely different goal (the actual Premise, as discussed elsewhere). I guess the obvious answer to this question is that the System dictates Premise, not Color, and whatever goals the System encourages necessarily reveal its Premise.

Oh well, enough with stating the obvious.

- Scott

hardcoremoose wrote:
The common principle in Vampire is vampires, am I correct? And unless I miss my guess, the Premise of Vampire is something like "What would it be like to be a Vampire in a shadowy hidden world of vampires?".

In no particular order:

Ron: I did catch Edwardian Premises, but I forgot about it. My bad.

What I'm actually trying to do is look at systems and find out what they induce players to find important in play, and then explore the implications this would have in the form of Premise.

In D&D it's dead things and treasure. The Gamist Premise is that killing things makes you stronger, so you can get treasure. It's got a vaguely Simulationist one [in that the more challenging an encounter is, the more you're likely to learn from it]. It also implies a Narrative Premise, one which revolves around the system, namely that Power comes with the death of other things as a result of your direct actions, which has all sorts of implications. That said, I'll probably think something else completely different.

I'm likely getting myself a bit confused, so feel free to offer suggestions as to what I probably mean. It worked last time, after all.

Yeah, I am going into a bit of a Narrativist frenzy, despite playing Munchkin! and Zombies!!! all weekend.

Moose:

Pitch is just my word, and I think it means this:

In game X you do Y. I just didn't know what the appropriate term was.

Hell, I still don't.

Pitch and Premise are unrelated, in the sense you seem to be looking at, though that might change. Pitch influences system only in that you should be able to do the stuff promises. Premise influences system in that the mechanics should reinforce the Premise. So I guess what I'm saying, to go back to Ron again, is that I was looking for the Premise that the mechanics of games that don't explicitly state them reinforce, which was the thought you had provoked with the Devil thread.

Yeah [Moose] Well, ideally, System reinforces Premise, Colour reinforces Pitch.

Xiombarg:

What you said. I've had any number of players complain when monstrous acts had consequences. Then I started to offer them power for the darkness, with even bigger consequences. The suckers lapped it up. My current LARP uses 'Corruption' instead of Humanity. The more bad things you do on purpose, the more likely you are to do bad things accidently [you're losing control over your Beast, effectively]. I won't pretend there haven't been complaints, and, indeed, players who left as a result, but more seem happy with it than did when it was how much goodness was left in you, rather than how much badness you've acquired. It's all in the way you pitch it, I suppose.

Course, that said, I'll post all this and find it redundant because someone's said what I'm trying to only better. Oh well. At least I've no hanging tags.

drew

erithromycin wrote: Pitch and Premise are unrelated, in the sense you seem to be looking at

Metal Fatigue wrote:
Actually, I don't think that's true. Your usage of Pitch ("In game X, you do Y") seems to be very similar to Ron's usage of Premise outside the Narrativist context (shared understanding of a game leading to group commitment).

Possibly Pitch might be characterized as the game's default assumption of group Premise, demonstrated in such things as back cover copy:

obviously the publisher will put on the back cover that which the publisher believes will hook the most groups.

Be careful what you wish for.

I'm in the process of moving and there happens to be an old copy of GURPS Basic Set 3rd Edition (fourth printing,1989) laying on the floor here in front of me. I'm including all the text on the back cover so that I don't inadvertently leave out something of importance due to my own prejudices. Without further ado...

------------------------------------------------------

ANY TIME. ANY PLACE. ANY BACKGROUND.

GURPS, the Generic Universal Roleplaying System, is simply the most flexible roleplaying game you can play. With just this Basic Set, you can adventure in any world you can imagine. Rules are included for all types of weapons from clubs to lasers... for wizards and magic... for psionic powers.

No more switching game systems whenever you change campaigns! GURPS lets you learn one set of clear, comprehensive rules to cover any background.

And the GURPS system is fully supported. Worldbooks and adventures are available for all kinds of campaigns... and more are coming out every month.

GURPS makes the Game Master's job easy and fun. All rules are clearly written, indexed and cross-referenced. Charts and tables are clear and legible. There's even a "Quick Start" section, with two adventures, to help you introduce new players.

And the rules let you choose the level of complexity that you want.

GURPS is user-friendly for players, too. The character creation rules are detailed and flexible. There are no "classes" or "levels". Instead, you can develop exactly the character you want to play... your favorite fictional hero, or your own creation.

Choose from dozens of Advantages and Disadvantages, and over 120 Skills, for your character. Customize with some personal Quirks, and you're ready to play.

GURPS is the roleplaying game that everyone can enjoy. You can create the game world that's perfect for you. See for yourself...
------------------------------------------------------------

IMO, this seems to present what has been referred to as pitch in the previous posts. The text also makes the claim that you can create exactly the character you want with 120 skills and a few dozen advantages and disadvantages. Maybe some people can, but many people discover exactly the opposite. In addition you can supposedly create the game world thats perfect for you. O.K., so I've got this exact character in this perfect world, but can I make him do what I want in the way I want?

Anyway, I hope this post was helpful. If not, I humbly apologize.

Wow. Thanks.

So, looking at the words on the back, who the hell would want to play GURPS?

You're right, it does seem like a pitch, but as far as I can see it comes down to:

"Do a whole bunch of work".

My gaming experience is sheltered/blessed, and I've only encountered GURPS as an object rather than a ruleset I've used or had used at me. Did anyone just play GURPS, or did they port things over?

Do GURPS sourcebooks introduce Premise [we know they've got Pitch]?

Where does RIFTs sit in all this? How about Torg?

drew

Drew,

I think you're being biased in this thread. Look again at the back cover of GURPS - it is saying, Whatever world you play in, the system works. This is a huge draw for several brands of Simulationist play, whether heavily Setting-based or heavily System-based.

Granted, it's not my favored mode of play, and evidently it's not yours either. But for folks who are emotionally committed to in-game mechanics representing cause - and by that emotional commitment, I mean that the "work" you mention is worth it to them - it's perfect. For folks who are similarly committed to detailed worlds, the publishing line is also quite handy due to the profusion of sourcebooks, which may be thought of as the RPG industry's line of encyclopedias.

Best,
Ron
[played a bezillion hours of GURPS in the 80s]

Ron,

Spot on.

The Gurps blurb is attractive because it promises to provide a consistent framework within which one can explore the characters and worlds of one's own choice. Premise has nothing to do with it. Premise is not an end in itself for all gamers, nor even a desirable feature.

In my Elizabethan Call of Cthulhu game I have not included any form of premise. The game is about exploration of setting essentially. A premise certainly could be fitted in, how much can you close your eyes to the consequences of your ambitions would be a good one, but I didn't. Why? Because it would have added nothing to what I wished to do with that game.

What did I wish to do? I wanted a simulation of an alternate history Elizabethan era, identical to our own save that Cthulhoid entities and magics were real. The characters then live in that world. As a simulationist goal that is pretty much complete, premise adds nothing.

In fact, premise would potentially get in the way. The real world lacks a premise, save to the extent we create our own. A simulated reality therefore ideally should also lack premise, save that the characters create themselves. This would be fatal to most (if not all) narrativist games, but it is wholly compatible with simulationist gaming.

Premise is a narrativist thing. It is, IMO, important in narrativist gaming. Extrapolating it to gamism or sim just doesn't work, IMO.

Simulationist gaming is about situation, not premise in the narrativist sense.

Exploring what it is like to be a vampire is simulationist. Asking what price is worth paying for survival is narrativist (I would suggest). One is about character and setting. The other is really about the player and their perceptions of the question which lies at the game's heart.

Different things and different goals. The former does not require the latter. Simulationist games generally don't have questions lying at their hearts. They have interesting people to be and places to go.

Again, there is potential confusion here. Some people are using the terms in one of Ron's fashions, and then ignoring the other meanings from Ron's Essay, while other people are defining Premise by their own terms. To paraphrase Ron's concepts (correct me if I'm way off here, Ron):

Early or Proto- Premise: somewhat like E's pitch, just an idea of what the game is about in general.

Premise: specifically what the characters will be doing in the game.

Narrative Premise: a premise that asks a question about an issue so that the characters can answer it thematically

Gamist Premise: a premise that defines the arena of competition (or realm of striving, or something like that to be more PC) in which the characters will find themselves

Simulationist Premise: a premise that defines what is to be explored by the characters. Just like Max (Balbinus) said above.


So, by Ron's definition, all games have premises. Only Narrativist games have Narrativist Premises.

Mike

Hi there,

Mike's got it nailed. I reeeaally reeeaally wish people would be more careful about that.

One eensy point:Simulationist premises are qualitatively different from both Gamist and Narrativist ones, as the latter two modes have overt, secondary personal agendas during play and the former tends to downplay or limit such agendas, sticking with the "primary" agenda of Exploration (ie imagining things).

Thus Max's post at 11:14 is perfectly correct insofar as Narrativist premise is concerned, but his post is potentially confusing because, obviously, the broader meanings of premise still apply to Simulationist play.

Best,
Ron

To move forward then, if the question is "does every game have an implied narrativist premise, even where the game itself is not narrativist?" then I would say that the answer is unequivocally no.

Does Gurps contain a narrativist premise? No, again IMO.

Does Gurps contain any sort of a premise, again I would say no. It is a tool kit. It raises no questions about issues. It defines no arena (the game world or relevant supplement will do that). It contains nothing to explore. It is a system, like Fudge it is there to be used in order to create something else. That something else will then have some form of premise (used in the larger sense).

So, if the question is "does every game have some form of premise?" I would again say no, not in design. Although it may always acquire one in play (again premise used in the broader sense).

Does DnD have a premise? This is more interesting. I'm not sure. The rules hardwire certain gamist concerns such as levelling up and gaining prowess which suggests to me that a gamist premise is built right in there. Agree, disagree?

erithromycin wrote: Did anyone just play GURPS, or did they port things over?

erithromycin wrote: Do GURPS sourcebooks introduce Premise [we know they've got Pitch]?

erithromycin wrote: Where does RIFTs sit in all this?

Hi there,

Maybe my fundamental point in the essay about GURPS in particular is being missed.

GURPS has a Premise - a Simulationist one, i.e, to Explore something. That something is causality, in and of itself. GURPS is very satisfying to those who, in play, are reassured and happy when "Z" happens as a result of (in-game) X and Y.

Jumped over the fence as the hail of bullets whistles overhead? Fine. Mowed down by the bullets upon failing to jump the fence? Fine.

The point is that the guns' type and number of rounds fired, the character's ability to jump, the respective characters' rates of motion, and the circumstances of things like visibility and the height of the fence were all taken into account. That was the point of play, period - to make sure that nothing relevant in that game-world is being left out of the causal picture. Either of the outcomes presented in the above paragraph is perfectly OK as long as no one muddied the waters with their personal agendas. (That is to say, the deliberate negation of agenda is now, itself, the agenda.)

Thus GURPS, at its root, Explores System. As I've said before, the next step is to provide Setting in which this can be done, and the publishing line helpfully delivers this as well.

Best,
Ron

P.S. I'm not claiming that GURPS is the be-all and end-all of this sort of game design. Marco's JAGS, for instance, is presented specifically as a "better mousetrap" for this mode of play.
P.P.S. I'm pretty sure that my essay is explicit both about this form of play and about GURPS in particular, in the Simulationist Premise section.

For what it's worth, I've played quite a bit of GURPS in my time, mostly in the '80's, and enjoyed it. I'm an inveterate world-builder, so I always used original settings, and they seemed to work pretty darn well, even with my loosey-goosey style of running games.

Strangely enough, the most fun I had with GURPS was with a short-short, "limited series," four session game using the SUPERS rules. My theory now -- armed with the intellectual tools of the Forge -- is that I stumbled onto building the game around a strong premise instead of producing a deep background and storyline. I had a few linear chokepoints I steered players toward in the beginning, but the last three sessions went completely off the deep end, to the point where the players and I were sitting around in a half-stunned, half-delighted state after the game wrapped. That's an argument for being able to use Premise with non-optimized systems, clunky as it is to do so. What seemed to drive the evolution of the premise from the rules perspective was that I retained the full GURPS lethality with the use of superpowers, such that collateral damage became a HUGE consideration during play. In practice it meant the characters had a choice to make regarding how ruthless they were willing to be in pursuit of "good."

The Premise was: "Who chooses what is the greater good?"

Best,

Blake