Since Ron sets great store by the work of Louis Egri, I've been doing some net research into Egri's use of the word "premise" in hopes of obtaining a better understanding of GNS. I have a question:

Does an Egri premise necessarily imply resolution? Egri's premise for Romeo and Juliet is that "great love will defy even death." If we play a game with this it doesn't just tell us what the game is about, it tells ahead of time how the game will end. This may be a great tool when writing a play, but knowing ahead of time how your game will end can be anti-climactic. I guess my real question is this: An Egri premise must have fulfillment - but can that fulfillment when used in RPG terms come as a result of actual play, rather than being encoded into the game's premise? In other words, could a question *without resolution* be a valid premise? For example:

"How far must one be pushed in order to betray a person one loves to a person one trusts?" (A central theme to the Riddlemaster trilogy by Patricia McKillip.)

Nathan,

With respect, I don't know whether to buy you a beer or to break down crying.

This is exactly what I've been saying about Narrativist Premise all along.

1) Egri makes the most sense I have ever seen regarding theatrical narrative (which applies fully to film).

2) His principle must be adapted to role-playing, however, as author and audience are the same, simultaneous people. (To repeat, I am speaking only of Narrativist play.)

3) It is adapted by converting it to a question, such that the people in play may provide an answer via play itself. I cannot over-emphasize that the people need not have an answer formulated from the outset of play - they simply need characters with passions that address that question, and enough author-power such that the characters are really protagonists, affecting the story through their decision-making.

I've repeated these very points throughout about a dozen different threads. Which is no bad reflection on you, at all, but on my evident need to write this out in essay form.

Best,
Ron

Ron,

Lest you spill too many tears into the draught you buy for Paganini, I should mention that in reading Egri, I found the adaptation of Premise into a question rather than a statement wholly natural, intuitive, and obvious. How else could it be, when you have a table full of authors and actors with free will?

Of course, other stuff that should perhaps have been obvious vexed me a long time. But Premise is a very trusty rudder, IME.

--JB

I dunno. In all the lit courses I took, what has been cited as Egri's Premise for Romeo and Juliet is called the message. The 'theme' as I was taught is 'love and death in tragedy.' The 'message' is the answer to the question that tumbles right out of the 'theme;' which is greater, love or death?

I know we all put great stock in the old master, but if you're going to change the application of his prize term, it just seems disrespectful to keep using the same term. My suggestion is, keep the idea that the 'something' changes from a statement (a 'message') when that 'something' is ported over to role-playing games to a question; just don't use the same term. I mean for all the resemblance, we're talking about something different right?

Call it, I dunno, a thematic question? Yeah, that sounds about right and a lot less confusing. (And doesn't strike me as disrespectful as perverting the earlier usage.) How about, a Narrativist role-playing game is about exploring a Thematic Question within the context of the Theme of the game and delivering a Thematic Message based on it?

But that's just me.

Fang Langford

p. s. I'd say a tear-tainted beer, cuz it's Lajos not Louis.

Ron Edwards wrote: Nathan,
With respect, I don't know whether to buy you a beer or to break down crying.

Ron wrote:
I've repeated these very points throughout about a dozen different threads.

Ron wrote:
Which is no bad reflection on you, at all, but on my evident need to write this out in essay form.

Le Joueur wrote:
Call it, I dunno, a thematic question? Yeah, that sounds about right and a lot less confusing. (And doesn't strike me as disrespectful as perverting the earlier usage.) How about, a Narrativist role-playing game is about exploring a Thematic Question within the context of the Theme of the game and delivering a Thematic Message based on it?

p. s. I'd say a tear-tainted beer, cuz it's Lajos not Louis.

I don't think "knowing how the game is going to end" is any great tragedy in the world of RPGs (though traditionalists are going to balk mightily at that statement). There seems to be a general feeling out there of "Why play if it's all set in stone from the beginning?" or what I called "Titantic Syndrome" ("Why see it if you know how it's going to end?").

IMO, RPGs are all about the journey, not the destination. I tried to incorporate this into several of my games (in InSpectres, there really shouldn't be any doubt as to whether or not the agents complete the job...In Schism, the characters will all die, etc. etc.). So I don't see any problem with the idea that Premise sets up the end as well as the beginning of a story. In fact, I'd say that's its strength.

Jared A. Sorensen wrote: I don't think "knowing how the game is going to end" is any great tragedy in the world of RPGs (though traditionalists are going to balk mightily at that statement). There seems to be a general feeling out there of "Why play if it's all set in stone from the beginning?" or what I called "Titantic Syndrome" ("Why see it if you know how it's going to end?").

IMO, RPGs are all about the journey, not the destination. I tried to incorporate this into several of my games (in InSpectres, there really shouldn't be any doubt as to whether or not the agents complete the job...In Schism, the characters will all die, etc. etc.). So I don't see any problem with the idea that Premise sets up the end as well as the beginning of a story. In fact, I'd say that's its strength.

Jared,

My good friend, you have gummed up the discussion with some bullshit.

No one saw Titanic in breathless suspense of whether the ship would sink. They saw it in breathless suspense regarding the outcome of (a) romantic conflict and (b) who gets the very pricey jewel. Both of these were featured prominently in the previews, and we do not know how they turn out. The ship sinking is a matter of placing these conflicts into "dangerous ground."

The same goes for playing InSpectres. We know the characters will investigate funky-duty stuff; we know they will live. The conflict is whether they get so stressed out that their spunky startup-venture (franchise) falls apart, which is only resolved through play.

Nathan, do not let plausible-seeming talk about "knowing how it comes out," or "journey vs. destination," confuse you. Narrativism = resolving conflict regarding Premise (in the Egri sense). That's it.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote:
Nathan, do not let plausible-seeming talk about "knowing how it comes out," or "journey vs. destination," confuse you. Narrativism = resolving conflict regarding Premise (in the Egri sense). That's it.

Hey Nathan,

"When an immovable instinct for self preservation confronts the unstoppable certainty of annihilation what will give way?"

I think it's a Premise. It's a little inaccessible. You should trust me on this because I'm the master of inaccessible Premises, and Ron has blasted me for them many times. I think you should loosen it up a bit, give the players some room to author in it. The "what will give way" part implies a chipping away of the character, almost a steady, predictable progression. I get the impression you want to reduce, reduce, and reduce the characters to some primal condition, incrementally. Why not something like, "What's truly significant when you're faced with certain annihilation?"

Paul

Ron Edwards wrote: My good friend, you have gummed up the discussion with some bullshit.

No one saw Titanic in breathless suspense of whether the ship would sink. They saw it in breathless suspense regarding the outcome of (a) romantic conflict and (b) who gets the very pricey jewel. Both of these were featured prominently in the previews, and we do not know how they turn out. The ship sinking is a matter of placing these conflicts into "dangerous ground."

Hi Jared,

Sorry 'bout the "bullshit" part. Ummm, invalid nonsense, that is what I should have said (true).

Sense of humor, sense of humor, I left it around here somewhere. Did anyone see my ...?

Nathan, Paul's right. My description of your Premise suggestion is "bloodless intellectualism." How about ...?

What's more valuable, family or pride?
Can one owe loyalty to a dead man?
Who wields more effective power in a crisis, a woman or a man?

(Premises do not allow for mealy-mouthed, "Gee, guess it all depends" answers.)

Best,
Ron