Topic: On embedding Premise
Started by: Valamir
Started on: 6/7/2002
Board: RPG Theory
On 6/7/2002 at 9:09pm, Valamir wrote:
On embedding Premise
On the Otherkind thread the issue of embedding premise directly into the game came up. Its a topic that's been kicked around before but one I'd like to revisit.
This is the big problem with a lot of games with lots of Color, lots of Setting-derived conflict, but no Premise.
needs more kinds of scenario structure and more attention to Premise
I think your premise will be found somewhere between Iron and Moonlight
These are some of the comments made on that thread that got me to thinking. And what I started thinking was this...alot of advice about needing to be more explicit with Premise, but not a lot of explaination as to why. What specifically is to be gained from an "actual play", "I'm playing this game right now" perspective by doing this.
Note, I'm not questioning the validity of Premise or that its the key to narrativist play. What I'm questioning is the necessity of putting an explicit premise right into the game itself (which was what was being recommended for Otherkind, as opposed to a more general source of conflict which the play group can develop into their own specific premise (which is what Otherkind does now).
On some level I see "embed the Premise" being applied as sort of a panacea to narrativist game design. Ron rightly pointed out that there are several games that he hasn't made this recommendation for but it still appears to be first on the list of "usual suspects" for advice.
So, aside from the general commentary above, I guess specifically the question for discussion I'm raising is this:
When is embedding Premise of such great importance that the game will be less if its not done, and when is it not? What sort of narrativist games "require" explicit premise built right into the game and what sort can stop at defining a general source of conflict, allowing the play group to establish their own specific premise?
What criteria is being used to determine, or what ultimate outcome is being encouraged by choosing one over the other.
On 6/7/2002 at 9:50pm, Walt Freitag wrote:
RE: On embedding Premise
I find it easier to examine this type of question in terms of protagonism rather than Premise. (Since either one, when realized, implies the other, I think it's valid practice to do so, as long as the specifically Narrativist definitions of both are applied.)
So, instead of what/where is the Premise, I ask what establishes the broadest strokes of the characters' protagonism?
"Protagonism first" character-concept-based protagonism: less need for embedded Premise.
Protagonism developed in-play from setting or situation: more need for embedded Premise in that setting or situation.
- Walt
On 6/7/2002 at 11:31pm, deidzoeb wrote:
Re: On embedding Premise
Wish I had seen this thread ten minutes ago. I just started one on the GNS section of the Forum asking "Who's responsible for Premise - game designer, GM or player?"
It seems like it should be possible to develop game systems geared towards Narrativist play with no Premise embedded, but allowing players or GM to choose a Premise. Otherwise, it's like you'd have to choose a different game, or design your own game, any time you wanted to explore a different Premise.
I think I can anticipate what people will say in favor of embedded Premise. -That a game without Premise embedded is not really Narrativist. You wind up with Gamist or Simulationist mechanics and a Narrativist element added on top.
I just can't tell if or why that's a bad thing.
On 6/9/2002 at 1:49pm, contracycle wrote:
RE: Re: On embedding Premise
deidzoeb wrote:
I just can't tell if or why that's a bad thing.
Most games are not - thus there is more virgin territory to be discovered by concentrating on the things that are least expored. If for no other reason.
On 6/9/2002 at 4:56pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: On embedding Premise
We're looking at a couple of different things here. You can have a game that has Narrativist looking mechanics with no Narrative Premise at all (OTE for example), or you can have a game with Narr mechanics, and a requirement in the game that the participants craft a Premise (for example, TWtFatD) and mechanics to support the decided upon Premise. The first game does not support Narrativist play particularly well, it merely "gets out of the way", as it were. Such that Simulationists playing will probably play Sim (this was my experience with OTE). In other words, it requires a slight drift, namely the addition of an explicitly decided upon and agreed on Narrativist Premise, and adherence to that Premise despite a lack of mechanics to support it particularly, to play such a game in a Narrativist fashion. Whereas the second type of game will play Narrativist best because it does ask for that Premise up front and support it.
The question is whether you want to have a game that may end up being played either Sim or Narr, or you want a game that supports Narr specifically. The problem with the former is that Sim play of the game may be disatisfying due to the mechanics being slanted toward Narr play. Or that players may want to play it Narrativist but fail to realize that they need to inject a Premise to do so. In either case you're likely to get dissatisfying play, I'd think.
The question then becomes, why not have a Narrativist Premise, or rules for adding one, if the game has the intention of producing Narrativist play? Why allow for the possiblility of dissatisfying misuse? What is the downside of putting in a Narrativist Premise? It's been demonstrated that they don't have to be arbitrarily narrow. They can be wide enough to allow all sorts of play (Sorcerer for example). If a player has a set of rules that he thinks would be damaged by the changes reqired to pound in a Narrativist Premise, then perhaps what he actually wants is a Simulationist design anyhow.
Mike
On 6/10/2002 at 1:03pm, lumpley wrote:
RE: On embedding Premise
Walt:
"Protagonism first" character-concept-based protagonism: less need for embedded Premise.
Protagonism developed in-play from setting or situation: more need for embedded Premise in that setting or situation.
Doink!
That's the sound of me shuffling and resettling my approach to game design.
Thanks for saying that.
-Vincent
On 6/10/2002 at 5:21pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: On embedding Premise
Walt's definition is somewhat problematic. Protaonism in terms of Narrativism is specifically defined as the character addressing the Premise. Or in other words you can't have one without the other speaking in Narrativist terms.
In fact, the usual way of creating Premise is to make characters which are obviously designed to address a particular Premise. In Sorcerer, you create characters that only have any viability answering the "What would you do for power?" question. OTOH, this isn't the only way to inject Premise. Other mechanics are important as well, obviously.
What Walt has defined is a division of ways to address creating Premise. Character driven Premise versus Setting/Situation driven Premise. I'd also propose mechanics driven Premise. Probably more as well.
Note that if a game creates "Protagonists" that do not address a Premise, then this does not work towards creating a Narrativist game, as Protagonism here means something other than the Narrativist definition. Such "Protagonism" might work for Gamism, and probably for Sim, but does nothing to promote Narrativism. At best it might get the apellation "Abashed". As in a character who is equipped to deal with some Premise, but does not have one provided by the game.
Mike
On 6/10/2002 at 7:35pm, Walt Freitag wrote:
RE: On embedding Premise
What Walt has defined is a division of ways to address creating Premise. Note that if a game creates "Protagonists" that do not address a Premise, then this does not work towards creating a Narrativist game, as Protagonism here means something other than the Narrativist definition.
Which is exactly why I asserted that there is more need, if the goal is promoting Narrativist play, for embedded Premise when protagonism is to be generated primarily from setting or situation. I could see regarding that as tautological, but I don't see it being problematic.
However, you've somehow picked up on what I didn't say, which may indeed be more controversial. I used the vague phrases "more need" and "less need" deliberately because I do regard that need as only relative. Since Premise can be unacknowledged and still result in effective Narrativism, concentrating on literary Protagonism is a valid technique too, and any author or designer who feels more comfortable or more creatively inspired by approaching it that way should be encouraged to do so.
I'm talking technique, not definition. In practice, any author or designer who concentrates on some element of literary storytelling is going to be led to the others. I don't think it means very much one way or the other whether the author chooses to focus on "story quality," "premise," "protagonism," "imagery," "thematic conflict," "two/three-act dramatic structure," "dramatica theory," "genre-based story outcome expectations," or "screenwriting for dummies." That is to say, an author or designer might have, due to training or temperament, a strong preference for one or another touchstone principle or starting point for what makes a good story, but I doubt there would be much correlation between which one an author uses, and the quality of the results. (Here's two graphic artists, one who focuses on color and one who focuses on line. Can you tell, from that, which is the better artist?)
But, it's often said, "story quality" and "protagonism" cannot be used to differentiate Narrativist intentions because they have broad meanings that appear to also apply to simulationist or gamist goals. Bad news a-comin: all those terms do. Even Premise. I don't believe there is any literary term that you can invoke and say, "hey, if you have/are doing X, it's Narrativism, if you ain't you ain't, case closed." Premise has been upheld as such, but that works only because people don't understand it and think of it in much narrower terms than it warrants -- to the point where there's a constant clamor to add an additional category such as "dramatism" to cover cases where there's supposedly literary intent without Premise. (Those cases are illusory; prioritization of critical literary quality expectations implies the existence of Premise whether acknowledged or not.) It's convenient that when someone who priortizes only sim or gamist goals says "but I'm story oriented," you can say "yes, but you don't focus on exploration of Premise" and they'll shut up because they have no idea what the heck you mean and hence cannot phrase a convincing reply. But someone could just as easily respond, "sure I do, it's 'which is more important, treasure and wealth or power and experience?'" And you respond that that doesn't qualify because it's not based on an emotional moral decision, and he says, "well my players sure got emotional about it last week when they flipped the table over," and so forth. You'd end up back where you started before introducing all the highfalutin terminology: debating about what is and is not a good literary story. The only reason this doesn't happen is because only people who already have a clue about what makes a good story can comprehend Premise. So defining Narrativism in terms of Premise is a disguise for defining it the way I think a lot of us define it in our own minds: "Prioritization of story quality, by those who have a clue about what story quality is."
Which I have no objection to whatsoever. Which term or quality is used as definitional for Narrativism is irrelevant. It's all a big tautology. I've had lit professors whose courses I would have failed if I'd said on the final exam essay that the true essential molten core of literary quality is anything other than metaphor. And they're not wrong. If you looked deeply enough you could probably establish that it's impossible to have strong metaphor without protagonism, Premise, and all the other markers showing up too. Pick any good story, and while you show me its strong premise, I'll show you its strong use of metaphor. QED.
The pitfall is mistaking definition for prescription. Premise as the litmus test for whether what's being prioritized is really story in the literary sense is fine. But that doesn't mean consciously focusing on overt Premise is the only way to get there.
- Walt
On 6/10/2002 at 9:11pm, deidzoeb wrote:
RE: On embedding Premise
Mike Holmes wrote:
What is the downside of putting in a Narrativist Premise?
You can still have an enjoyable game with an embedded Premise, but do we need a new game system for each new Premise that players or GM want to deal with? I'll admit there are few gamers who would consciously think, "I really want to play with a new Premise this week." Probably a small sub-set of gamers and designers and people who've read some of this gaming theory. But once you describe Premise for them, the cat's out of the bag and they'll start looking for it.
I'm not trying to argue against designers embedding Premise if they want to. Just that allowing players or GM to choose Premise should not be seen as incompatible with Narrativist play, or as a defect in an otherwise Narrativist-facilitating game design.
I think the World the Flesh and the Devil shows that it doesn't ruin the game to put the burden of Premise on players, although the players need to recognize what a burden that is. Educating players or GMs about the need for a Premise and then letting them pick the Premise should work as effectively as embedding Premise in the design of the game.
On 6/10/2002 at 9:19pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: On embedding Premise
wfreitag wrote: The pitfall is mistaking definition for prescription. Premise as the litmus test for whether what's being prioritized is really story in the literary sense is fine. But that doesn't mean consciously focusing on overt Premise is the only way to get there.
I agree in principle.
The question is simply what will get players to play in a Narrativist fashion (that presumably being the goal). And either overt or covert, conscious or unconscious will probably work fine. Trying to prescribe a covert Premise, however, is hard, and prescribing doing it accidentally is doubly perilous. By your definitions that's like saying. "Try to make it good." At least with an overt premise one can be fairly certain they've hit the mark.
But, yes, to the extent that one can get a Premise in using any technique, it should work to produce Narrativist play. Tautologies or no. Were working from observation here. Should this be open to interperetation as to how to do so? Of course, the more methods the merrier. The problem is that many designers fail to use any method when tryihng to achieve the goal, and just hope that it happens.
Does OtherKind have some covert premise that we missed? Will production of theme be aided through play of said mechanicsin said setting with the fairy characters as presented? (Keep in mind that in my opinion, and answer of no, the game will be Sim is just fine by me; I'll play that way).
Mike
On 6/10/2002 at 9:28pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: On embedding Premise
deidzoeb wrote: You can still have an enjoyable game with an embedded Premise, but do we need a new game system for each new Premise that players or GM want to deal with? I'll admit there are few gamers who would consciously think, "I really want to play with a new Premise this week." Probably a small sub-set of gamers and designers and people who've read some of this gaming theory. But once you describe Premise for them, the cat's out of the bag and they'll start looking for it.
I'm not trying to argue against designers embedding Premise if they want to. Just that allowing players or GM to choose Premise should not be seen as incompatible with Narrativist play, or as a defect in an otherwise Narrativist-facilitating game design.
Again, what if they don't shoose a Premise? Not being told to by the system, and perhaps counting on the system for it, a group may simply not choose a Premise. And then you get something other than Narrativist play. Which may be a problem if the system also does not support the style that ends up being played.
I think the World the Flesh and the Devil shows that it doesn't ruin the game to put the burden of Premise on players, although the players need to recognize what a burden that is. Educating players or GMs about the need for a Premise and then letting them pick the Premise should work as effectively as embedding Premise in the design of the game.I've made an exception for such games. I like that idea a lot. I see no problem with such games.
But the game that touched this off was not such a game. In that game all mention of any method by which to achieve Premise was missing, despite other mechanics that were designed potentially to support Narrativist play. Hence the suggestion to include a Narrativist Premise in some fashion. I would simply ammend that suggestion to say, "Or some mechanic whereby the players and/or GM are induced to inject Premise".
Note that there is a notion that such games simply have broad or possibly meta-premises already, and one is simply being asked to refine for purposes of play. I'm hoping my latest system, Synthesis, does exactly this. In any case, the allowance of such games and the idea that Premises can start very broadly (See Sorcerer), leads me to believe that the one game per Premise issue is a Straw man. OTOH, it does leave the door open for people to design such specific games if they like.
Mike
On 6/11/2002 at 3:58am, Walt Freitag wrote:
RE: On embedding Premise
Mike Holmes wrote: Does OtherKind have some covert premise that we missed? Will production of theme be aided through play of said mechanicsin said setting with the fairy characters as presented? (Keep in mind that in my opinion, and answer of no, the game will be Sim is just fine by me; I'll play that way).
From what I've seen I don't think Otherkind already has a covert Premise that we've missed. But there are many paths to enhancing the narrative quality of the game that involve premise indirectly. And some designers might be more comfortable working from those approaches than starting with, Got Premise?
One possibility is thematic conflict. OtherKind already has well-enumerated conflict, so a next step might be to consider the conflict in thematic terms by asking: "What do these conflicts mean?" And can those meanings be better conveyed by changing the way the conflict is described, either in the game text or in the mechanics? Do so, and that's embedded Premise, but it might never be stated explicitly.
Another path, as I said, is focus on protagonism. Ask, "how and why will characters become more emotionally involved in this situation (or with this setting) over time?" Provide principles or mechanics for making that happen. Premise will be there, never fear. If you want you can coax it out later and put a spotlight on it. Or not.
And are we so afraid that someone might misunderstand what we mean by "story" that it’s totally unacceptable to address the issue head-on, and ask, "How could this game system be made to facilitate creation of stories of greater literary merit?" That’s the goal of Narrativism, after all.
One way of assessing literary merit is by the quality and consistency of the premise. Another way of assessing literary merit is to, well, assess the literary merit. No litmus tests, no formulas, just exercising your critical faculties to ask how good are the stories and how could they be made better? To paraphrase the sex education instructor in Monty’ Python’s The Meaning Of Life, we have many possibilities to consider before we stampede the Premise.
- Walt
On 6/11/2002 at 5:41am, deidzoeb wrote:
RE: On embedding Premise
Mike, I think we very nearly agree on this, but maybe I'm not expressing myself clearly.
Again, what if they don't choose a Premise? Not being told to by the system, and perhaps counting on the system for it, a group may simply not choose a Premise.
That's what I meant by, "Educating players or GMs about the need for a Premise and then letting them pick the Premise..." I'm saying that players or GMs would be explicitly told in the rules how to create a Premise, what Premise means and why it's necessary, but wouldn't be limited to one embedded Premise this way.
Give a player one Premise (embedded in the system mechanics), he'll play with it until bored with that Premise. Teach him how to craft a Premise, he'll be able to make more.
On 6/11/2002 at 11:54am, Matt wrote:
RE: On embedding Premise
Give a player one Premise (embedded in the system mechanics), he'll play with it until bored with that Premise. Teach him how to craft a Premise, he'll be able to make more.
This is sort of the way I'm heading with Covenant. It goes for a more general thematic question rewarding mechanic. It evolved from a feeling that many players want a set of characters who they can address a different question/Premise every week, kinda like the difference between a movie and a TV series.
Matt
On 6/11/2002 at 2:48pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: On embedding Premise
deidzoeb wrote: Mike, I think we very nearly agree on this, but maybe I'm not expressing myself clearly.
...
Give a player one Premise (embedded in the system mechanics), he'll play with it until bored with that Premise. Teach him how to craft a Premise, he'll be able to make more.
We do agree then. All I'm worried about is inconsistent Narrativist design where Premise never occurs. As I've said, I have a couple of designs that do exactly what you're saying, so I'd be foolish to say that it can't work.
And you're last point is intersting. I've been thinking about this a lot lately. One of the potential advantages of the "player crafted premise" is that they can be individual to characters. This is what the Kickers are in Sorcerer, essentially. A player narrowing of the Premise until it is directly stuck to the character. Otherwise you get the same Premise for all characters, and that'd be odd. That said, I think that's a potential problem for some Premise driven designs that are coming out.
Mike
On 6/11/2002 at 11:06pm, deidzoeb wrote:
RE: On embedding Premise
Re: player crafted premise.
That's a question I've been avoiding, because it will probably reveal my incomplete understanding of the term "Premise." A character can be designed with a Premise, but a setting or plot or even the game mechanics can be designed to address a Premise. Are there games that address both of these? Would it cause problems to play through multiple Premises like this?
I assume it wouldn't cause a lot of problems. It would be like plots and subplots in a longer story, where they weave around each other.
Whether it's the player or the designer or GM who creates a Premise, can these be centered on a character more than a setting, or is it more dependent on the setting (and therefore defined by the GM or game designer)? For example, Romeo and Juliet asks "Does love conquer all?" You could "attach" this Premise to one character or the other, but how do you play it out if the GM or designer tells Romeo he's stranded on a desert island? Or worse, can Romeo and Juliet address the same Premise if their families get along fine? It seems like a setting or situation could undermine a character-centered Premise, so the GM has to be really careful when letting players create their Premise.
Guess I was under the impression that a Premise can be centered on the character, but even then it still depends heavily on the situation that GM or designer creates.
On 6/12/2002 at 1:16pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: On embedding Premise
Diedzoeb (I hope that's not your real name),
This seems like an odd notion to me. The character addresses the premise in the setting and in the situation provided using the mechanics provided. Can there be more than one Premise? I suppose so. Has anyone suggested that? Not that I'm aware. I'm not sure if that would be a good or bad idea. To try to address more than one Premise at a time might detract from both, thouh it is an interesting notion.
The only discussion I've seen (as with Walt's arguments) is what methods that single Premise can be arrived at. Create the Premise via mechanics, create the Premise via CharGen, create the Premise via Situation. Or some combination, or something more subtle as Walt describes. The idea of a player created Premise is simply to narrow the broader Premise presented by the Setting and Mechanics to one suited for the particular character chosen.
In Sorcerer this is done via Kicker. In my Synthesis I have a similar thing called a Personal Struggle (I'm thinking of retitling it simply a Character Premise, though JB likes the dialectic reference). Interestingly, at first I thought it would be neccessary to create a group Premise from the general Premise, and then narrow it further for each character. However, I am reconsidering that interim step at this point. It might serve to unify, but it might also unneccessarily overconstrain.
In any case these methods all presuppose that in the end there will be one narrow Premise for the character that the player will address through play.
Mike
On 6/12/2002 at 11:48pm, deidzoeb wrote:
RE: On embedding Premise
I'm just muddling the conversation with more thoughts about Premise. I'll start a new thread on this topic later.