Topic: Theme is not Black and White
Started by: Silmenume
Started on: 2/25/2004
Board: GNS Model Discussion
On 2/25/2004 at 12:26pm, Silmenume wrote:
Theme is not Black and White
Ron Edwards wrote: Two implicit outcomes, Jay? Sounds a little arbitrarily limited to me. I list four in Sorcerer, and that's because I'm considering only one of many, many possible qualifying variables. If you consider the dual-Humanity concept I introduce in Sex & Sorcery, things multiply again.
I'm pretty serious about this. Nothing about "problematic human dilemma" implies black-and-white thinking.
I didn’t know if this should be in this thread or not, especially since the closing buzzer was starting to go off, but as this is a response I chose here.
I am clearly not a Narrativist expert. However, I drew by conclusion from the examples of premise questions listed in the Narrativist article. It seemed to me from that article that all the premise questions included had to implicit responses. IOW to address the question as stated the player had to choose between the two choices implicit.
Before we get too far into this I am fully with you about nothing in “problematic human dilemma" implies black-and-white thinking. That was not my intention to even come near that assertion. It was mostly for me clearing up something that was obviously going wildly out of control that I chose to run the risk of posting near the closing of this thread. I did not want to be responsible for the idea that "problematic human dilemma" implies black-and-white thinking.
Ron Edwards from the Narrativist Essay quoting Lajos Egri wrote: every good premise is composed of three parts, each of which is essential to a good play. Let us examine "frugality equals waste." The first part of this premise suggest character - a frugal character. The second part, "leads to," suggests conflict, and the third part, "waste," suggests the end of the play. ...
Does egotism lead to loss of friends? Which side will you take?
…Stories are not created by running some kind of linear-cause program, but rather are brutally judgmental statements upon the THIS, as an idea or a way of being.
I understand that he is talking about a completed work; nevertheless the idea contained in the questions is yes or no. The interesting thing as, as the question is asked again and again under differing circumstances throughout the course of the play in the fullness of time the final answer, the theme, becomes very complex, not black or white. Each response to the question shades the final answer.
Ron Edwards from the Narrativist Essay wrote: Is the life of a friend worth the safety of a community?
Does love and marriage override one's loyalty to a political cause?
Is it right to sustain one's immortality by killing others?
Vampires are divided between ruthlessly exploiting and lovingly nurturing living people, and which side are you on?
I should clarify a few assumptions on my part, and this may demonstrate where the faulty logic comes in. When I say implicit responses I am speaking on an instance level of time, i.e., when facing that situation (and a decision is required) in game at that moment, not on a theme level of time.
The above premise questions, as presented, seem to me to require the response to be either yes or no in a specific instance. It is not enough to just state the premise; it needs to be placed into situation. Situation colors the results of the question. Since situation is highly dynamic, every yes or no answer is going to carry with it subtle pieces of information about the character and will color the response to the question. IOW the answers become, “Yes, but…” or “No, but...”
Is the life of a friend worth the safety of a community?
When faced with that specific situation the character is going to be forced into making a decision about the question. The life of my friend is worth the safety of the community or the life of my friend isn’t worth the safety of the community. The thing is, as I understand Narrativist play to be, that question is always in the air. Every action of the character is being measured against that question – yes or no. However, as the circumstance grow and change, the friend saves your life, one, twice, three times, turns out the town is full of innocents that feed the hungry and shelter the poor, but then you find your friend made a pass at your wife and then you find out the town was founded by the people who killed your ancestors. Then you find out the town isn’t that endangered at all…etc. But every action that addressed the premise question as asked requires a yes or no answer in that instance. The Theme however is very rich and can be full of subtle nuances as many different situations are encountered and measured against the premise question.
And my thinking was that, in a Narrativist game, if the player went out and managed to drive off the impending Viking destruction he is in a sense avoiding the question altogether. It might be a brilliant solution, but it doesn’t address the question directly.
In the end the complete answer to the premise question (theme) might be very complex and rich, but any specific instance must require a yes or no, A or B response. The fact that the character is forced into making such an incredibly difficult choice is, to me, what makes the question so darn interesting in the first place. I am not so much interested in how he is going to get out of the choices and by extension the premise question at hand, but rather which unhappy path he will take – under these circumstances.
My thinking may not be logical, but I hope that I have made clearer what I was attempting to communicate. Again I state I am not trying to imply or in any way assert that "problematic human dilemma" implies black or white thinking. Actually because the instance answer must be black or white that so much deep thinking is required and thus revealed by the character/player. Its not that the player is thinking in black or white, its just that his “answer” at that moment must be black or white which requires lots of brutally difficult decisions to be made. The more avenues that are removed from the character the more difficult it becomes to make said choice. It is the thought processes behind these shitty decisions that are illuminated, or at least to me that is how it seems.
If the examples that I borrowed from are not representative please let me know. Much of my thought has been based upon them!
Aure Entaluva,
Silmenume
PS – If I have indeed transgressed by continuing to post here let me know I will humbly split off.
On 2/25/2004 at 2:15pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
Premise: not just two choices (split)
Hello,
The above post was split from Characterization vs. Deep Character.
Jay, given we agree that problematic human dilemmas are not black-and-white, and also given that fictional situations focus and hone these dilemmas very tightly ...
I still maintain that an either-or approach to resolving such a fictional situation (conflict) is overly simplistic. It's a fine starting point, and certainly the minimal requirement for engaging in resolving a conflict, but each side of the "answer" can be parsed further.
Again, given that the fictional situation is honed and focused, it can't be parsed infinitely - which is why stories are interesting in the first place. But parsed to a certain extent, yes - which is why they are interesting in the second place.
Looking over a series of intense recent threads, it's quite likely that you simply need to chill out a little and relax from posting. Hammering the keys on three or four threads at once is not really healthy ...
Best,
Ron
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 9839
On 2/25/2004 at 3:28pm, Valamir wrote:
RE: Premise: not just two choices (split)
Hey Jay, I think the answer is alot easier than you're making it.
It isn't a question of only being two answers...yes or no.
In fact, I would argue that there is only 1 answer...depends.
"Is the life of a friend worth the safety of a community? "
depends.
"Does love and marriage override one's loyalty to a political cause? "
depends.
"Is it right to sustain one's immortality by killing others? "
depends.
Its in all of the infinite possible ways to answer..."depends on what?" that premise gets addressed individually for each player.
Under what circumstances would a player be willing to sacrifice his friend...under which would he not? If the community was his family? His ethnicity? complete strangers? hostile enemies? Would the player sacrifice his friend to save a friendly village but not an enemy one?
Its in the "depends" that we find the real meat of premise, IMO.
On 2/25/2004 at 4:01pm, pete_darby wrote:
RE: Premise: not just two choices (split)
Somewhere, don't recall where now, I proposed that a defining characteristic of an Egrian premise was that it could only be posed in the general, and only addressed in the particular.
This also implies that an Egrian premise can never be exhausted or given a final answer... which, for dramatic purposes, is helluva good news.
What I find good to remember about an egrian premise is that, in N play, the answer to the question isn't as important as the act of addressing it, which is where the dramatic interest is.
On 2/25/2004 at 5:31pm, Bankuei wrote:
RE: Premise: not just two choices (split)
Hi Jay,
To play off of Ralph's idea, from the other side, consider the question, "What is Justice?" as a premise. The answer, of course is totally dependant on the situation. Each individual choice("Should I kill this guy in revenge, or not?") may become a smaller, yes/no type issue, but the overall premise is addressed through the entirety of play and ALL the decisions made with the big question in mind.
Chris
On 2/25/2004 at 6:14pm, cruciel wrote:
RE: Premise: not just two choices (split)
Hmmm...
Couple of things, which you can say 'Duh I knew that' to if they aren't tripping you up at all.
You seem to be implying Nar has a single specific theme that's the focus of play. There is a spectum of how centralized (for want of a better word) a theme is in Nar play. Some styles go for a unified theme, while other styles focus on their individual thematic agendas (which will create some sort of over-arching theme, but that isn't really the point).
I find the Jeopardy style phrasing of Premise confusing. However, there is a purpose to it. From my understanding, it's phrased in the form of a question instead of a statement (as Ergi's premise is) to prevent people from thinking Nar has only one choice - a choice that follows a predetermined statement.
On 2/25/2004 at 6:18pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Premise: not just two choices (split)
Hello,
I think Jay (Silmenume) is OK with the idea that Premise is open to "answering" through play. The issue at hand - if indeed it is an issue and not merely the result of typing-fatigue - is whether Premise is binary in terms of the resulting theme(s). My call is that it might be, but is often split into sub-groups of the two parts, or even possibly amenable to a "third solution" in some cases, itself possibly split into sub-groups.
As I say, I don't think a given Premise expressed in a given fictional situation may be infinitely parsed, but I think it is almost always amenable to a fair amount of "angling" in terms of possible resolutions.
I consider Egri to have been phrasing his point in the simplest possible terms because he is writing to an audience that really needs to hear it that way.
Jay, if you're good with that, then there's really nothing more to discuss. Let us know.
Best,
Ron
On 2/25/2004 at 6:40pm, Blankshield wrote:
RE: Premise: not just two choices (split)
In the game I'm working on with/for Harlequin, we are currently using an Egrian type of premise as a fairly clear and prominent part of the mechanics. The statements are quite broad ("All life is sacred" frex), and as they are addressed through play, the players have three broad choices as to how their character responds to that premise - agreement, denial or uncertainty.
The actual effects of those three responses differ in mechanical terms, but - and this is the bit I think relevant to this topic - the actual statement never goes away, and it is explicit (or will be if our rules are well-written) that 'my answer today may not be my answer tomorrow'. The intent is that the response is not necessarily to the premise as a whole, but to the premise as it is reflected here and now in this situation.
James
On 2/25/2004 at 8:47pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Premise: not just two choices (split)
Hello,
James, I believe I may have to earmark your post for referral, when people wonder how Sorcerer can be played for more than a few sessions.
Best,
Ron
On 2/26/2004 at 9:52pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Premise: not just two choices (split)
This all comes down to the techniques that are actually used. For instance, when talking to GMs about Bangs, sometimes we start off with a binary example. But in the end, I always say the same thing. The best Bangs are ones in which not only don't you know what direction the player might go, but ones in which you're not even sure what all the options are.
That is, if you look at a Bang, and think, "Hmm, he could do A, or B, or then there's C, heck I can't even think of all the things he might do!" that means that you've made the best Bang possible. I say this because the problem with Binary Bangs is that they're much more susceptible to the "Oh, well this is obviously the way I should go" sorts of responses. If only one response is instantly not palatable to the player then that leaves only one option remaining, and the player doesn't really have as meaningful choice. The best Bangs are the ones where the player has to harangue about it for a bit. And to get that most often you need Bangs that have the most multivariate outcomes.
This is why situation set up (relationship maps and the like) are really more powerful, because they tend not to "lead" players to any set decision circumstance meaning that even the decision points will be more player generated than with Bangs. Which, I think, tends to be very satisfying.
Nothing wrong with a good dillemma - it's just one tool in a bag that includes lots better.
Mike
On 2/27/2004 at 7:57am, Silmenume wrote:
Answers reflect circumstances
Hey everyone thanks for your dialogue! It’s been interesting. I apologize for not being more active in this thread, but I have taken Ron’s excellent advice and have taken something of a breather.
I’ll start real quick by saying I don’t think anyone has really said anything that is in direct contradiction my original thesis. I’ll take full responsibility for not stating it clearly enough, but strangely the way I have read nearly all the response, they are all fairly close to what I feel. Let’s see if I can find my way from my original phrasing and the subsequent posts.
Ron Edwards wrote: The issue at hand - if indeed it is an issue and not merely the result of typing-fatigue - is whether Premise is binary in terms of the resulting theme(s).
Actually this is the one that was farthest from my intent. My intent was to establish that act of addressing premise in game was evident when the response of character matched, what I had postulated, was one of the two implicit responses built into the premise question.
This makes an assumption about the structure of premise questions, which I will ask straight out.
Let me ask – does a premise question need to be structured the way Egri put it or not? Chris (Bankuei) posited as a game premise "What is Justice?" This question clearly does not follow the Egri example so would clearly disprove my thesis. My question is, is that a perfectly sound premise question? It doesn’t follow the human condition leads to conflict and thus to a certain result. If it does then my whole thesis falls apart and I shall be shamed into silence on this issue!
According to the process listed by Egri the point of the premise is to ask a specific question about a specific human condition and then see if that condition does indeed lead to the proposed conclusion. Frex – Egotism leads to the loss friends, which in game terms turns into the question, “Does Egotism lead to the loss of friends?” The question might be asked hundreds of times throughout the work under varying circumstances. Sometimes under the specific circumstance the answer is yes, sometimes under different circumstances the answer is no. By the time we have concluded the journey the question has been answered under all sorts of conditions leading to a very rich and complex theme. So the Theme is neither yes nor no, but is rather complex and rich – or as Ralph so elegantly put it, “It depends.”
Blankshield wrote: the actual statement never goes away, and it is explicit (or will be if our rules are well-written) that 'my answer today may not be my answer tomorrow'. The intent is that the response is not necessarily to the premise as a whole, but to the premise as it is reflected here and now in this situation.
That is exactly what I was trying to get at!!
My thinking is that answering yes or no is not answering yes or no directly to the premise, but answering yes or no to the premise under this specific condition – and doing so many times under different conditions.
Bankuei wrote: Each individual choice("Should I kill this guy in revenge, or not?") may become a smaller, yes/no type issue, but the overall premise is addressed through the entirety of play and ALL the decisions made with the big question in mind.
Excellent – my (obviously poorly phrased) point exactly! Much like a personality test could have 10,000 true/false questions, it is what those yes and no questions are asking that sheds light on what will be a very complex portrayal of person. In terms of the premise question it under what circumstances that the yes/no premise question is answered that is important.
As pete_darby phrased it - I should note that when I say answered I mean only in the particular circumstance/situation, not in the general (theme). To me it is all these particular answers that add up to a generalized theme.
Hey Jason, I didn’t mean to imply that Narrativist games have a single “centralized” theme, but upon reflection I do believe that I had subconsciously assumed that position. I am more than willing to surrender that egregious position!
The reason I posed my ill-fated thesis was to try and come to terms with my own thoughts on “premise like” situations that I find interesting in Sim and what I thought were “true” premise questions in Nar.
Nar – Is the life of a friend worth the safety of a community?
Sim – What would you do if your friend’s continued existence threatened the safety of a community?
The Nar example follows the Egri process tightly while the Sim example does not. I would see the first example clearly stated and then situations built to address that question. Addressing that question in situation, I thought, required the Nar player to stick to the implicit outcomes. If he didn’t choose between the two implicit responses then there would be know way to know that he was addressing the specific question. I am not suggestion that the premise will only be binary in the resulting themes, far from it, but rather it is only by sticking to the implicit out comes of the question in a given circumstance is it possible to determine if the actions of the player were addressing the posed premise question.
From the Sim perspective you just have an extremely difficult situation where the character is tested and his persona revealed via any response he made. IOW a Sim player could choose any response that reflected his character’s persona, including, I choose not to deal with this situation.
I hope this has been fruitful. Of course if the “What is justice” premise question is perfectly valid I have wasted much time!
Aure Entaluva,
Silmenume
On 2/27/2004 at 5:35pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Premise: not just two choices (split)
Hello,
Jay, if I'm not mistaken, you have successfully asked and answered your question:
Let me ask – does a premise question need to be structured the way Egri put it or not? Chris (Bankuei) posited as a game premise "What is Justice?" This question clearly does not follow the Egri example so would clearly disprove my thesis. My question is, is that a perfectly sound premise question? It doesn’t follow the human condition leads to conflict and thus to a certain result. If it does then my whole thesis falls apart and I shall be shamed into silence on this issue!
According to the process listed by Egri the point of the premise is to ask a specific question about a specific human condition and then see if that condition does indeed lead to the proposed conclusion. Frex – Egotism leads to the loss friends, which in game terms turns into the question, “Does Egotism lead to the loss of friends?” The question might be asked hundreds of times throughout the work under varying circumstances. Sometimes under the specific circumstance the answer is yes, sometimes under different circumstances the answer is no. By the time we have concluded the journey the question has been answered under all sorts of conditions leading to a very rich and complex theme. So the Theme is neither yes nor no, but is rather complex and rich – or as Ralph so elegantly put it, “It depends.”
Which, to my way of thinking, simply and clearly concludes this thread. Jay, let me know if you're all right with that.
Regarding your concluding statements, I do think that you are being way too broad with "what Sim would do" and "what Nar would do," and you are also at least knee-deep in the possibility of playing Narrativist without realizing it "because my character would do that." But these are topics for different threads, and, I hope, actual play threads rather than "would/could/might" speculations.
Best,
Ron