In the vulgar, unrefined form most people percieve it at, Premise is the idea, the why, and or the motivation for Action. In our case, Premise if the idea, the why, and the motivation for designing Role Playing Games. However, the word carries more power then that and I think that the Premise all too often is unfulfilled when we get up from the Design Desk and say "Its finished."

As defined by http://www.yourdictionary.com, Premise is as follows:

1. A proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn.
2. Logic
One of the propositions in a deductive argument.
Either the major or the minor proposition of a syllogism, from which the conclusion is drawn.

Interesting. It is defined as an argument or a proposition. For our purposes it may fall into Proposition more so then Argument but that could be an assumption on my part.

Examples:
I propose that I make a Role Playing Game based on Hybrid Gamism/ Narratavism

I will argue that it IS possible to create a Role Playing Game based on Hybrid Gamism/ Narratavism and as my proof, I will construct one.

Subtle differences but certainly both Premises upon which a game can be constructed. Here is a further example, more of a Corporate Gaming Model.

I propose to make a Role Playing Game because they seem profitable and get us cool Gamer Chicks.

I argue that it is possible to get Cool Gamer Chicks and make money if we make a Role Playing Game.

The first part of Example 2 is proposing a Game because it Makes Money, Cause and Effect. The second part is throwing down the guantlet and is out to prove it is possible to make a Profitable RPG. Hypothesis and Theory. One Traditional Business and one more Science/Challenge based.


Premise in Game Design

The first example is an example of what you tend to find, from my experience, in the Independant field of RPG design. A pet peeve with a previous game spawns a "better the x" game (Ron Edward's Heartbreakers come to mind). Philosophical Concept (I would say Jonathan Walton's Storypunk goes here, again My opinion) and Cool Setting also emerge as motivation.

Yet I am not sure that Premise, Often or Ever, survives until Completion. My question I suppose is that is Premise the KEY factor in game design or is it simply a starting ground? By definition it appears more as starting ground but with an RPG one is usually not trying to make logical arguments. Suspension of Disbelief has an element of Il-Logic or AntiLogic about it(IMHO). So Premise is VERY important when one takes the step from Idea to Design.

I would propose that Premise is the basic building block or DNA of an RPG. System and (or) Setting must support the Premise or one has not succeeded in the design element. Now, not knowing what most people's premise is, its hard to know or judge how successful any single designer has been.

This is not about Judgment (ie. so and so has failed because their premise has been compromised) but an idea to insert a very important step/question before the Design Process commences.

Essentially asking oneself, "Why am I doing this?"

Sean
ADGBoss

Hey Sean,

Just a clarification: we are talking about premises in the usual sense, rather than the way Ron uses premise in reference to a specific dramatic theory?

I would say that a premise is both the beginning and the end. In an argument, you would state your premise, draw logical conclusions, then fold those conclusions back into the premise. Needless to say, the process does not work out in one easy step; some revision is necessary. Some of the conclusions just will not support the premise. Either the premise has to be changed and the argument recreated from the beginning, or those conclusions must be removed from the argument, hoping no one notices. Rome was not built in a day, and neither is an argument.

Another way of defining premise is that it answers the question, "What is this about?" Ideally, the answer is short and to the point, in which case "this" is focused around one idea. A longer premise indicates a progressively less focused work supporting multiple view-points.

I would suggest that many designers do not have an overt premise. At best, they start with a vague idea and refine it through the process of design and playtesting. They are the 'explorers' of the design world, whereas we are the 'narrativists' of the design world. (Does this imply that 'gamists' design a game based on a premise to prove it can be done?)

Later,
Grant

Yes it is meant in the traditional sense as opposed to Ron's use of it. I think I lean more towards your definition of premise as "What is this about?" but would also include the very basic "why you sat down at the Design table" (a metaphor for the Design process).

I like your last question. It seems to me to imply a difference between Gamist Premise of Design ie I want to prove X can be done, and Gamist Design, that is an RPG espousing a Gamist philosophy. The difference being I want to design the best Narrative game I can vs. I want to design a Gamist system.

I will end that there cause its kind of off topic and I am by far not a GNS expert.

Sean
ADGBoss

I certainly think it's hard to keep the Design Premise in mind throughout the entire length of time it takes to write a game. While you may have very clear reasons for writing a particular game, they tend to get lost along the way, often times because you come across other ideas that you want to incorperate or have interesting mechanics that don't gel with what you've already established. My experience in design has totally reflected this.

Take "The GM is Dead" or "Storypunk." You're exactly correct in that I tend to write games because I want to prove some philosophical ideas I have about gaming or game theory. "The GM is Dead" was originally intended to show that everyone was capable of running a GM-less game, so I did something drastic and had the GM's murder as part of the game background. However, when I started writing the thing, I was constantly tempted to take the easy way out of design difficulties and not fufill my original intentions as strongly as I wanted to. Now, my project outline is a whole bunch of compromises, where I've had to balance what's possible for me to write with what I want the game to accomplish.

Now, if I really wanted to be true to my original Design Premise, I would use it as the ruler to measure all design decisions. The question would constantly be "how does this support what I'm trying to do with this game?" I try to stick with that as closely as possible in my designs, but it's very easy to be seduced into other things that don't really fit.

I agree, or I should I am starting to agree from much of the feedback I have been getting. Premise as Intention ie what is your intention for the creation of this game? It may be more accurate a term or definition.

Now why do you think that a design strays from its original Premise/ Intention. I like Jonathan's idea that it becomes necassary to compromise to make the game work and hold true to the original Design Premise. Similar to the idea that "No Battle Plan ever Survives first contact with the Enemy." (I forget who first said that.)

Sean
ADGBoss

I definitely think Intention is the right term to put to one's stated goals in creating an RPG.

I think some sort of blueprint, constitution, mission statement, mantra, whatever is needed to keep one focused on the original vision and purpose of the work.

I think it could indeed be useful to consider the idea of Premise in a logical, argumentation sense, but I think there's a little misunderstanding here on definitions. (Note: this has nothing initially to do with Ron's idea of Premise, derived from Egri.)

1. A proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn.
2. Logic
One of the propositions in a deductive argument.
Either the major or the minor proposition of a syllogism, from which the conclusion is drawn.

clehrich, I appreciate your post because it really removes a great deal of the jumble that was in my own mind when I originally posted. I think I had in mind that Premise, not defined as Ron does but more as above, was fully necassary part of Game Design. I think now what is necassary is more like Dave's Intention or Blueprint and Premise is more of an approach that can be taken as opposed to the fundamental building block of all game design, which is where I think my own thought processses had it in the beginning.

Well I feel less confused then I did at least. Thanks everyone for the posts.

Sean
ADGBoss

Chris a.k.a. clehrich wrote: In order to challenge an argument, I cannot simply challenge the conclusion. I must challenge the Premise or the subsequent Propositions. If I cannot break either, then I must accept the conclusion.

Looking back to what Sean wrote: Yet I am not sure that Premise, Often or Ever, survives until Completion. My question I suppose is that is Premise the KEY factor in game design or is it simply a starting ground?

Y'all need to re-read the GNS essay and the part on Premise. Premise is used similarly to how you're using it here. Ron defines it as that thing in the game that makes people want to play. The proposition, if you will, as stated above.

A premise for a Narrativist Game (not all RPGs), has certain special requirements to support Narrativist play. But they do not apply to all RPGs. A premise for a Simulationist game has certain requirements as well, as do the premises for Gamist games. So there is nothing unique about Narrativist games or the premises for them.

This is a simple concept and I can't for the life of me figure out why people keep missing it.

Mike

Um... Mike, with all due respect, we're intentionally missing it. Sean started out by saying this is something very distinct from Ron's use of the term "Premise," different enough that he's calling it the "Intention" of a specific game design.

This isn't the GNS forum and we don't have to abide completely by Ron's terminology. Saying we don't know what we're talking about because we're using terms in different ways is unhelpful and demeaning.

We're not trying to confuse others or ourselves, we're trying to branch off the idea of a Premise and talk about something else.

That's all.
Jonathan

No, sorry, you are missing my point. If you read the GNS essay, Premise means very much what you guys are talking about. You are confusing people by saying that Ron's definition of premise is something that it's not. Namely that it's not that which you are discussing. Which, in fact, it is.

You say that Premise is the "why" people play. That's what Ron says:

GNS and Other Matters of Role-Playing wrote: To re-state, Premise is whatever a participant finds among the elements to sustain a continued interest in what might happen in a role-playing session. Premise, once established, instils the desire to keep that imaginative commitment going.

Sean wrote: Yes it is meant in the traditional sense as opposed to Ron's use of it. I think I lean more towards your definition of premise as "What is this about?" but would also include the very basic "why you sat down at the Design table" (a metaphor for the Design process).

Cool. And Intention I can dig. Design Goals has also been used to mean just that, I think. I just would hate to see anyone further confused by the Premise/Premise thing. Anyhow, if I've overreacted, I apollogise.

To get back to the thread, so if we want to judge by intent, how do we determine that? Is this a call for all designers to publish design notes with the game?

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: To get back to the thread, so if we want to judge by intent, how do we determine that? Is this a call for all designers to publish design notes with the game?

Jonathan,

I think you've pretty much covered the basic ground; from here on in it's technical differentiation. Fortunately, this is the Theory forum.... :)

Honesty of intent is certainly wise. But can we formalize "Intent" more closely? Can we state exactly what it is we want to achieve? I think that, on the assumption that a game's readers will not know the ins-and-outs of GNS theory and related matters (hell, we're all arguing about it, so do we really know it?), we need to state the conclusion we're driving at.

In some ways, I guess this is why I wanted a terminological clarification about logic, which M.J. has neatly capped. If we're going to be honest about what the game is Intended to do, perhaps the most important part is indeed the Conclusion, the expected outcome. And if it doesn't work, the players and readers will be able to say, "Okay, it doesn't quite work, but I like that Conclusion, so how do I fix the bits that lead up to it?"

So for me, Intent as currently defined in this thread must at the end-point be coincident with Conclusion; that is, you must be able to say, "This is what I want this game to do, what I want to be the effect of this game." That way your readers have a way to evaluate its success, and to fix it if it's broken.

To achieve this end, it might be useful to be a bit explicit about your reasoning, about how you got there. You say where you started (your Intent, what you thought you wanted to be your Conclusion), you say a bit about how you tried to achieve that goal, and you explain why you think your method succeeds. I don't think this needs to be all formalistic and tedious, nor do I think it needs to be long. But I think perhaps a bit more is needed than, "I wanted to make a game like X that does Y." You need also to say, "and I did Z to get there."

I think that a statement of intent may be as much important for what it says the game intends to do as what it does not. Which is interesting. Most games do have some sort of text like this up front, but in the name of marketing the game, it's usually something like:

This is the game for everyone. It's better than all the rest. It'll even make toast for you in the morning.

If you're into idiotic, hack n' slash, monty haul, dungeon crawl style gaming this game is not for you.