[Should this be in RPG Theory ? If so can one of the admins move it for me]

Maybe it's just something that bugs me but how come every time someone posts a new game round here the first round of replies all say what's the premise ? I can see that a premise is sometimes good in a game, but I can't see why it is essential.

Is every game that links a premise really incomplete ? Do we really have to assume gamers are so stupid that they cannot look at a game and find the premises in that game that suit their interests ?

Most commercial games don't have a premise, at least not one that is stated outright and most certainly not one which the entire game is based around. So why the desperate need to have a premise ?

Thank you Andy. I agree completely that incorporating a Premise into a game is optional, at least as I understand the term as it used around there parts.

Basically, I feel that it should be left up to the players and GM to determine the premise of their own games. I tend to strongly dislike game mechanics which specifically assume that the players and GM should be exploring the issue that the game designer feels important. It's good for some people, I'm sure, and it's often cool to see how the mechanics support the stated premise. But that's all theory. When I'm playing or running a game, I like the lattitude that a "premise-neutral" generic ruleset affords. The end-user should be the one who ultimately decides what an RPG is really "about."

Does a game need a premise? Absolutely not.
-e.

This may be part of a common confusion about the meaning of the term Premise. Or rather it's multiple meanings. Many people assume incorrectly that Premise refers only to Narrative Premise. But this is not the case. A careful reading of Ron's essay shows that by Premise in general, we mean "What you do in the game." Every game has one of these. If the game is a Supers game, then the premise may be "Seeing what it's like to be a superhero" or "Fighting crime" or whatever.

So, if you're saying that not all games need a Narrativist premise, then, I'd agree. Only Narrativist games need them, and a game can even be "vanilla narrativist" without one.

But all games need that something that says, "this is what the game is about" that grabs the player and makes him want to play.

Mike

AndyGuest wrote: [Should this be in RPG Theory ? If so can one of the admins move it for me]

Maybe it's just something that bugs me but how come every time someone posts a new game round here the first round of replies all say what's the premise ? I can see that a premise is sometimes good in a game, but I can't see why it is essential.

Even an interesting setting is a kind of Premise: What's it like living in the world?

that's exactly right willows.

That would be an excellent example of a possible Simulationist premise. As Mike noted above premise exists on many different levels.

It is one of the unfortuneate features of the way the GNS lexicon developed that premise is used in several different ways. I get confused by it myself.

As someone who is really not that fond of Ron's decision to broaden the use of the word premise to encompass all three modes of play described in his essay, I'd like back Mike up with my own thoughts on the matter.

Indeed as Mike points out Ron's essay uses basically two versions of the word premise. There's the braod applicable to all modes of play premise (which I usually denote with a lower case p) and then there's the specific to Narrativist play only Premise (which I usually denote with a capital P). This in my opinion yeilds a shit load of confusion because when someone asks, "What's the premise of your game?" you have no idea if they're just asking you what the game is about or if they have a particular vested interest in Narrativist play and want to know if your game is compatable with their interests.

Thus I usually use the phrase "point of play" in place of lower-case p premise. So you'll find me asking things like, "What's the point of this game?" or "What do the players do?" or simply, "What is the point of play?" This is also a way of asking the designer WHY they are building the game and WHY they are making the design decision they are. It's an excercise in clearly definining one's design goals so that the setting/system you end up with supports those design goals, regardless of style of play that results.

Example By Bias:

The following reflects my personal preferences and biases and in no way is meant to reflect poorly on those who enjoy the game I'm about criticise. If you would like to discuss my specific example please do so through a private email as I think a detailed discussion will just throw this thread off topic.

A while back I tried to run a game of Werewolf and it was a mess because I couldn't for the life of me find a focus for play. When reading the game text I found myself torn between these points of play: Adressing the emotion of Rage through the metaphore of being a Werewolf. Fighting the forces of the Wyrm. Climbing the socio-political ladder of tribal politics. Addressing the needs of the individual vs the needs of group. Exploring the reconciliation of the industrial side of man and his natural place in the world. And probably a couple more I can't think of.

Now, you could say, that's the great thing about Werewolf and games of it's ilk. It's got so many things you COULD do with it and it will reach a broader audience and it's up to the play group to find the focus they want. That's all well and good but there are two problems.

1) I find that MOST play groups never give this issue any thought and so different players latch onto to different focuses and thus the gaming group pulls itself appart from within. This is precisely what happened to my group even thought I DID try to address this issue up front with the group.

2) The system itself tries to accomodate all these things and ends up aiding the problem of pulling everyone in different directions.

My little catch phrase for the WoD games in general tends to be: What the game SAYS it's about, what the game IS about, and what the system MAKES it about are often three different and opposing things.

Thus to obtain any kind of focus not only must the play group extrapolate out of the vast amounts of game text the elements that interest them, they must also reshape the system to accomodate those needs as well, thus White Wolf's god awful "Golden Rule."

If you want flexibilty of focus for your game far better to take a game like Sorcerer or Paladin's approach. Both of these games NEED customization before they are playable. Those customizations DRASTICALLY impact what the game is about and what player's do. BUT they do not alter the fundamental game underneath. The rules do not change. The nature of the GAME does not change. The need for customization was considered and built in AT THE TIME OF DESIGN. So, that rather than just throwing together a lot of cool ideas and letting the play group sort it out, these games draw attention to the points: Define this, customize that, make sure to pay attention to this other thing before you start playing.

Just my two cents.

Jesse

to carry on with some of the comments mike and valamir made:

a premise is the unifying concept of the game. if you don't have a unifying concept for your game, you won't know what to include or what to leave out, nor will you be able to design game mechanics that will support your central concept.

every RPG has a premise. some premises are very broad: the game concept includes many possibilities. some games have a vague premise or more than one premise, usually in conflict; these games tend to be hard to figure out.

some games that clone other popular games have the premise "I want some of Game X's action". you can always tell these games, because the designers never seem to be excited about the setting or system they are describing.

even a game that isn't about much of anything has the premise "stuff happens, then more stuff happens, and then we break for pizza".

Hi there,

All right already, yes, the multiple-meanings of Premise in my essay are confusing. I haven't seen a good solution for it yet (and no, extra terms are a lousy solution). We can talk about that later.

Andy, the most general meaning of Premise, and the only one that a game "has" to have, is just this: ... what interests a group of people about playing a given RPG. So ipso facto, if they wanna play, there's a Premise. It is literally impossible to be interested in playing an RPG without one, even if that Premise is the most basic thing imaginable (e.g. "I like hosing Cody when he brags about his character, by strategizing better than him" - to pick one of many possible examples).

I think the problem you're struggling with reflects a specific misunderstanding on your part. Premise is a feature of the people and not the game. Therefore, when we say that "Game X has Premise A," we are really saying, "Features of Game X prompt most people who read it to get pumped up about Premise A." That's a big difference and an important one.

The focus on "what's the Premise" in many game discussions at the Forge is based on the idea that a game design often benefits by identifying, as an author, what Premise or range of them you want to prompt in readers (potential players). "Anything" is non-functional; it usually leads to incoherent (which in practice = unhappy) play. Specifying to a GNS-mode (which is to say focusing Premise) is, I think, much more useful.

However, three things make this constraint much more relaxed than I think you're seeing. (1) Premise arises from any combination/emphasis of the five elements of role-playing, not one in particular. (2) The range of possible Premises for a given game design can be very broad (e.g. Scattershot); granted, many Forge-active authors like to focus tightly, myself included, but that's not obligatory. (3) Literally hundreds of possible focused Premises are possible, scattered all over and throughout the GNS categories - there's so much room that it's hardly a constraint at all in terms of content. Related to this last point, a game-author might "work backwards" from any number of envisioned aspects of play, in order to articulate Premise, rather than starting there.

Best,
Ron

Mike Holmes wrote: This may be part of a common confusion about the meaning of the term Premise. Or rather it's multiple meanings. Many people assume incorrectly that Premise refers only to Narrative Premise. But this is not the case. A careful reading of Ron's essay shows that by Premise in general, we mean "What you do in the game." Every game has one of these. If the game is a Supers game, then the premise may be "Seeing what it's like to be a superhero" or "Fighting crime" or whatever.

So, if you're saying that not all games need a Narrativist premise, then, I'd agree. Only Narrativist games need them, and a game can even be "vanilla narrativist" without one.

But all games need that something that says, "this is what the game is about" that grabs the player and makes him want to play.

Mike

Hey Andy,

I get what you're saying. And Ron's post clicked something into place for me. As he said, a tight focused premise is not an obligatory part of design AND premise is what the PEOPLE are excited about. So really the fundamental problem underlying is this: If the game does not provide a tightly focused premise then how to do you solve the incoherency problem that results when six people at a game table are all excited about six different potential premises?

This is why I like the game itself to have tightly focused premise because it guarantees that if I'm excited about the game then everyone else who says they're excited about the game MUST be excited about the same thing because there's a very limited focus. Thus when the game starts up, everyone is guaranteed to be on the same page.

Here's a concrete example of the problem I'm talking about.

So, our group is getting together to play D&D3E game set in the Forgotten Realms. After two whole months of play the game's going no where. We're wandering around with no aim or purpose and nothing's happening. The players are frustrated, the GM is frustrated. Finally, I take a step back and look back on everything that's happened and it hits me. The GM and the players are playing two entirely different games.

The players were all fired about playing good old classic D&D. We were looking forward to crafting our characters, going on quests, overcoming some challenges and walking away heroes at the end of the day. The GM on the other hand was all fired up about The Forgotten Realms and looking forward to game that was all about dealing with the socio-economic climate that the realm produces. It's not that there weren't quests to go on or challenges to over come, it's just that we couldn't find them or when we did find them we didn't know how to deal with them because we were on two different pages.

Things the GM gave us that were supposed to be MAJOR clues (like the currency we were paid in or the description of architecture of a given building) we took to be color and fluff. We kept waiting for the adventure to begin and the GM kept waiting for us to put all the clues he thought he'd been dishing out all along together and finally act on it. For the players the Forgotten Realms was just the environment in which a D&D game was taking place. For the GM the vary nature of The Forgotten Realms was the game being played.

So, if the game itself doesn't provide a tight focus, which I agree it doesn't HAVE to, then I'd be very interested in hearing proposals for solutions to the problems I've stated about my Werewolf experience and the D&D3E-Forgotten Realms experience.

Thanks.

Jesse

Hi there,

Jesse, that was very nicely stated; I agree in full.

Andy, I'm interested in your feedback regarding my post.

Best,
Ron

Whether or not you embrace Ron's essay and terminology, I feel that the question, "what's the point of playing your game?" is a frustrating question to try and answer, and I don't see much value in asking it. Check that, I see absolutely no value in asking it whatsoever.

Bottom line is, there is no point to playing any game, if you get down to brass tacks.

What is a worthwhile question, OTOH, and gets closer to the meat of the matter is, "why are you writing this game?" I think that's what the question "what's the premise" means in most cases. As such, I question the validity of the using the word premise. As a concept from the GNS essay it is helpful to think about. In casual discussion of a specific game, it's less so because it can refer to so many different aspects of game theory.

AndyGuest wrote:
Take the Star Trek game for example. Given the core rules (of whichever version you prefer) what is the premise. There is none. Or to be more specific there is no core premise.

jburneko wrote: So, if the game itself doesn't provide a tight focus, which I agree it doesn't HAVE to, then I'd be very interested in hearing proposals for solutions to the problems I've stated about my Werewolf experience and the D&D3E-Forgotten Realms experience.

Thanks.

Jesse

Ron Edwards wrote: Hi there,

All right already, yes, the multiple-meanings of Premise in my essay are confusing. I haven't seen a good solution for it yet (and no, extra terms are a lousy solution). We can talk about that later.

Ron Edwards wrote:
Andy, the most general meaning of Premise, and the only one that a game "has" to have, is just this: ... what interests a group of people about playing a given RPG. So ipso facto, if they wanna play, there's a Premise. It is literally impossible to be interested in playing an RPG without one, even if that Premise is the most basic thing imaginable (e.g. "I like hosing Cody when he brags about his character, by strategizing better than him" - to pick one of many possible examples).

Ron Edwards wrote:
I think the problem you're struggling with reflects a specific misunderstanding on your part. Premise is a feature of the people and not the game. Therefore, when we say that "Game X has Premise A," we are really saying, "Features of Game X prompt most people who read it to get pumped up about Premise A." That's a big difference and an important one.

Ron Edwards wrote:
The focus on "what's the Premise" in many game discussions at the Forge is based on the idea that a game design often benefits by identifying, as an author, what Premise or range of them you want to prompt in readers (potential players). "Anything" is non-functional; it usually leads to incoherent (which in practice = unhappy) play. Specifying to a GNS-mode (which is to say focusing Premise) is, I think, much more useful.

Ron Edwards wrote:
However, three things make this constraint much more relaxed than I think you're seeing. (1) Premise arises from any combination/emphasis of the five elements of role-playing, not one in particular. (2) The range of possible Premises for a given game design can be very broad (e.g. Scattershot); granted, many Forge-active authors like to focus tightly, myself included, but that's not obligatory. (3) Literally hundreds of possible focused Premises are possible, scattered all over and throughout the GNS categories - there's so much room that it's hardly a constraint at all in terms of content. Related to this last point, a game-author might "work backwards" from any number of envisioned aspects of play, in order to articulate Premise, rather than starting there.

Best,
Ron

silkworm wrote: Whether or not you embrace Ron's essay and terminology, I feel that the question, "what's the point of playing your game?" is a frustrating question to try and answer, and I don't see much value in asking it. Check that, I see absolutely no value in asking it whatsoever.

silkworm wrote: Bottom line is, there is no point to playing any game, if you get down to brass tacks.

What is a worthwhile question, OTOH, and gets closer to the meat of the matter is, "why are you writing this game?" I think that's what the question "what's the premise" means in most cases. As such, I question the validity of the using the word premise. As a concept from the GNS essay it is helpful to think about. In casual discussion of a specific game, it's less so because it can refer to so many different aspects of game theory.

talysman wrote:

AndyGuest wrote:
Take the Star Trek game for example. Given the core rules (of whichever version you prefer) what is the premise. There is none. Or to be more specific there is no core premise.

isn't the core premise "what's it like to live in the star trek universe?"

sure, you can narrow the premise down and think in terms of klingons and their honor, or play an all-cadet game at star fleet academy... but in terms of what I said about premises, the game is about star trek... and in terms of what ron said, the premise that the players are excited about is also "star trek".

or, again, it could be about waiting for the pizza to arrive.

but it is definitely about something.

Andy, I believe you and those replying to you are on different pages. In an effort to try and bring you all together, the premise issue is one of, at its most simple: "What do you DO?" All games have this.

This is, in "Immortal": "You are a reawakened god."
This is, in "Star Trek": "You live in the future (as imagined by Gene Roddenberry)."
This is, in "D&D": "You are characters in a fantasy world."

The simple act of being a game results in a premise...not a Narrativist Premise, but a premise: simply, what you are and what you can do with the game.

How's this:
Imagine using "Star Trek" to play a game where everyone is a bunch of primitives on an undiscovered planet -- now don't ever expose them to technology or the Federation or other aliens. You play alien cave-men. End.

Sure, you could do it, it would be a little odd, but can you see where the "Star Trek" premise is now? "Ships, phasers, aliens, etc." The whole "Star Trek" deal is the premise.

Now each group can customize a Premise (cap. "P") that is to their liking: "We want to play Klingons" or "We want to play the stranded survivors of a crashed Starship" or "Let's blow up Cardacia" or whatever. Whether they will or not, or will even think of it, is a seperate issue.

AndyGuest wrote:
Perhaps this is a given, but every time someone posts a new game round here that doesn't have a single, focused premise the first half dozen replies all seem to be 'what's the premise ?'.

jburneko wrote:

AndyGuest wrote:
Perhaps this is a given, but every time someone posts a new game round here that doesn't have a single, focused premise the first half dozen replies all seem to be 'what's the premise ?'.

I have a very pragmatic answer with which you are free to agree or disagree but when I read the above this is what came to mind: If you can't articulate what you want your game to be about, then functionally we as group can't help you design it. Or at least we can't help you on the level of the big picture.

We can throw a lot of additional ideas at you. For example, we can help fill in setting gaps with "realistic" possibilities and solutions. We can attack it from various personal preference angles. For example, we can tell you if we think a mechanic is overly simple or overly complex based solely on what we personally like in a game. But we can't help you make the game be the game you've always wanted to play if we don't know what that vision is.

Jesse

greyorm wrote: Andy, I believe you and those replying to you are on different pages. In an effort to try and bring you all together, the premise issue is one of, at its most simple: "What do you DO?" All games have this.

This is, in "Immortal": "You are a reawakened god."
This is, in "Star Trek": "You live in the future (as imagined by Gene Roddenberry)."
This is, in "D&D": "You are characters in a fantasy world."

The simple act of being a game results in a premise...not a Narrativist Premise, but a premise: simply, what you are and what you can do with the game.

How's this:
Imagine using "Star Trek" to play a game where everyone is a bunch of primitives on an undiscovered planet -- now don't ever expose them to technology or the Federation or other aliens. You play alien cave-men. End.

Sure, you could do it, it would be a little odd, but can you see where the "Star Trek" premise is now? "Ships, phasers, aliens, etc." The whole "Star Trek" deal is the premise.

Now each group can customize a Premise (cap. "P") that is to their liking: "We want to play Klingons" or "We want to play the stranded survivors of a crashed Starship" or "Let's blow up Cardacia" or whatever. Whether they will or not, or will even think of it, is a seperate issue.

One of the problems of a set of rules with a wide-open premise is that the rules are almost always incoherent--indeed, must be incoherent to support as wide a range of premises as Andy is describing. This interacts with Forge culture in two important ways:

• We are, institutionally, prejudiced against GNS incoherence.
• To play an incoherent game in a manner satisfying to all participants requires a certain degree of drift, and we're prejudiced against that too.

I don't think that designing a game that requires a certain amount of drift to be playable is one of the Seven Deadly Game-Design Sins. In fact, as Jared showed in octaNe, you can anticipate the need for drift and design the necessary dials into the system. I think that's a laudable effort.

Hi Andy,

I suggest that your phrase:
"'here's something I think is cool, I've made it into a game, now you take it and do what you want with it.'"

... is sufficient. The issue, however, is whether you (the game content) has communicated the coolness enough so that I'm inspired to do anything with it at all, regardless of whether you've specified it or kept it general.

That's what people are asking about, when they say, "What's the Premise?" They are saying, giving me what you've given is not doing the job.

That is a chronic problem in most RPGs, and I have identified a few habits that fail to solve it (e.g. piling on setting til you could plotz without linking up character and situation in any inspiring way, and many others). That's the problem people often bring to the Forge.

I agree with you that asking "How would you play" is perhaps the very best way to help people with this crucial design issue. Roy's thread about that has become a staple of Indie Design referencing, although not so much in this last month (and I recommend people start doing it more often).

Also, I suggest that a little self-reflection is in order - your sense of "insult" in regard to this question is, I think, beyond the scope of anything I can discuss.

Best,
Ron

quot;AndyGuest
But what if the game you've always wanted to create is as wide open as, say Werewolf ?

Seems to me that talking about "the premise" is a bit restrictive. Given the wide meaning of the word and the fact thar players at the same table don't approach the game in the same way then you should probably be talking about "premises".

Take Sorcerer for example, the kicker that the player defines could be taken as their premise. This means each player can expressly have a different premise.

And then of course there are players who aren't terribly bothered what the game is about, they just want the opportunity to play thei character, show off, bully people or hang out.

As such I'm not really sure how useful it is, but then I never did get GNS either so YMMV.

Cheers,
Steve

GreatWolf wrote: So, let's say that Mark Rein*Hagen showed up here and said, "Hey, I have this idea for a game where you roleplay ghosts." Someone says, "So, what's the premise?" He might answer like this:

"Well, I want a game that's wide open to a lot of different ways of playing. What I'm really interested in doing is simulating the ghostly nature of the characters. For example, every wraith has a dark side that embodies his own personal Imp of the Perverse, and sometimes that Imp (I'm calling it a Shadow, BTW) takes over. But how can I have this Shadow be truly horrifying? Any ideas on how to do this?"

Aha! Now there is room for us to comment. Some might say this, and others might say that. And then finally someone would say, "Hey! Why don't you let one of the players actually role-play the Shadow? It'll be a little like troupe-style play from Ars Magica." (Which is how the Shadow is handled in Wraith, which is tres cool.)

Does that clarify? Even if the premise is "You're a ghost", that has some specific meaning in your mind which might not exist in mine.

GB Steve wrote: Seems to me that talking about "the premise" is a bit restrictive. Given the wide meaning of the word and the fact thar players at the same table don't approach the game in the same way then you should probably be talking about "premises".

Take Sorcerer for example, the kicker that the player defines could be taken as their premise. This means each player can expressly have a different premise.

And then of course there are players who aren't terribly bothered what the game is about, they just want the opportunity to play thei character, show off, bully people or hang out.

Seth L. Blumberg wrote:


• We are, institutionally, prejudiced against GNS incoherence.
• To play an incoherent game in a manner satisfying to all participants requires a certain degree of drift, and we're prejudiced against that too.

AndyGuest wrote: No I don't think you get where I'm coming from at all.

Marco:

Excellent points. A couple of thoughts.

1) A game exists to provide definition and freedom.

The whole point of a game system is to provide limitations to the sort of play that is "allowed" under the game. For instance, in Wraith, you have to play a wraith. (Well, at least in the core rules.) Moreover, you have to have a Shadow. These are not negotiable. These are part of the game. Changing these requirements changes the basic nature of the game.

At the same time, by defining areas of restriction, a game also defines areas of freedom that are open to individual customization without changing the nature of the game.

As I'm writing Legends of Alyria I am working at explicitly communicating the areas of restriction and freedom. So, for instance, I say "LoA is about conflicts of Good and Evil" and provide mechanics to support this. This means that the standard dungeon crawl is outside the penumbra of acceptable options in LoA. This helps focus the players. (It also qualifies as a hook of the game, IMHO, and is a partial answer to Marco's question "What is cool about this game?")

At the same time, I am leaving many unanswered setting questions for LoA, as well as "blank" areas of the map and tell the players that those spaces are specifically for them. I even give examples of what could fit into those spaces. (e.g. the Digger Paladins that I just posted). But that is a specifically defined area of freedom that can be used to swing your game of LoA in the direction that you would like.

The same applies to Wraith. While I understand Jared's point about the Premise of Wraith (resolving Fetters and moving on), that is not the only possible method of play for Wraith. The game allows for other styles of play, including the aforementioned dungeon crawl. Personally, I wouldn't play it like that, but you could do so, if you wanted.

2) Your question

If I had read the description of Sorceror that Ron (for this example, a newcomer to The Forge) had posted and then answered "So Ron, I read all that about the player's setting their own goals and narrating the story and stuff ... but what's *cool* about the game? A big list of cool Demons? What stuff in the environment does it provide that I couldn't come up with myself in 10 seconds? Ron, do you have to focus on a time and place--or do you care if your game is setting-incoherent?" would I be helping him make his game?

Marco wrote: If six people around the table want to play Werewolf in six different ways and the GM blames the game system, it assumes the players don't know what they want.

"So Ron, I read all that about the player's setting their own goals and narrating the story and stuff ... but what's *cool* about the game? A big list of cool Demons? What stuff in the environment does it provide that I couldn't come up with myself in 10 seconds? Ron, do you have to focus on a time and place--or do you care if your game is setting-incoherent?" would I be helping him make his game?

GreatWolf wrote: The same applies to Wraith. While I understand Jared's point about the Premise of Wraith (resolving Fetters and moving on), that is not the only possible method of play for Wraith. The game allows for other styles of play, including the aforementioned dungeon crawl. Personally, I wouldn't play it like that, but you could do so, if you wanted.

Hey Seth!

I'm not saying that a game shouldn't provide any structure--as far as what you said goes, I agree completely. I'm just saying that an extremely highly focused structure is not prima facie a good thing (Jared's not getting it aside).

I don't think that taking a Narrativist design and asking a bunch of Sim questions about it would help his design much ("Ron, if you don't include lots of setting and a list of demons people won't know what to do!"). I actually think it'd be missing the point of his game.

-Marco

Just to be clear, Jared, I'm quite sympathetic to what you are saying, and I design in the same direction. I'm only saying that I can see how a game that basically boils down to "You're an X in a world where A, B, and C are happening" can be satisfying to some folks. The broad toolkit approach works for some folks. At the same time, there is still a toolkit being provided in the game, which implies that there are boundaries to what can be accomplished by any game, even the ones that are trying to be broad.

Seth Ben-Ezra
Great Wolf

Every form of creative endeavor has an annoying question that no one wants to hear.

In fiction writing it's usually "Why should I care about these characters?"

In scientific research it's "Have these results been replicated by anyone else?"

In computer software development it's "Isn't Microsoft going to include that feature for free in the next Windows release?"

In enterpreneurship it's usually "What's the market?" meaning "And who do you think is going to be willing to pay for the kewl product or service you want to provide?"

In every form of creative endeavor, those who love the craft and who care about the people undertaking it are the ones who always ask the annoying question. Because they know that if they don't ask it, the skeptical audience will, with far more devastating effect.

So it is for role playing game design. As far as I'm concerned these are all more or less equivalent:

"What's the premise?" (Short for, what type of in-play premises does your game best support?)

"What is it about your game that would make me want to play it instead of some other game?"

"What's your game about?"

"How do you envision your game being played?"

"What's cool about your game?"

Equivalent, but not interchangeable. I don't use the last phrasing because there are lots of people out there who think a game concept is cool because the dwarves wield crossbows instead of axes. In fact, I assume that the initial posted description is already supposed to convince me that the game is cool. Asking "what's cool" at that point either makes it seem that I haven't been paying attention (which is false) or that I don't think the game is cool enough (which is also false). The truth is simply that what's been presented so far probably isn't the stuff that will convince me whether the game is cool or not.

I don't usually ask "what's the premise?" because it's not clear enough what I'm asking. I don't usually ask the second question because it comes across too hostile, as though I'd only be interested in discussing the game if I think it's good enough for me to purchase, which is not true. But it's what I'm thinking when I ask the third or fourth question.

In any case, in one way or another, you have to be able to answer some form of the question "what types of in-play premises does your game best support?" or "...do you want it to best support?" in order for any further discussion to be worthwhile. If you claim that your fantasy game supports all fantasy premises equally, just like nine other fantasy game systems already on my shelf also claim to do, then one of the following must be true:

1. It doesn't support any premise any better than the games I already have. In which case, there's no reason to play the game.

2. It supports some premises better than other games do, and some not. In which case, tell me which premises it supports the best. That's all I was asking in the first place.

3. It supports all possible premises better than all other games. This is unlikely, but if you've achieved it, tell me so and make that your premise: "This game is superior to all previous fantasy RPGs in all respects." (But please be patient with me if my initial reaction is skeptical.)

- Walt

[edited to fix an egregious grammatical error]

greyorm wrote:

Marco wrote: If six people around the table want to play Werewolf in six different ways and the GM blames the game system, it assumes the players don't know what they want.

Which is a valid assumption, insofar as the players don't really realize they have different play goals that cannot be supported by one campaign, nor can verbalize their differences in a meaningful, non-argumentative fashion.

Yeah, yeah...I'll get called an elitist pig...whatever. I've been in way too many gaming groups and heard from players or GMs in other groups who, now that I look back events with a clear vocabulary for/understanding of the situation, had exactly this problem not to call black 'black.'

Be careful here, because IMO you're mixing up GNS issues with a non-GNS issue. We're not talking about lacking Narrativist Premise, thus the counter example of asking about setting development and such is off-base, IMO.

Related to that, I don't believe the "I don't know what to do with it" is as benign or desirable as you believe (ie: incoherent premise). The majority of gamers I've met have stated the following in regards to Immortal, when it comes up, "Yeah, Immortal looked cool, but I never knew what to do with it, so I shelved it." (And note that the head writer rewrote the game due in large part to this very issue: he kept hearing the same thing from the majority of gamers who wrote to him about it.)

That doesn't sound like good design to me.

Well said Walt.

I'd say that a misplaced sense of some sort of egalatarian game design political correctness does more harm then good.

Just because a particular group playing a particular way says they "enjoy" their play doesn't mean: 1) that there isn't some underlying issues they haven't confronted yet, or 2) that their enjoyment couldn't be increased by taking a critical look at their set of assumptions.

Everyone has a comfort zone of how they've gotten used to playing and associate "playing" with "playing the way I'm used to". A good, valid, and effective motivation for alot of the questions that are asked here is to shake up that paradigm a bit. Challenge the assumptions of a person's particular play style. Not challenge them in the sense of trying to prove "they're doing it wrong" as I think Marco fears, but challenge them in the sense of getting them to analyse WHY they do the things they do.

In a game design sense its not enough to ask if a rule works or doesn't work. First you have to determine what it is the rule is supposed to do. Most people make that step automatically. But much more important to the game design in the long run is WHY you want the rule to begin with. Why is the question that is going to get you reassess design decision.

Speaking from experience, the number of rules that Mike and I cut from Universalis simply because when challenged we couldn't come up with a satisfactory why could fill a rule book by itself.

Asking "what's the premise?" Is really nothing more than a big flashing "why". Why have you designed the game they way you have. Why should anyone play this game rather than an existing game. Why do you think rule X is necessary or rule Y is absent.

Does it sometimes seem like perhaps narrativist questions are being asked of a simulationist design. Sure...and for good reason. Because if you can't even elucidate why you want a simulationist design to begin with than you've really put the cart before the horse in starting to work on the design. If there are good solid "yes I've thought about that and this is what I really want" reasons for a particular design choice...than fantastic...share them with us so we can share your vision of the game and be better armed to help you with it. But I've seen too many design choices that have been made for no better reason than "this is how all the games I've played have done it, so that's how I did it" to simply assume that every new design is backed by by such a reason.

Now maybe that comes off as elitist...as if I'm saying "prove to me that you've put enough thought into this idea that its worth my time discussing it with you"...but I can't really help that. I think that so far, the approach has helped more then its hurt. It may have chased a few aspirants away perhaps, but I'd rather help a few people alot than a lot of people little.

But I can only speak in that regard for myself and a few folks I know who've been helped by it. Guys like Pale Fire would have to answer for themselves whether these questions have helped them or hurt them.

I'm sure PF has been a little bit frustrated at the times where it seems like he's taking 2 steps back for every 1 forward, and I'm sure he's now got alot more work ahead of him than he had when he first started talking about Ygg...but he'd have to answer the question for himself whether he thinks that the game he eventually winds up with will be better or worse for "grilling" he's received. I can only assume he thinks it will be better or he wouldn't still be here talking about it....and if that's the case, then it will be well worth our effort to help him out.

Marco wrote: I am not predjudiced against GNS-incoherence. I do not think that a GNS-incoherent game must be drifted to be satisfying to a group. I would feel pretty robbed if a game I brought turned out to be incoherent.

Marco wrote: I read this a bit like saying "gamers are social misfits with poor hygine." It's an unflattering generalization (which might be where some of the insult comes in to this whole thing, Ron). I've gamed with college students and with a bunch of professionals in the 6-figure income range all of them. I've never seen a situation where I thought changing a game would help.

There's a lesson here about asking questions that a) the newbie reader will understand and b) being aware of our own biases when we ask them.

It might not be. I don't know Immortal. Maybe it's a quirky little game designed to appeal to a small group of people--like every highly focused game is likely to be because if someone doesn't like the *way* it was focused regardless of whether you like the genere, setting, the tone, the mood, the ideas, etc. it's *useless* to you. I bet Immortal has some hard-core fans too.

Geez, walk away for a day, and watch what happens...

On a weird note of synchronicity, I had been writing up some views last night on the ideas of premise, system, and player experience from a player's point of view as opposed to a designer's point of view. Here's my current theory about 3 questions you need to answer to successfully communicate the concept of your game to the would-be players:

•What should I do?
This is premise, really. When I play this game, I (fight monsters, hunt ghosts, face my inner devils, face devils I've summoned, etc.) Most fantasy heartbreakers and generic systems fail to do this. Like Jesse's example of the D&D expectations of players and the GM being different, if you don't put this up front, no one has any focus as to what to do.

•What can I do?
How do I acheive what I'm supposed to do, what do the rules say I can and cannot do?

•Why should I do it?
The true reward of any game is play experience. Not points for the characters, but the experience the player has with the game. Notice that this links directly into the first question, since this is basically the core idea behind GNS theory. "I want this type of gameplay experience, does this game provide it?"

Now, the reason I bring this up now, is that I was looking at all the rpgs that I do play, and the ones I don't, and I stepped back and wondered, "What is it these games are doing, that these other ones are not?"

The answer is that the games I play answer those 3 questions. I know what I'm supposed to be doing, I don't need to flounder around. Other players know what to expect when we play this game. The rules are clear and we don't need major drift for play to run smoothly. The experience (outcome) of gameplay is clear, I know what kind of experience I'm going to walk away with. The reason so many people come back to D&D, is that D&D successfully answers those 3 questions and people know what to expect when they play D&D. When you say, "Let's play GURPS!", aside from system, no one knows what the hell to expect from the game play.

Going back to the original question, "Why do games need to have premise?", well, I want to know what I'm supposed to do in your game.

"Well, you can do anything!" is a pretty empty line, since even the most crusty D&D game says,"If you don't like the rule, change it!", which really means you can do "anything" with 1st edition D&D!

So, what the question really relates, is why should I play your game as opposed to another? What does your game offer than isn't really the same as GURPS, D&D, or anything else out there?

Imagine, if, someone came up to you and told you of a new invention, the Cabar, that is a vehicle that has 4 wheels, and runs on gasoline.
"Why wouldn't I just get a car?"
"Ah, but the Cabar comes in purple!"
"Um, yeah, but I can get cars in purple too!"
"The Cabar only comes in purple, and that makes it special!"

Now, if you told me that the Cabar only comes in ultraviolet, and can only be seen by dogs, that would be special, just perhaps not safe to drive around.

Now, this isn't to say that everything has to be massively innovative and jawbreakingly new, just that there should be a reason you went to the effort to make something new to do it. If you invent a universal system with the goal to do what GURPS does, but better, then good for you. But if you make a system, and don't know what it's supposed to do, how can you know how well you did it?

New isn't always better, but I can guarantee more of the same is the same, never better.

Chris

In case it's not clear, I think Walt pretty much nailed it. I'm strongly advising two things (Valimir's idea of somekind of "egalatarian game design political correctness" is foreign to me):

1. Use terms that will be understood. Premise, despite posts that it has a basic, generic meaning, is not one of them.

2. Understand that there are several ways of asking the same question and that some are more useful than others.

I do think that basically Simulationist designs get asked Narrativist questions by the more narrativistly inclined here.

Consider this: the whole nature of the thread is asking, when it's boiled down: "Does a game have to have something that makes it cool." And then there's 43+ responses that equate to "yah, probably."

This isn't exactly a revelation. It's bizarre semantic argument. If we're doing this, why would anyone expect a new-comer to understand what the question means? There's an interesting side-bar about how much hand-holding a game "should" do (and it's couched in terms of good-design vs. bad-design ... not personal preference, which I find interesting).

A second point: Greyorm, I acknowledge the marriage counselor concept. But if the questions are coming from someone from whom Narrativist play is the preferred mode (for a clearly sim-game) then it can seem like a wiccian couple at a Promise Keeper's counseling session (to extend the analogy).

Recent Example:
Andrew Martin is a pretty polite guy (I don't see eye-to-eye with him on a number of things but he's not a reactionary jerk). In a recent thread someone's post about their system elictied non-game related advice to maybe switch jobs.

Seth: my post about not being happy about getting an incoherent game points out the difference between GNS-incoherencey and my buying a game that was *incomprehensible* to me.

-Marco

Wow, what a great thread. I laughed, I cried, I liked it much better than Cats. (No, actually, I DID laugh when I “rediscovered” zombo.com, especially in the context of Jared’s post. I really, truly laughed my ass off, and my wife and daughter looked puzzled).

Anyway, on to something worth saying (i.e. on topic) . . .

First, I don’t think this thread is JUST about “How to we come up with another way to as ‘What’s your game’s premise?’ “ It contains so many great insights and ideas, that we’ll learning game design in this meta-discussion. That is, the thread is NOT just a semantic argument.

Having said that, I think the thread goes on and on about the semantic argument because there’s no good answer. The person who defined the term -- Ron -- plainly says he does not want another term so as to differentiate between premise and “Narrative Premise.” Further, I think many Forge contributors have digested premise and the distinctions. So, very likely, the term premise ain’t a going no where. But, clearly it’s not an easy term to digest, and for newbies this is a hurdle. Unfortunately, it’s also a touchy hurdle because reactions can vary from “I don’t know” to “Go fuck your elitist selves!”

I really don’t know what to say about it -- I guess I’m just illuminating the problem. Since I certainly don’t have a suggestion for any alternatives, I’ll accept the status quo.

I would, however, like to comment on one “alternative” (that really hasn’t been offered up as a true “premise” replacement, thankfully). It’s something that was touched on slightly in another post. I think “cool” is a dangerous thing.

Now, we’d all agree that “cool stuff” in a game can mean pretty much anything. However, when people actually talk about “what’s cool” in in a game, they almost always refer to something that doesn’t have anything to do with premise or what a game’s about. That is, “cool” stuff usually misses the big picture of why a game matters. Too often cool stuff is color, as the GNS essay defines that word. Neat settings, neat gadgets, powers, whatever. Hell, sometimes “what’s cool” is just a great looking book thanks to good layout or design. When Cool DOES refer to rules, very often these are really just crunchy bits or components of a rules set that have little effect on the grand scope of the game. You know, I can’t think of a conversation -- outside of the Forge or talking with Forge folks at GenCon -- that involved a “Cool!” comment regarding, say, the WHAT DO YOU DO? question. Instead, it’s more like, “What a COOL prestige class.” Yeah, it’s neat. Whatever. Doesn’t change the fact that I just can’t bring myself to GM D20 anymore. Perhaps even play it as a PC.

This is no small point, because I think MANY groups dive right into dysfunction because they’ve become enamored of a COOL game. They might all agree that Game X just is so cool! But, they DO NOT all agree HOW to PLAY Game X. I KNOW my own groups are repeat offenders of this syndrome, and the result currently is a floundering among several stop-started campaigns and lots of folks not really knowing what they want, because no one agrees or acknowledges why folks play for the reasons they do. (Actually, another thread/rant for another time.)

What I’m saying is that I think asking “What’s cool?” about a game is one of those useless terms like immersion and other bad-vibe Forge terms.

Case in point: I LOVE Fading Suns. It’s setting is cool beyond belief. I just love it. But, for me, the game is unplayable. (There’s even a premise in there somewhere -- all that passion play stuff -- I just can’t get folks to play it . . . sadly, that includes myself!)

Finally, Marco, I appreciate you sticking to your guns and offering your viewpoints. You’ve conversing well with a number of Forge “regulars” who have pretty well-established thoughts about this material. That I happen to agree with a lot of what many of the regulars say does not mean I want viewpoints like yours to get frustrated or forgotten.

I do think that basically Simulationist designs get asked Narrativist questions by the more narrativistly inclined here.

Consider this: the whole nature of the thread is asking, when it's boiled down: "Does a game have to have something that makes it cool."

Greyorm, I acknowledge the marriage counselor concept. But if the questions are coming from someone from whom Narrativist play is the preferred mode (for a clearly sim-game) then it can seem like a wiccian couple at a Promise Keeper's counseling session (to extend the analogy).

AndyGuest wrote:
Maybe it's just something that bugs me but how come every time someone posts a new game round here the first round of replies all say what's the premise ? I can see that a premise is sometimes good in a game, but I can't see why it is essential.

Is every game that links a premise really incomplete ? Do we really have to assume gamers are so stupid that they cannot look at a game and find the premises in that game that suit their interests ?

Most commercial games don't have a premise, at least not one that is stated outright and most certainly not one which the entire game is based around. So why the desperate need to have a premise ?

Marco wrote: Recent Example:
Andrew Martin is a pretty polite guy (I don't see eye-to-eye with him on a number of things but he's not a reactionary jerk). In a recent thread someone's post about their system elictied non-game related advice to maybe switch jobs.

First off, few people actually do ask "What's the Premise?"

Go ahead, do a search or whatever you need to do.

It's just not done a lot.

And you'll also note that those who do ask the question are often confused about the way we use the term here. That's right, people are misusing it, but not the Forge regulars.

Also, when it is used, people assume that the term Premise means Narrativist Premise. I personally make the distinction every time I use the term. That is, I either say Narrativist Premise, if that's what I mean, or I say Premise followd by "(the general non-GNS specific kind)". And I'll only ever do that if I feel fairly sure that the person in question recieving the post has read Ron's essay and will have a chance of understanding what I mean. If not, or if I just feel lije writing less, I do like Walt says, and ask "What's the game about?" or more likely "What do the characters do in the game?"

As for The Forge having a Narrativist bias, I say bullshit. Ron, while prefering Narrativism for himself, bends over backwards to avoid a bias. As do most of the avid Narrativists. Jared, while unabashedly Pro-Narrativist, is at least obvious about his "political" bent. And he hardly ever comments on designs, prefering instead to rely on his manifestos.

I myself am not anti-Narrativist, but I am more pro Sim than I am any other mode (some may misinterperet my assaults on Sim designs as being anti-sim; but the opposite is true, I just care more about how to make good Sim design than any other mode). As are a lot of the other posters here (gamism, while possibly not as well represented, is not ignored, either). Further there are many for whom GNS theory is not so much an issue, and they certainly cannot be said to have a Narrativist bias.

So I truely believe the bias thing to be a complete non-issue.

All we have here are a few who, new to the whole shebang, come in and mangle some of the terminology (reminds me of the whole Jeff Dee incident). And in those cases, you'll find a regular coming in right after to ask the corrected version of the question, or to suggest the "Roy" method of design specification, or whatever.

So I think that it's not a case of people with Narrativist biases asking the question, but people assuming that the quesion, when asked, is asking for a Narrativist Premise. That's a misreading on their part, but one I suppose we should watch for. That said, I think it all boils down to just being careful with the language.

Mike