Why collaborative storytelling is a meaningless phrase

[Segev]

OK, very simplified example to try to get some light out of this heat...

As much as the show makes me roll my eyes and change the channel, imagine two gamers in a "power rangers" based campaign.

By my understanding of the terms, here's how the two go about things:

The "story-focused" gamer goes through the process that the characters in these stories go through of building up to the end of the "episode" when the big combined mech is finally unleashed, and then the big attack is finally unleashed, for the victory after much (at least intended) rising tension.

The "character-focused" gamer thinks "my character wants to beat this monster and save the city, therefore we're going to bring out the big combined mech and the big attack and end this crap right now before anyone gets hurt" and the "episode" is over in five minutes. Sure, you can come up with characters who fall into the dramatic buildup while acting in character, and come up with situations that demand the dramatic buildup, but eventually that turns into an ugly "well isn't that convenient" pileup.


Similar examples can be constructed from a lot of anime, too.


The "story-focused" gamer is more likely to want genre-emulation, to intentionally play things out so that the sort of story they're looking for will result.

The "character-focused" gamer is more likely to want their character to be genre-savvy, because their character is from a world where those genre elements are part of the fabric of reality and should be aware of them.

Okay, that's a good way of summing up what you mean. Thanks!

It still seems, to me, to paint the "story-focused" guy in a bad light, as it suggests that he's going to force the plot regardless of how much sense it makes. You know, like Power Rangers episodes (and many other formulaic stories) do.

Incidentally, you may enjoy the Nostalgia Critic's review of Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie. I base this recommendation specifically on your quoted post above. When you understand the words "flour tortilla" in context of the above, you'll know why I make that recommendation. ;)

I would argue that even a "story-focused" person is going to, if he has quality in his story, have a character-driven story. "I want a fall and redemption arc" will mean that he designs a flawed character who can and will make a fall-worthy mistake, and then fight as hard as possible to redeem himself from it afterwards. He designs a character who WILL, in-character, do such things.

The character-focused player will instead set goals, and yet may well design a character who has flaws that he must overcome if he's to reach those goals.

In both cases, the end result can be termed "collaborative storytelling," because the story-focused player must rely on the GM to provide him the opportunity to both fall and be redeemed. Yes, he's designed the character to invite it, and he's going to take the chance when offered, but he still needs the GM to help out. The character-focused player absolutely will have a story emerge, and it will emerge from the interaction of his character with the world and challenges and other characters put forth by the GM and other players.

There is story that happens in both cases, whether the players focused on "making" it happen or not. And it comes from collaborative work.

I'm bad about tangents, and those are my opinions of psychology and postmodernism, since them came up.

Both tangents originated with someone making one of their "oh yes you do and here's why" assertions about other people's thought processes.




Acrimony resulted because no matter how many times people told you (and others) that they personally are not doing story when playing an RPG, that this is not how they approach playing their character, that they are not thinking about story or planning out story or working toward any sort of story, etc... you insisted that they were wrong, and then doubled down by insisting that they can't figuratively can't even get out of bed in the morning without doing story. The consistent insistence by you (and some others) that you know their minds and thought processes better than they do, is what made things acrimonious.


As for definitions...

I'm not in California, in fact I'm far from it. If someone presents a definition of California that allows them to claim I'm in California, that definition is flawed.

I'm not a Martian. If someone presents a definition of Martian that allows them to them claim I'm a Martian, that definition is flawed.

When playing a character in an RPG, I'm not doing story. If someone presents a definition of story that allows them to claim that I am doing story...

I think your analogies fall apart, here. It's like saying that playing sports is not exercise, because when you play sports, you're out there to have fun strategizing and cooperating with your team to win the game, and since you're not exercising, any definition that includes "sports" as a kind of exercise must be wrong.

You're not in California. But if the city you are in and the State of California and the State where your city is all agreed to pass appropriate laws, possibly with an act of Congress backing it up, the definition of "in California" would in fact change such that you really were in California.

The latter is far less likely than the former, of course, but the former is also much closer to the arguments of "even if you're not focused on it, you're doing storytelling as a part of the process." This is why people feel comfortable making such a case.

You're playing sports that involve high levels of physical activity. You are getting exercise. Trying to redefine "exercise" to only apply to those who are deliberately focused on getting exercise is not useful.

[Aliquid]

Intent matters.

Not in determining if something is a story or not

No, I assure you, I am not.

Ok, then you aren't playin a RPG

Why is it people keep trying to tell me what I'm doing? This seems to be a common problem among folks trying to prove that all playing an RPG is storytelling, at least in this thread.

Because you are claiming to be doing something that is impossible. Either you are telling a story, or you are not actually playing a RPG.

No, I don't. I communicate what my character attempts to do. Not what she does. The attempted actions need to be resolved, at the minimum in the GMs mind, before they become an actual in-game event.

So? Not quite sure how this make any difference at all. It is still determined in the game weather they succeed or not in their attempt, and an account of what happens next is given.

[Pelle]

No, I don't. I communicate what my character attempts to do. Not what she does. The attempted actions need to be resolved, at the minimum in the GMs mind, before they become an actual in-game event.

As a GM I commonly run into the problem where players use language as if they've already accomplished an action, similar to what you're using as an example, and thus mentally assume it automatically resolves instead of merely declaring their intent to attempt the action.

Sure, I understand what you mean. It's just that people put different meanings into words, like what constitutes a description of an event. If you say "I attempt to draw my sword" and the GM says "sure, you draw your sword", in my mind you have collaboratively described what is going on in the fiction. I accept that technically 'storytelling' can be used to cover this, though there are probably better more neutral words as well.

Using different definitions of words is legitimate. When other people use words differently, you don't have to assume that they have an evil secret agenda. Just ask them to clarify what they mean, and argue with what they meant instead of your own associations to the words. And cool, if it turns out they are indeed claiming you have intentions that are not true, call them out on that.

hahahaha thanks that gave me a good laugh.

Good, ref. the What makes social skills different? thread

[kitanas]

No, you are absolutely NOT required to work with others to jointly create "a description, either true or imagined, of a connected series of events" when playing an RPG. This is a completely & utterly false statement.

How can you possibly play an RPG and not do that? Easy: I make decisions for my character in the fantasy environment. This in no way describes a connected series of events. I tell the GM what I intend my character to attempt to do. End of story, pun intended. Provided we use the actual definition for story, which is that story is a description or account of events.

So, to be clear, the part of the statement you are disagreeing with is the description part? You never describe what your character is doing, or how they attempt something? No flavor text? No speaking "in-character"? Not judgemental, just curious.

[Max_Killjoy]

All good and perfectly logical so far.

And ... Suddenly we hit the brick wall of illogic. It makes all the difference in the world if you change the definition to remove description or account, including for RPGs. It's not just some philosophical difference. It's the entire point: without the intent to create a description or account of events, there is no story.


No, you are absolutely NOT required to work with others to jointly create "a description, either true or imagined, of a connected series of events" when playing an RPG. This is a completely & utterly false statement.

How can you possibly play an RPG and not do that? Easy: I make decisions for my character in the fantasy environment. This in no way describes a connected series of events. I tell the GM what I intend my character to attempt to do. End of story, pun intended. Provided we use the actual definition for story, which is that story is a description or account of events.

And of course the "But it's story!" folks are going to tell you that you can't convey your character's choices without "giving an account of it to the other players", because evidently they're more concerned about being technically "right" than anything else at this point.

Something that I think has also been partially lost in this whole rigamarole, is that we (or I at least) didn't start out talking about "what is story?", I started out talking about whether RPGs are inherently and unavoidably "storytelling". And this is why it seems like the full-court press about the definition of story as "any account of a series of events" or "any series of events" has been a bit of a shellgame by one side of this "discussion".

Why is it people keep trying to tell me what I'm doing? This seems to be a common problem among folks trying to prove that all playing an RPG is storytelling, at least in this thread.

1) Some of them, because they evidently care more about the pedantry than about communication or understanding, and they don't care if they have to call you a delusional idiot along the way.

2) Some of them, because it's very important to other positions not being talked about here that all RPGs are "storytelling" no matter what. (The elephant in the room that kyoryu has tried to point out.)

3) Some of them, because the toxic notion that "we only know the world through narratives" has been deeply ingrained in western intellectual discourse.

[Cynthaer]

Suddenly we hit the brick wall of illogic. It makes all the difference in the world if you change the definition to remove description or account, including for RPGs. It's not just some philosophical difference. It's the entire point: without the intent to create a description or account of events, there is no story.

[...]

No, you are absolutely NOT required to work with others to jointly create "a description, either true or imagined, of a connected series of events" when playing an RPG. This is a completely & utterly false statement.

How can you possibly play an RPG and not do that? Easy: I make decisions for my character in the fantasy environment. This in no way describes a connected series of events. I tell the GM what I intend my character to attempt to do. End of story, pun intended. Provided we use the actual definition for story, which is that story is a description or account of events.

The importance of "intent" and the distinction between "describing a connected series of events" and "making decisions for my character"—decisions which you must eventually describe to other people—is throwing me here.

Is it really your position that no story is ever created without someone explicitly sitting down with the conscious, primary intention of creating a story? That seems very strange to me.

Would you mind offering your view of some edge cases? These aren't "gotchas"; I'm legitimately curious whether you perceive these activities as "creating stories" or "storytelling", even if it's not the conscious purpose. If there is some other story-related terminology you'd use to describe any of these activities, that's fine too.

1. A small child announces she is going to tell you a story. She spends the next five minutes rambling off a series of seemingly unrelated sentences about characters who are never properly introduced or described, with no obvious narrative thread. It looks like she finds it very interesting.
   
   
   Spoiler: my view

   Show

   I'd call this storytelling—at the very least, this is an attempt at storytelling. It might not technically meet the "connected series of events" requirement, but she's a little kid. They were probably connected in her head, and she's just failed to get those connections out in words.
   
   I believe you would also call this storytelling, because she is intending to create a story?
   
   
2. A D&D group meets at the table. Players A and B act in-character, while C and D simply describe what their characters are doing. A and C internally regard the game as an act of "storytelling", while B and D very strongly feel they are not engaged in "storytelling"—although this distinction is invisible to an outside observer during gameplay. All players are making decisions based on game rules, dice rolls, and imagining "what their characters would do", and not based on "what would make a good story".
   
   
   Spoiler: my view

   Show

   I'd say they're all, as a group, creating a story. Whatever their individual primary purposes for playing are, the byproduct of the activity is 5 people sitting around a table, collectively creating "an imagined description of a connected series of events". I regard surface-level distinctions like speaking in-character or using past vs present tense to be irrelevant.
   
   I believe you would say B and D are not "creating a story", because it's not their conscious intent. Does the in-character distinction matter for you? Also, would you say even A and C are not "creating a story" because they are not making decisions primarily based on "what would make a good story"?
   
   
3. In the same D&D group, the DM decides to start taking session notes at the end of each session. A few months in, she starts writing them up as "after-action reports" on a forum. These posts are effectively just a straightforward recounting of everything that happened in-game, as described by the DM and players during the session.
   
   
   Spoiler: my view

   Show

   Obviously I already felt they were creating a story to begin with, so there's nothing new here.
   
   Do you feel the act of taking rough notes "creates" a story?
   
   I suspect you would agree that by the time it's written up as an "after-action report" and presented to others, a story has definitely been created somewhere. Does it matter if the DM is consciously "writing a story", even if she is just recounting the exact things the players (including B and D) said?
   
   
4. The same D&D group as above is now in a play-by-post game. Now instead of describing their actions out loud, they communicate them through forum posts that create a written, chronological record of the game as they go, which can be read from the beginning at any time.
   
   
   Spoiler: my view

   Show

   My analysis here is the same as above, since I don't think the format matters.
   
   Does it change anything for you if there is an immediate, tangible product created whenever anybody describes their actions? Regardless of the players' intentions, would you not be able to pull up the game thread and see "an imagined description of a connected series of events"?

Finally, one other consideration. The D&D designers regard the game as, first and foremost, a "storytelling" activity. The entire first page of the basic rules (pdf), starting with the very first line, is all about the story created by playing the game (all emphases mine):

The Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game is about storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery.

[...]

One player, however, takes on the role of the Dungeon Master (DM), the game’s lead storyteller and referee.

[...]

The game has no real end; when one story or quest wraps up, another one can begin, creating an ongoing story called a campaign. Many people who play the game keep their campaigns going for months or years, meeting with their friends every week or so to pick up the story where they left off. [...] Each monster defeated, each adventure completed, and each treasure recovered not only adds to the continuing story, but also earns the adventurers new capabilities.

[...]

Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils. [...] The group might fail to complete an adventure successfully, but if everyone had a good time and created a memorable story, they all win.

Do you think this design intent matters at all? Do you feel this is merely an example of people misusing the word "storytelling", and the D&D designers are simply wrong in thinking they have created a game about "storytelling"? Or do you agree with them that it is a "storytelling" game in general, but feel that you personally engage with it in a way that does not in fact create a story?

[Aliquid]

And of course the "But it's story!" folks are going to tell you that you can't convey your character's choices without "giving an account of it to the other players", because evidently they're more concerned about being technically "right" than anything else at this point.

No, that's just how we see it. Naturally, there is no effort put into it. That's how we see the word "story". The only reason we are getting technical, is to back up the argument.

Something that I think has also been partially lost in this whole rigamarole, is that we (or I at least) didn't start out talking about "what is story?", I started out talking about whether RPGs are inherently and unavoidably "storytelling". And this is why it seems like the full-court press about the definition of story as "any account of a series of events" or "any series of events" has been a bit of a shellgame by one side of this "discussion".

I prefer the idea that "any series of events" is a story, but I'm fine if people would prefer that it must be an account of a series of events before it becomes a story. Even so, I honestly don't think that makes any difference when it comes to playing an RPG, because when you play an RPG, you fit both of those definitions. When you communicate with the other players in the game, you are giving an account of your characters actions.

[Knaight]

And of course the "But it's story!" folks are going to tell you that you can't convey your character's choices without "giving an account of it to the other players", because evidently they're more concerned about being technically "right" than anything else at this point.

Meanwhile, here in reality, what's been going on is that we've been using the term "collaborative storytelling" to explain what RPGs are for years, we've been understanding the term, and then out of nowhere pops up this thread claiming that it's a meaningless term based on a set of truly specious arguments, and when we push back on that because we find it obviously wrong out comes set after set of new specious arguments, each more ridiculous than the last.

But we're the ones more concerned about being technically right than anyone else at this point. For sure.

[Cynthaer]

And of course the "But it's story!" folks are going to tell you that you can't convey your character's choices without "giving an account of it to the other players", because evidently they're more concerned about being technically "right" than anything else at this point.

I mean...is that really a technicality? Because that seems like the obvious question to me.

In any case, even if we accept the framing that only the GM "describes" what happens because they have the final say, the point remains that between the two of you a description of the event has been created, which would not have been created with either one of you alone.

Surely that could be referred to as "collaborative storytelling"?

[Max_Killjoy]

No, that's just how we see it. Naturally, there is no effort put into it. That's how we see the word "story". The only reason we are getting technical, is to back up the argument.

And thus where we reach the conclusion that the definition of "story" and being pedantically correct about it is more important to you than whether someone's actually engaged in storytelling when they play an RPG -- evidently to the point that you're willing to tell a long-time gamer that they're not playing RPGs if they're not storytelling.

I'm almost certain that Tanarii knows far better whether they're playing RPGs, and whether they're storytelling, than you do.

I prefer the idea that "any series of events" is a story, but I'm fine if people would prefer that it must be an account of a series of events before it becomes a story. Even so, I honestly don't think that makes any difference when it comes to playing an RPG, because when you play an RPG, you fit both of those definitions. When you communicate with the other players in the game, you are giving an account of your characters actions.

Which brings us back to here:

If any series of events is a story, then everything that ever happened anywhere at any time was "a story", anything that ever changed or moved or began or ended is "a story", and thus all of reality was, is, and will be "a story".

Congratulations, you've just reinvented another word for "universe", for "everything", etc.

But hey, that's cool, as long as you can say you were "more right" about how someone else plays elfgames than they were about their own experiences.

You'd have fit right in at The Forge.

[Max_Killjoy]

Meanwhile, here in reality, what's been going on is that we've been using the term "collaborative storytelling" to explain what RPGs are for years, we've been understanding the term, and then out of nowhere pops up this thread claiming that it's a meaningless term based on a set of truly specious arguments, and when we push back on that because we find it obviously wrong out comes set after set of new specious arguments, each more ridiculous than the last.

But we're the ones more concerned about being technically right than anyone else at this point. For sure.

The discussion has long since left that original post behind.

It's fine if you've used that term to describe what you do, and continue to use it. It's fine if that's actually what you do when you sit down and play your PC in an RPG. I've never said you can't. I'm not trying to tell you that how you game is wrong, or impossible, or doesn't count.

The problems are:

1) The assertion that there's only one way to approach / think about playing RPGs -- an assertion coming from the "story uber alles" side here.

2) The assertion that how other people play the game is wrong, or impossible, or doesn't count -- an assertion coming from the "story uber alles" side here.

3) The assertion that they know what's going on in another person's head better than that person does -- an assertion coming from the "story uber alles" side here.

[Blackjackg]

And of course the "But it's story!" folks are going to tell you that you can't convey your character's choices without "giving an account of it to the other players", because evidently they're more concerned about being technically "right" than anything else at this point.

Something that I think has also been partially lost in this whole rigamarole, is that we (or I at least) didn't start out talking about "what is story?", I started out talking about whether RPGs are inherently and unavoidably "storytelling". And this is why it seems like the full-court press about the definition of story as "any account of a series of events" or "any series of events" has been a bit of a shellgame by one side of this "discussion".

At this point, I'm inclined to believe you're just yanking our chains for poops and giggles, because I have a hard time understanding how someone who claims to be college-educated can have such a fundamental lack of understanding of logic and semantics. If we are going to agree on the answer to the question "Are RPGs inherently and unavoidably storytelling?" we need to agree on the definition of the terms. And if you're not trying to get us to agree with your answer, then why the heck are you still arguing about it?

This conversation started with a declarative statement: "Collaborative storytelling is a meaningless phrase," and one person's argument in defense of that statement. Some of us found flaw in that statement and argument, and presented counterarguments. Together, in spite of obstruction and transparent distraction tactics, those of us who have been earnestly contributing to this conversation have generated and defended at least two meaningful applications of the phrase "collaborative storytelling" to the subject of tabletop roleplaying games. I'll summarize them:

1. A category of games characterized by collaboratively creating a story.

and 2. An approach to roleplaying games that emphasizes equitable collaboration toward a well-crafted story.

These are not "technically true definitions to win the internet." They are meaningful, useful definitions that can be and have been used to better understand the nature of roleplaying games. And they aren't the only possible meaningful and useful definitions, either. You are welcome to have your own. But so far you have presented no evidence whatsoever that these uses are invalid or meaningless, you have argued purely from the stance of "But but but I don't do story." Which is, needless to say, actually irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

[Knaight]

And of course the "But it's story!" folks are going to tell you that you can't convey your character's choices without "giving an account of it to the other players", because evidently they're more concerned about being technically "right" than anything else at this point.

...

1) Some of them, because they evidently care more about the pedantry than about communication or understanding, and they don't care if they have to call you a delusional idiot along the way.

2) Some of them, because it's very important to other positions not being talked about here that all RPGs are "storytelling" no matter what. (The elephant in the room that kyoryu has tried to point out.)

3) Some of them, because the toxic notion that "we only know the world through narratives" has been deeply ingrained in western intellectual discourse.

Here you not only tell people what it is they're doing, you describe their motivations for doing so.

But hey, that's cool, as long as you can say you were "more right" about how someone else plays elfgames than they were about their own experiences.

You'd have fit right in at The Forge.

Here you get pissy about other people describing what someone else is doing. Unlike you they didn't speculate on motivations, but hey, apparently that oh so objectionable activity is just fine when you do it.

[Max_Killjoy]

Here you not only tell people what it is they're doing, you describe their motivations for doing so.

Do I have to go back and get quotes that show these things actually happening and actually being said by people AGAIN? I'm not guessing at what's going in in their heads, I'm listing off things that have happened right here in this thread. I even repeatedly used the word "evidently".

[Tanarii]

This argument is literally just that you're not wrong, and thus if anyone presents a definition that makes you wrong the definition must be wrong. It is then bolstered by two obvious examples where you're right, from which we're apparently just supposed to infer that you're right on the point of contention.

Given there already exists a definition for story, and people are attempting to change it to include any activity within playing an RPG, the analogies were apt.

Ok, then you aren't playin a RPG

Because you are claiming to be doing something that is impossible. Either you are telling a story, or you are not actually playing a RPG.

And of course the "But it's story!" folks are going to tell you that you can't convey your character's choices without "giving an account of it to the other players", because evidently they're more concerned about being technically "right" than anything else at this point.

Hey look at that Max_Killjoy, you called it. Unsurprising considering it had already happened multiple times in this thread.

Meanwhile, here in reality, what's been going on is that we've been using the term "collaborative storytelling" to explain what RPGs are for years, we've been understanding the term, and then out of nowhere pops up this thread claiming that it's a meaningless term based on a set of truly specious arguments, and when we push back on that because we find it obviously wrong out comes set after set of new specious arguments, each more ridiculous than the last.

But we're the ones more concerned about being technically right than anyone else at this point. For sure.

Meanwhile, here in the electronic reality, many people have have been using the term "collaborative storytelling" to claim it's a universal activity that everyone playing RPGs, including me, engages in, by expanding the definition of "storytelling" beyond what it means. Then when I push back on it once again, as I have in many threads previously, and this time create a separate thread so it's not off topic, those people come crawling out of the internet woodwork to keep trying to prove their newly expanded and not particularly meaningful definition is true. And that despite me being very clear I'm not engaging in storytelling (using the existing definitions) in the process of playing my character and communicating what she's attempting to do, and the DM resolving those actions, thus causing in-game events to happen ... I'm wrong by their newly expanded definition. That I don't know what I'm doing.

Edit: By the way Knaight, what we're engaged in here is competing stories, or accounts of events.

[Tinkerer]

Given there already exists a definition for story, and people are attempting to change it to include any activity within playing an RPG, the analogies were apt.

What is it? Give us the definition and state your source. We have given you guys many definitions pulled from internationally recognized sources and you essentially say nah those are garbage. We are going to go with this vague wishy-washy statement which we can change to mean whatever we want.

EDIT: For the purposes of this conversation I am going with the Oxford Dictionary definition of "An account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment."

[Max_Killjoy]

At this point, I'm inclined to believe you're just yanking our chains for poops and giggles, because I have a hard time understanding how someone who claims to be college-educated can have such a fundamental lack of understanding of logic and semantics. If we are going to agree on the answer to the question "Are RPGs inherently and unavoidably storytelling?" we need to agree on the definition of the terms. And if you're not trying to get us to agree with your answer, then why the heck are you still arguing about it?

This conversation started with a declarative statement: "Collaborative storytelling is a meaningless phrase," and one person's argument in defense of that statement. Some of us found flaw in that statement and argument, and presented counterarguments. Together, in spite of obstruction and transparent distraction tactics, those of us who have been earnestly contributing to this conversation have generated and defended at least two meaningful applications of the phrase "collaborative storytelling" to the subject of tabletop roleplaying games. I'll summarize them:

1. A category of games characterized by collaboratively creating a story.

and 2. An approach to roleplaying games that emphasizes equitable collaboration toward a well-crafted story.

These are not "technically true definitions to win the internet." They are meaningful, useful definitions that can be and have been used to better understand the nature of roleplaying games. And they aren't the only possible meaningful and useful definitions, either. You are welcome to have your own. But so far you have presented no evidence whatsoever that these uses are invalid or meaningless, you have argued purely from the stance of "But but but I don't do story." Which is, needless to say, actually irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

Just sitting down and playing your PC does not INHERENTLY fall under either one of those applications of the phrase.

For the second application, the lack of universality to all gaming should be obvious, but several posts have also gone into why and how it's not universal.

For the first application, it's only universally true of all gaming if you reduce "creating a story" to "producing any recounting of a series of events", at which point it becomes technically true and yet tells us absolutely nothing.

Thanks for clearing that up. To my mind, this is another intellectually dishonest tactic: A person uses their own experience as a point of reference for describing their definitions. Then, when another person challenges their definition, the first person says some variant of "You are trying to invalidate my experience! I am insulted!" as some kind of conversational trump card.

You are allowed to define your experience any way you want to. No one can take that away from you. But when you include your experience as a point of reference in a conversation about definition, it is fair game for another person to say "the experience you described could also be defined in this way." I don't need to know the interior of your mind better than you do to say that there are multiple ways of defining the process that you yourself described.

See, these are examples of working backward from conclusion to definition (at least you have presented them as such, I can only guess at the process that went into them). You start with a certainty of self-description and derive your definition (or lack thereof) from that.

I don't know how you define Martian. The way I define it, I tend to agree with you, you probably aren't one. But for the sake of clarity, let's see what the dictionary has to say.

Martian: a hypothetical or fictional inhabitant of Mars.

Now let's see if that applies. Do you inhabit Mars? No? Excellent. We can come to the reasoned conclusion that you are not a Martian.

Although, maybe there are other definitions of Martian that we aren't thinking of. I seem to recall that some astrological types use the term to describe people who were born with Mars in their astrological sign. Or something like that? Anyway, let's say hypothetically some people use the term that way. By that definition, maybe you are a Martian (if you happen to have been born with Mars in your astrological sign). It does not become invalid simply because you don't use the word that way.

Likewise, when you start from the conclusion that you are not "doing story," and derive your definitions from that, you are working backwards. When you work backwards, rather than arriving at a reasonable and defensible conclusion, you arrive at an unreasonable and indefensible definition like "storytelling is defined as that which I'm not doing when I play RPGs."

See, what I thought I was doing was testing the premises and their derived conclusions against reality.

If a premise and/or process produces conclusions that clearly don't match reality, is the premise and/or process really valid?


Some players are not engaged in collaboratively creating a story when they play their characters. They don't care what story the other players get out of it, even if those other players might. They don't care what kind of story emerges. They're not doing anything to shape a story. They're only having their characters respond, act, speak, etc, as they think/feel those characters would.

To be clear, this is not to say that other players cannot should not engage in storytelling, collaborative or otherwise, or that their approach to gaming is inferior, or badwrongfun.

Any application of the term "collaborative storytelling" that asserts that all players are engaged in it, or that one cannot play an RPG without engaging in it, fails the test against reality.

[Tanarii]

What is it? Give us the definition and state your source. We have given you guys many definitions pulled from internationally recognized sources and you essentially say nah those are garbage. We are going to go with this vague wishy-washy statement which we can change to mean whatever we want.

EDIT: For the purposes of this conversation I am going with the Oxford Dictionary definition of "An account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment."

That's a good enough definition to be going on with. It can also be boiled down to "an account of events" and still works.

What's happening here is people trying to change that definition to: "events". Removing the "An account" part.

[Blackjackg]

What's happening here is people trying to change that definition to: "events". Removing the "An account" part.

That's not what's happening here. Two or three times, a few days ago, one person made statements which could be construed as that. Those statements were later clarified. Everyone else is using the definition that includes making an account.

[Max_Killjoy]

What is it? Give us the definition and state your source. We have given you guys many definitions pulled from internationally recognized sources and you essentially say nah those are garbage. We are going to go with this vague wishy-washy statement which we can change to mean whatever we want.

EDIT: For the purposes of this conversation I am going with the Oxford Dictionary definition of "An account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment."

See, that's the thing, some players aren't giving an account of events, they're only presenting what their character does and says. Because they're acting strictly through their character as if that character were an actual individual inside the "secondary reality", they have no more influence or say over the course of events than that individual would. It's a person-who-could-be-real, inside a world-that-could-be-real.

For someone to claim that this is "storytelling", it would appear that are also asserting that you, living your life right now, are actively engaged in "storytelling" by the very act of being a living thinking individual making decisions and doing stuff.

And going in the other direction, the moment it's asserted that we're "storytelling" it also seems to be an assertion that we're treating our characters as story elements and not as people-who-could-be-real, and thus an assertion that we cannot possibly be playing the game the way we think we're playing the game.

[Tinkerer]

That's a good enough definition to be going on with. It can also be boiled down to "an account of events" and still works.

What's happening here is people trying to change that definition to: "events". Removing the "An account" part.

Hmm, I think I'm starting to get closer to understanding your point of view. Not agreeing with but understanding. Quick question, are people who are acting in a play in a live theatre engaged in storytelling?

[Tinkerer]

For someone to claim that this is "storytelling", it would appear that are also asserting that you, living your life right now, are actively engaged in "storytelling" by the very act of being a living thinking individual making decisions and doing stuff.

If I were always actively narrating the things that I do to someone then yes, living my life would be storytelling. You need the telling part to engage in storytelling.

Edit: My apologies for the double post, I should have edited my previous response to include this one.

EDIT EDIT: Perhaps a better example would be if my SO came home and told me about their day I would definitely say that they told me a story.

[Max_Killjoy]

What's happening here is people trying to change that definition to: "events". Removing the "An account" part.

That's not what's happening here. Two or three times, a few days ago, one person made statements which could be construed as that. Those statements were later clarified. Everyone else is using the definition that includes making an account.

From 12:32pm EST today:

I prefer the idea that "any series of events" is a story

[Segev]

While I will argue that character-focused players are going to be engaged in storytelling, there is one aspect of RPGs that aren't storytelling unless somebody comes along to relate the story of playing the game later: the gameplay itself. If you play it as a game, with your character(s) being just (a) game piece(s), then collaborative storytelling probably isn't happening because there's no story. It's just a game. You're trying to make the moves to "win," by whatever definition of "win" you have for this game. (Usually, beat the designated foes, solve the presented puzzles, and get the loot and advancement points to make your character better at the next "level.")

[Blackjackg]

Just sitting down and playing your PC does not INHERENTLY fall under either one of those applications of the phrase.

For the second application, the lack of universality to all gaming should be obvious, but several posts have also gone into why and how it's not universal.

For the first application, it's only universally true of all gaming if you reduce "creating a story" to "producing any recounting of a series of events", at which point it becomes technically true and yet tells us absolutely nothing.

Damn, dude, right up until the end there we were so close to agreeing. Yes, the second definition is not universally applicable to all tabletop roleplaying games experiences. That lack of universality is indeed obvious. Not being argued.

And yes, the first application is only universally true of all [tabletop roleplaying] gaming if you [use the widely held-definition of] "creating a story" [that is] "producing any recounting of a series of events." Which is what we're doing. Because it's a reasonable, well-supported and meaningful definition. Where you get the impression that it tells us absolutely nothing is beyond me.

See, what I thought I was doing was testing the premises and their derived conclusions against reality.

If that's what you were doing, you failed to show your work. What you said was "If someone presents a definition of Martian that allows them to them claim I'm a Martian, that definition is flawed." There's no testing of premises explicit in this process. You started from your conclusion and worked back to your definition.

If a premise and/or process produces conclusions that clearly don't match reality, is the premise and/or process really valid?

Man, I am wracking my brains trying to think of some way to make it even clearer that we need definitions to assess whether a conclusion matches reality. It seems really obvious, and I'm not sure what part of that understanding you're missing.

Let's try this: If you tell me there are no elephants in the United States, I will say that your conclusion does not match reality. If you then tell me that when you say "there are no elephants," you mean there are no native wild populations, I will agree that, by that definition, your conclusion matches reality. We can argue about whether your definition is a fair definition, and we can cite evidence to determine whether that definition is valid, but we can't come to a conclusion and compare that conclusion to reality until we establish what the heck we're talking about. Definition of terms has to come before generating conclusions and comparing them to reality.

Some players are not engaged in collaboratively creating a story when they play their characters. They don't care what story the other players get out of it, even if those other players might. They don't care what kind of story emerges. They're not doing anything to shape a story. They're only having their characters respond, act, speak, etc, as they think/feel those characters would.

To be clear, this is not to say that other players cannot should not engage in storytelling, collaborative or otherwise, or that their approach to gaming is inferior, or badwrongfun.

You're conflating the first and second definitions. You're describing the second, non-universal definition and then arguing that it's not universal.

[Blackjackg]

From 12:32pm EST today:

I stand corrected. I disagree with Aliquid's stated opinion.

EDIT: Ah, I see that you cut out the part that came immediately after, in which he provided the more specific definition and argued that one doesn't have to accept his preferred definition because the specific definition applies as easily as the general. Smooth.

[Knaight]

See, that's the thing, some players aren't giving an account of events, they're only presenting what their character does and says.

What their character does and says are events, and narrating them is providing an account of an event. If there's continuity between more than one event, that becomes an account of events, plural. That's a form of storytelling by the "accounts of" definition. If more than one person is involved in making said account it gets collaborative.

[Max_Killjoy]

Damn, dude, right up until the end there we were so close to agreeing. Yes, the second definition is not universally applicable to all tabletop roleplaying games experiences. That lack of universality is indeed obvious. Not being argued.

And yes, the first application is only universally true of all [tabletop roleplaying] gaming if you [use the widely held-definition of] "creating a story" [that is] "producing any recounting of a series of events." Which is what we're doing. Because it's a reasonable, well-supported and meaningful definition. Where you get the impression that it tells us absolutely nothing is beyond me.

It tells us nothing because it doesn't serve to distinguish RPGs from other things that are not RPGs, and it doesn't distinguish between anything within RPGs, and it also serves to actively conflate different approaches to playing RPGs.

Plus, you might mean the first definition, but the hobby has more than a few people who mean the second definition or something far closer to it, and will actively use agreement that the first definition is a reasonable universal to push their agenda of asserting that the second definition is universal.

[Knaight]

It tells us nothing because it doesn't serve to distinguish RPGs from other things that are not RPGs, and it doesn't distinguish between anything within RPGs, and it also serves to actively conflate different approaches to playing RPGs.

If you leave "account of" in the description it distinguishes RPGs from board games, video games, etc just fine. It also only conflates different approaches to playing RPGs by pointing out existing similarities between them.

Plus, you might mean the first definition, but the hobby has more than a few people who mean the second definition or something far closer to it, and will actively use agreement that the first definition is a reasonable universal to push their agenda of asserting that the second definition is universal.

Similarly there's people who conflate the two arguments so that they can argue against the second argument and act like it discredits the first. I can think of two in this thread.

[Blackjackg]

It tells us nothing because it doesn't serve to distinguish RPGs from other things that are not RPGs, and it doesn't distinguish between anything within RPGs, and it also serves to actively conflate different approaches to playing RPGs.

It kind of does, though. There are lots of games that require no accounting of events, and the stories that arise from which can reasonably be considered incidental. I listed a few of them last night-- as I recall, I said something like chess, basketball, poker, Monopoly, and Settlers of Catan. I could go on-- Parcheesi, hide and seek, dominoes, patticake, Pictionary, horseshoes... in fact, most games in the history of civilization could reasonably be considered not to meet even the fairly broad criteria of the first definition. Tabletop RPGs, along with theatrical improv games and other forms of systematized "pretend" are the only games I've been able to come up with that obviously, universally do.

Now, there are whole marginal categories of games that might or might not fall into the definition, like story-based board games (e.g., Arkham Horror). I don't really know if those games should or should not be counted as inherently collaborative storytelling. Frankly, that would be a much more interesting discussion than the one we've been having.

Plus, you might mean the first definition, but the hobby has more than a few people who mean the second definition or something far closer to it, and will actively use agreement that the first definition is a reasonable universal to push their agenda of asserting that the second definition is universal.

If that is the case, then those people are wrong. That has nothing to do with this conversation.