In a lot of discussion about non-indie games, a common thing pop up again and again : the lack of focus in the premise, or the lack of premise itself.

I have noticed that for a lot of people, that was a bad flaw in the said game. But I'm wondering if things could go another way...

Effectively, most of the game I own aren't very clear about a given Premise or even a given theme. But could it be different ? I look for certain specific element in a game. But what I want may differ drastically from what gamer X or Y might want. How a game company is supposed to fullfill all our needs. It can't. But it try every times because it want a big sale. That's why IMO most of company games seem flawed, or quite not right.

For exemple, I was a long standing fan of WW. I played Vampire. Always thinking that "*I* would never done such and such things that way", but none the less I enjoyed the game (my version of it anyway).
The same is true for Wraith. All I liked was the concept of the shadow, the rest seemed "wrong".

To my point now, since I've discovered indie games, I've found game a lot more focused and coherant...but, there's a lot of whitch that, being so coherant, I can't make mine. Their premise is so strong that all I can do is say : "Well done, but I wouldn't do/play it this way"...and that's it, because changing it to suit my view would consist in re-creating the game althogether.

So my question is : do you think that company game are "doomed" by their very nature to be "broad-premised" ? Do you think that indie games can be such focused because of their nature ?

Fabrice.

ps: I need to make a huge exception for Sorcerer. Why ? Because it cheats !!!
You're given a premise and a systeme that's very coherent, but you'll have to do all the rest of the developement !! So if the premise is right for you, the rest of the design must be good for you...because you're doing it ! (if it isn't done right to your taste, then you're the one to blame).

...you make an excellent point, Fabrice. At least the point I think you're making is excellent, IMO.

I made a similar point in a PM very recently, because it was suggested I find a "focus" for my game, but what I tossed back weren't what was meant. I'm sure the advice is excellent, but games that are imminently focused aren't the ones I generally buy.. I think we're a gaming demographic too.
I really like a lot of games which are picked apart and called failures, (or implied strongly, anyhow) despite their sales. Shadowrun, Vampire, etc are part of this group. I'm not implying that everyone here thinks these games are bad, but the general consensus is that they do not meet the stated premise, and perhaps they don't. But this does not, In my not-so-humble opinion, make them bad or failures.
The purpose of Vampire is not to explore what it is like to be a vampire, and to deal with the issues of feeding upon human blood, and all the happy pathos which is associated. The purpose is to have fun, like all games... And many, many people have, and do. These games are unfocused, or else do not meet their stated focus.
I, personally, feel that this IS a virtue, to the right gamers. Gamers who like to make the game their own and not necessarily by altering rules, or revamping (pun not intended, but fully acknowledged) the setting so that it meets their needs. In general, these systems allow the gamers to decide what they want to do, rather than seeking a game which is focused on what they want to do, and does so in a setting they're interested in, and mechanics they like.
The games still have Premise, which I will admit is necessary to having a good game. They still have their GNS niches, and their likely stance modes associated.
I'll keep this fairly short (for once). I think I've managed to make my point. Many will probably disagree, and that is their right. I just hope I haven't dug any holes with people in the forum, because I really do respect the opinions I've been getting on my own efforts, and would like to continue getting them.

I think the critique is a bit sharper than that.

First Fun, once again. Lets start from the assumption that EVERYONE who RP's does so For Fun in some degree. But people desire different types of experiences in which they have their Fun, and specific games are chose accordingly.

Vampire DOES strongly state that its particular form of fun is the angsty kind. It did not cross over to the Goths by accident in any sense. But, the criticism goes, it did not deleiver this kind of fun - it delivered a different kind of fun focussed de facto on combat, and that this arose from the nature of its mechanics.

Thus, the criticism of Vampire is not that it has no premise, but that it fails to achieve its own premise.

Do games necessarily HAVE to have a premise? Well, IMO a system/setting in itself does not necessarily have to have one, but the probability is high that the game you actually play, will. It might not, in certain styles, I think. But a lot of the design that goes on here is based on the argument that games can and should, and intended to see how it can be used.

All of the Small Games people love to talk about are bound by a pretty tight premise and (searching mind...) pretty tight focus. Focus meaning restricted scope of possible campaigns (to use a moderately inappropriate word). Examples: everything by Mr. Jared A. Sorensen, Esq. Sorcerer. Chalk Outlines. SOAP. Great constriction on type of game played.


From the other thread, W:tA is a Big Game, which I'm using to mean that there's both freedom of premsie and wide focus. (Aside: is wide focus necessary for a Big Game, or is the possibility of myriad premises enough?) The success stories all describe groups that find their own premise in the game.

Support of multiple premises by a game may well mean that any instantiation of the game has effectively no premise. Small Games avoid this by their nature, Big Games avoid this through experienced gamers.

Perhaps if W:tA had a chapter wholly about premise, the need for premise, the ways of refining premise, then there would be less frustration in some camps.

Question:
Would this "premise chapter" be sufficient for any Big Game? Any premise chosen should be supported by the game itself, in addition to being hankered after by the players. To do a good job of it, would this Hypothetical Big Game need to be designed from the ground up with multiple premises in mind? What would this look like?

-Matt

Garbanzo wrote: All of the Small Games people love to talk about are bound by a pretty tight premise and (searching mind...) pretty tight focus. Focus meaning restricted scope of possible campaigns (to use a moderately inappropriate word). Examples: everything by Mr. Jared A. Sorensen, Esq. Sorcerer. Chalk Outlines. SOAP. Great constriction on type of game played.

Actually, I think that it's not a matter of having no premise, or even multiple premises, as not meeting the *stated* premise. When I picked up Vampire, despite the flavor text, the thing that gripped me was that I got to play as a Vampire. I think the true premise of Vampire is what Ron stated in his GNS essay: “You play vampires in the modern day, trying to stay secret from the cattle and coping with other vampires.” [See atmospheric, grim, punky-goth pictures] V:tM meets this premise admirably. It's not a Narrativist game as they would have you think, but a Simulationist game. That misunderstanding is the problem, and people, not having the vocabulary to make the misunderstanding as clear as all here on the Forge do, just enjoy it in ignorance of it's failure.

Contracycle wrote: I think the critique is a bit sharper than that.

First Fun, once again. Lets start from the assumption that EVERYONE who RP's does so For Fun in some degree. But people desire different types of experiences in which they have their Fun, and specific games are chose accordingly.

Jared:

What sort of relation do you see between play structure and premise? It almost seems to me to be a 1:1 correspondance. Except someone could write a terrible game about dominos that's 90% combat mechanics.

But (judging from the JAS dossier) you're a moderate fan of play structure.

How come?
That is to say, why is it better from structure to come from the game design, versus springing from plot or setting?

-Matt
(edited because I got marginally smarter after I wrote it)

Garbanzo wrote: What sort of relation do you see between play structure and premise? It almost seems to me to be a 1:1 correspondance. Except someone could write a terrible game about dominos that's 90% combat mechanics.

But (judging from the JAS dossier) you're a moderate fan of play structure.

How come?
That is to say, why is it better from structure to come from the game design, versus springing from plot or setting?

Jared Sorensen wrote: Case in point: I'm running Vampire. Who wants to play?

The obvious reply is: "Sure, what kind of game is it?"

Well duh, the answer should be "Vampire." but that doesn't tell anyone anything! You might as well ask someone "Wanna play some music?" and not be surprised when they start playing a polka along with your jazz fusion.

Matt (Garbanzo),

I think that plot and setting are themselves part of play structure, just as system is. I'm not sure why you are drawing this line of distinction.

Premise always arises from some confluence of Character, Setting, Situation, System, and Color. Different game designs may offer different emphases, but splitting this list into either-or sets makes no sense.

Best,
Ron

Jared wrote:

Case in point: I'm running Vampire. Who wants to play?

The obvious reply is: "Sure, what kind of game is it?"

Well duh, the answer should be "Vampire." but that doesn't tell anyone anything!

That is to say, why is it better from structure to come from the game design, versus springing from plot or setting?

I'm enough of an old-schooler to instinctively identify wide-focus RPGs as standard.
A bit like that experiment where it was found (for the subject group) the most "birdish" bird was a robin, as opposed to a pelican or a penguin. Measured reaction times to "Is this a bird?"

I've used "focus" or "scope" or "Small Game v. Big Game" to describe what Jared calls "play structure," but it's a concept that really interests me.

Jared's quote was

I call this "play structure" -- the part in the game that says "you play it THIS way." Most RPG's don't have it...at all. What they rely upon is a strong figure (most likely the GM or a leader-type player) to impose a structure using plot/setting or metaplot.