In RPG terms, I have seen Narrative Premise given mostly as a question, such as "What will you risk for..." or "What price will you pay for...". Now, I always understood premise as a dramatic movement, a position or statement of action, giving a result. An example would be Magnolia's "The truth leads to redemption". Seen this way, the premise is the basic building block for the film, its central logic through which all plots move, and produces a feeling of dramatic import for its characters.

It is also the way I have been constructing my own RPG, Prespiate. Here the premise exists as "Corruption grants power", shown primarily in the game through the reward mechanics. If player's want to exert any sort of influence over the city, or have any control over their own lives, they have to be willing to perform acts against their own beliefs in exchange for power and influence.

What did surprise me is that despite having this central building block, the focus of all playtests was very much simulationist, revolving around exploring an inherently corrupt city, and the lives of the player characters. At first this confused me, though as I thought more I realised the player's had no reason to explore the premise, precisely because there was nothing to explore. Expressed as a dramatic movement rather than a question, player's are not encouraged to address the premise, as there is no comment they can make on it, it simply exists a statement of metaphysical law.

I really enjoy the new simulationist focus, and my game design may finally be reaching sustainable progress, but more importantly I have found the game is given coherence through this premise, players have seemed to naturally understand the game as presented to them. This led me to think about other games I consider coherent, and easily 'gotten', and whether they might have a clear dramatic movement as well. AD&D could be considered as "by facing danger, zeroes become heroes". A Dying Earth could be "by walking a crooked path, one is given fortune equivalent".

Is it the case that all coherent games, especially those with a dramatic focus, could be considered as having a clear premise such as these, and perhaps the reason for many incoherent games is the absence of such? Can anyone think of other examples, and is providing a term of dramatic movement a more useful way of describing the game than "what do you do?" or similar questions?

Jeremy, having just read an awful lot of stuff on this over in the thread Premise on a Platter, as I saw your idea of building the game around a "premise" as a statement rather than a question, I immediately saw the problem and expected you'd end up with sim. You could get a narrativist game out of it, but I think to do so you'd find that what you thought was the premise turned out to be an element of the setting. I hope I can explain that.

You suggested that your premise was "Corruption grants power". Now, that's been built into the game system. We can't ask, "does corruption grant power?", because it's been answered for us already. If that was going to be the premise of a narrativist game, you would have to start with it as a question, "does corruption grant power?", and create mechanics that did not force the answer. The players would then explore the question itself, and attempt to determine whether it did or not.

But in the game as designed, they can't explore whether corruption does or does not grant power, except perhaps in an exploration of system sense. It's given; the mechanics establish that corruption grants power. The can choose to play the path of corruption leading to power, but they aren't asking whether this happens, they're only simulating that it happens and discovering what that would be like.

Now, we could shift this significantly without changing your statement, if we move the game focus. Now we say that "corruption grants power", but we ask, "do you want power badly enough that you are willing to allow yourself to be corrupted?" We keep the same mechanic that connects power to corruption, but we explore the moral issue of whether the goal (power) is worth the price (corruption).

Yet in your playtests, the players answered the question swiftly and simply. They did not pursue power, and so did not become corrupt to get there. They merely explored the world in which everyone who had power was corrupt. So why didn't this narrativist question-premise kick in? The answer is pretty simple actually: there's no reason for the characters (or the players) to care about power. You have told them they can have power if they're willing to become corrupt. You have not given them a single reason to want that power--certainly not a reason sufficient to overcome their resistance to corruption.

As an aside, I'm a great advocate and defender of OAD&D, but I do not think the game fully coherent. It is a largely gamist engine with some simulationist concerns underpinning certain aspects and an alignment system that should raise moral issues but that it is usually scrapped by players because it runs counter to the primary reward system and hasn't got the teeth to do what it's supposed to do. I do agree that it could be described something like, "you, too, can go from nobody to somebody", but there's a lot of incoherence in the system that is difficult to mesh in play.

I'm confused as to what you mean when you say "dramatic games". Narrativist games strike me as being very dramatic, and the more so because their premises generally can only be stated as a question to be explored. I can provide statement-premises for a lot of games that are not terribly "dramatic" in any sense I'd find relevant to role playing. For example, "The one who makes the shrewdest business decisions will ultimately own the world" is the statement-premise of Monopoly, and "People are more likely to believe a well-told lie than a poorly-presented truth" is the statement-premise of Malarkey. Neither game is "dramatic" in any sense other than the strictly gamist sense that a football game is dramatic: that we sit on the edge of our seats waiting to see who wins. If that's what you mean by dramatic, maybe you're right about the statement-premise thing (although I'm at a loss right now to think of a statement-premise for football, unless its, "the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet").

Maybe you can clarify that.

--M. J. Young

I might not have made it particularly clear in my initial post, but I have no intention of returning to thinking of Prespiate as a narrativist game. Before the playtests, my thinking on elements of the design of the game was fairly faulty, now that I see the design as simulationist, with a central building block of "corruption grants power", the game is becoming more focussed and coherent.

I'm not looking for a way to draw the game back to a narrative focus, my post here is more about looking at a different way of seeing premise, as a central logic of a game world. I'm especially interested in any effects this might have in a simulation focussed game design, perhaps as concept attached to defining the causality of the game world.

You are right that I could change the premise to a question, and allow players to interact with that. But when I stumbled into removing interactivity from the premise, by using a premise as it is given in a film, I copied across the fact that a film's premise is to be accepted in the world given, and found this works well. Seeing RPG design as a method of focussing player's on certain elements of gameplay, I see now I never had any desire to have players interact with the statement "Corruption brings power", but just accept it, and experience the world that produces.

Regarding the playtests, you better believe the players grabbed for power :), there was no lack of play revolving around the need to do bad things in order to get somewhere, and the repercussions. What there was not, was any analysis of the premise, just as D&D sessions never produces (well, not without deliberate outside effort) any analysis of "by facing danger, zeroes become heroes". Gameplay is still constructed from the premise, but unquestioningly.

Regarding the coherence of various D&D rulesets, from OD&D to D&D3e; you are right, they aren't fully coherent. But to my mind, this is exactly because they fail to hold to premise. Were any of the rulesets to hold more closely to "by facing danger, zeroes become heroes", I think the game would be stronger. I also think a large part of the success the various D&D rulesets give is that they actually hold to premise a lot stronger than other games.

Lastly, by dramatic games, I mean games with clear dramatic movement of its key protagonists, which should hopefully be the PCs. I think it is this drama, character progression and story movement, especially when tied together, that is enjoyable to experience. Progression in AD&D was always fun, and never questioned, because it was what the premise was all about. In contrast, I never saw how character improvement tied to the dramatic movement of a game of Vampire, and was never disappointed or surprised when a GM limited it or threw stat boosting out.

To an extent, I would argue what I'm trying to get at is the same reason Monopoly is entertaining, it has a clear premise, I'd call it "wealth brings income, which brings wealth", this sits as the building block around which the rest of the game is formed. Watching this premise follow through is what the fun is all about, and in accepting the premise, the game makes perfect sense.



NB
I'll just have to say though, terminology has never been my thing. I've used coherent here to mean "attached to premise" when I'm sure another could be used, a term without an already accepted definition here at the Forge. Similarly, any other terms may be being misused as well, if anything is unclear, its probably because of this.

Hi Jeremy,

You wrote,

I see now I never had any desire to have players interact with the statement "Corruption brings power", but just accept it, and experience the world that produces.

Ron Edwards wrote: Hi Jeremy,

You wrote,

I see now I never had any desire to have players interact with the statement "Corruption brings power", but just accept it, and experience the world that produces.

And that's Sim! You're bang on target.

As proposed by the Scarlet Jester (and in this case I'm not deviating from his definition), Exploration is emphatically not oriented toward either cathartic or deconstructive judgments of the topic at hand. Since that Explorative kind of experience is just what you describe, then yes, you're on target.

Hi Jeremy,

It's a common and popular mode of play - arguably, it's the very essence of most of the games in my category of High Concept Simulationist play, especially those most focused on Situation.

Here at the Forge, the most vocal proponent of this mode of play is Marco, as well as Gareth (contracycle). Both of them have refined it into remarkable forms that, I think, eliminate most of the stumbling, hemming and hawing, and broad hinting that can mar some groups' experiences.

Best,
Ron

Hey,

Right now I'm looking at it and I've got to say I'm struggling to see how you could not have any central logic. How can a game be particularly playable without an underlying cause and effect to guide play?

I'd be interested in any rulesets or gameworlds people found interesting and fun to play, where no clear premise was given.

Hi Jeremy,

Your last post confuses me greatly. What is it in reference to?

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Hi Jeremy,

Your last post confuses me greatly. What is it in reference to?

Best,
Ron

If I may:

I believe Jeremy is saying "Focus around a Premise" is the core of all games.

You then mentioned Marco and Gareth as being prime practitioners of the style. The implication being that others do not concentrate on "Focus around a Premise" to the same degree.

Jeremy is now questioning how that is possible to have a game that doesn't "Focus around a Premise" at all, and is confused because you called it common and popular which implies there are people who game without "Focus around a Premise".

I believe that is the nutshell of the previous coupld of posts.

I think perhaps the confusion is stemming from the use of the word premise. Jeremy's post sounds like he's mostly talking about answering "what do you do...what's the point of play", and suggesting that all games must be able to answer that question.

Ummmm ...

Going to my big essay, I think I state pretty clearly that any and all role-playing experience is predicated on a shared "what's up" concept that interests the people involved. That's definitely not a controversial point, in my view.

But Jeremy, the passage I quoted indicated, to me, a far more structured point, and I'll quote it again:

I see now I never had any desire to have players interact with the statement "Corruption brings power", but just accept it, and experience the world that produces.

I'm not looking at a "focus on premise" as Valamir described. I am rather looking at a central logic in a game, somewhat different to the priorities of play.

Also, please note I'm not trying to find the role of premise in terms of the game I am creating, it was just given as the way in which I stumbled into this idea.

I am suggesting, to build an interesting system, and especially to build an interesting setting, a method I think might help to create a setting as evocative as CoC, a method I think might help a player's instinctive understanding of the setting or system.

A premise, given as a cause and effect statement, results in a very different way of forming a world than premise as a notion of what you do, or what is to be questioned, or what is the objective. Rather, it is the question of 'how do things work?'.

Take WHFRP, when I have played it we have focussed on exploration of the setting. If I were asked 'what do you do?', my own experience in this game would lead me to answer 'adventure', which is really another way of saying 'explore the setting'. The Old World, the focus of the game's exploration and thus the focus of the game, is built upon its own premise, a premise in terms of 'how do things work?' I think the underlying 'how do things work' premise is along the lines of 'Infintite Chaos resisted with finite means'. In all elements of the setting, limitless chaos is attempting to gain a foothold, and it is resisted by limited forces. To a large degree, all other elements of setting come from this cause and effect. I think it is this underlying logic to the game world that makes it evocative and interesting to me, compared with other fantasy worlds.

As a second example, with my own game, Prespiate, the premise I detailed was 'Corruption brings control'. The nature of play is not running around doing corrupt things and getting power for it, rather actual play is more along the lines of troubleshooting or investigation, exploring the world provided. The premise, as I gave it, produces an unquestionable cause and effect, wherever corrupt acts are performed for others, power is gained, and all other elements of the game world are derived from this.

I am really wondering about a 'how do things work' premise as a means of design to create a dramatic, interesting world (and also any possibilities this may have in non-simulationist games).


EDIT - changed a few bits, to hopefully make the thing understandable.
EDIT II - because it still sucked...

Jeremy Cole wrote:
I am really wondering about a 'how do things work' premise as a means of design to create a dramatic, interesting world (and also any possibilities this may have in non-simulationist games).