Why collaborative storytelling is a meaningless phrase

[Tinkerer]

Before this goes too far off the rails, I believe Knaight is not saying that is the only thing that could be called "storytelling".

snip

Yeah, I figured it out. I would definitely like Tanarii to provide their definition of the word account though because I must say I am honestly baffled by what they could mean.

[Aliquid]

If it will help make you stop strawmanning, I will clarify that there are certain things players communicate while playing that are not part of the story. For instance, all of the out-of-character discussions, such as questions about rules, updates on what's in someone's inventory, tactical planning, and so on.

Very clever, proactively stopping the strawman.

Yes, plenty of communication that takes place during an RPG is not storytelling.

[Max_Killjoy]

(Personally, I would say that the entire reason we have sports commentators is to translate mere "events" into "stories",

And you know what... I hate when they do that. It's awful. Journalists do it more and more, too, and it makes the articles so hard to wade through.

Don't try to tell me a narrative, just give me the facts.

[Max_Killjoy]

Okay, hold up.

Max_Killjoy. Buddy. Has this entire argument seriously just been because remembering it's make-believe just, like, takes you out of the moment?

Because most of us probably feel the same way! Getting really sucked into a game is fun! It's like watching a good movie—sometimes you just want to get drawn into what's on the screen, not think about it as a movie created by humans for money.

Granted, it can also be fun to create a story together while thinking of it as a story (see Fate, for instance), but there's a reason D&D and most popular TTRPGs have mechanics where you try something and then discover what happens (e.g., D&D skill checks) instead of explicitly narrative mechanics where you use resources to decide what happens (e.g., Fate's fate points).

What I'm not seeing is what this discussion has to do with any of that.

It's less that it bothers me to think of it as "make believe", and more that it literally and directly bothers me to think of it as "story".

But just like watching the Avengers for fun doesn't make it not a movie, the fact that you don't enjoy thinking about a game as a story doesn't make it not a story.

And I don't think it's reasonable to ask that an entire industry worth of storytelling game designers and players stop calling it "storytelling" just because you don't like thinking about it that way.

An actual storytelling game is another thing entirely, and often leaves the space in the Venn diagram that could really be called an RPG.

But this guy explains it far better than I can in a reasonable-length post. See also here.

And that's also part of why some of us cringe when an RPG is called a "storytelling game".

[Tinkerer]

It's less that it bothers me to think of it as "make believe", and more that it literally and directly bothers me to think of it as "story".

An actual storytelling game is another thing entirely, and often leaves the space in the Venn diagram that could really be called an RPG.

But this guy explains it far better than I can in a reasonable-length post. See also here.

And that's also part of why some of us cringe when an RPG is called a "storytelling game".

Many people cringe when RPGs are referred to as "make believe" but that doesn't change the fact that they are make believe. While you are passing out links could you kindly provide a few to the authors who say that you require the specific things you mentioned to create a story?

EDIT: And yes a "storytelling game" is now actually a specific term for a particular type of game. I would personally still put them as a sub-genre of role-playing game but a fair number of people do not.

[Max_Killjoy]

Many people cringe when RPGs are referred to as "make believe" but that doesn't change the fact that they are make believe. While you are passing out links could you kindly provide a few to the authors who say that you require the specific things you mentioned to create a story?

EDIT: And yes a "storytelling game" is now actually a specific term for a particular type of game. I would personally still put them as a sub-genre of role-playing game but a fair number of people do not.

On the flip side, I'd say that even if RPGs are all inherently "collaborative storytelling", that doesn't tell us that much, because there are other things that aren't RPGs that are "collaborative storytelling", from the way movies and television shows are produced, to those "storytelling games", to many examples of children playing... hell, even "MadLibs" could be seen as "collaborative storytelling".


For the links... you'd have to listen to a lot of podcasts, as in about 150 hours and counting.

[Tanarii]

Would you kindly give us your definition of account? I haven't heard of this more specific definition of it.

Yeah, I figured it out. I would definitely like Tanarii to provide their definition of the word account though because I must say I am honestly baffled by what they could mean.

An account of something is a post-facto description of it.

In fact, this captures it pretty closely IMO:

Account: a report or description of an event or experience.

When I'm a player describing what they want to do, or a DM resolving them, we are establishing in-game events. Not providing an account of them. Unless that's the player & DM intent, in which case good for them.

There's huge quantities of communication that don't fit in either of those categories by our allegedly overbroad definitions. We're talking about a very narrow slice of communication here, specifically a series of descriptions of fictional events, where each description is linked to prior descriptions in a fictional chronology, produced by more than one person. That mouthful of a sentence is a pretty broad description of essentially every roleplaying game, and that, specifically, is what is being called collaborative storytelling.

Tons of communication doesn't fit that pattern.

Communicating resolutions establishes events.

The specific set of things being talked about is by no means a comprehensive list of what either accounts are or storytelling is. The sports announcer example is much closer to the edge of the definitions than an RPG.

Actually, a sports announcer is giving an account of events. Much more so than if I giving intended actions and DMs who resolves them, thereby establishing events.

[Blackjackg]

An account of something is a post-facto description of it.

Ah, you see that "post-facto" you stuck in there? You added that. That's not in the definition you liken it to below, or in any of the definitions of a "account," "story," or "storytelling" that most of us have been using. The way we, and the dictionary, define account, it can be an account of events that have occurred, events that are occurring, events that we predict will occur or, relevantly, events that have never occurred and will never occur because they're fictional.

Now, again, you can have your own definition that includes it being post-facto. Heck, even I can see justifications for doing so. But don't expect us to alter all of our definitions just because you did.

Oh, right, they're ignoring me. Could someone point that out to them, please? Edit: It suddenly struck me that there's no way my impish, jocular tone was coming through here. Apologies.

[Cynthaer]

It's less that it bothers me to think of it as "make believe", and more that it literally and directly bothers me to think of it as "story".

That's cool and all, but my point still stands: If you don't like thinking about it as a "story"—which is an entirely valid way to feel!—then your best bet is probably to play with people who feel the same way, or will at least respect your wishes.

Personally, if I was in a group with someone who specifically felt uncomfortable discussing the game as a story, I would happily hold any such discussions until that player was not present (assuming they ever happened at all). And I would strongly encourage anybody else to do the same.

You'll never see me argue against your own preferences or what makes you personally uncomfortable.

An actual storytelling game is another thing entirely, and often leaves the space in the Venn diagram that could really be called an RPG.

But this guy explains it far better than I can in a reasonable-length post. See also here.

And that's also part of why some of us cringe when an RPG is called a "storytelling game".

I wish you'd posted that link ages ago, because at least I understand what the hell you're talking about now.

Honestly, I don't have time to go through that guy's entire proposed taxonomy of tabletop games, so I'll just say this: Those are interesting posts with some good ideas.

There are definitely some contexts where his personal definitions of "storytelling games" vs "role-playing games" are useful, particularly if someone is trying to understand/explain why they or someone else is enjoying/not enjoying a certain sort of game.

It makes sense to try and distinguish different games by how players interact with the story, but it goes much too far to say that games he categorizes as "role-playing games" do not involve storytelling and games he categorizes as "storytelling games" do not involve role-playing. Most games in this space involve some amount of both. Categories do not have to be rigidly defined and perfectly bounded to be useful.

In any case, his personal definitions of gaming subgenres are not the same context as when Wizards of the Coast says "The Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game is about storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery", or when the rest of us say that playing D&D creates a story. We are not required to use that specific jargon.

When we describe TTRPGs as "storytelling games", we do so in contrast to other games that are not storytelling games—namely video games and board games, which are the other types of games that the average person is familiar with.

Now, you may feign confusion because we haven't perfectly defined "storytelling" in a way that includes every single TTRPG and excludes every single thing that is not a TTRPG, but honestly? That's your problem.

When someone new to TTRPGs asks what the "point" of D&D is if you can't "win" at it, the phrase "collaborative storytelling" makes it click for them damn near 99% of the time. They get it. If it doesn't make any sense to you, you're in an extreme minority.

An account of something is a post-facto description of it.

Yo, where did "post-facto" come from? You can absolutely give an account of something as it's happening.

And even if we accepted that as true, there is no "post-facto" to these imaginary events because they never actually happened.

Consider this: In a play-by-post game, one player writes all of their character's actions in present tense. Another writes their character's actions in past tense. Are you seriously arguing that only the second player is giving an account of their character's actions, because they prefer to write "she swung her sword" instead of "she swings her sword"?

[jojo]

Intent matters.

Intent CAN matter. Others have pointed this out already but like @Max_Killjoy you continue to conflate circumstantial validity with universal validity. The end result is that you're trying to convince us to accept that subjective and objective are the same thing.

Example 1:

"The isotope Hydrogen 7 has been synthesized in a laboratory, therefore: The isotope Hydrogen 7 occurs naturally."

Example 2:

"This Hydrogen Atom has 3 Neutrons, therefore: Hydrogen Atoms are comprised of a Proton, an Electron and 3 Neutrons."

Both examples are circumstantially valid. In the first case both because a semantic argument could be made in support and because logic dictates that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absences.
In the second case because a semantic argument could be made in support and because given certain circumstances the statement is factually correct.

If I instead said something like:

Example 1a:

"The isotope hydrogen 7 has been synthesized in a laboratory, therefore: the isotope hydrogen 7 must also occur naturally."

or

Example 2a:

"This Hydrogen Atom has 3 Neutrons, therefore: All Hydrogen Atoms have a proton, an electron and 3 Neutrons."

I would be wrong. In both cases I've conditionally modified my statement in such a way as to assert that a circumstantially valid statement or observation is actually an objective fact.

This could be escalated in a number of increasingly absurd ways. For instance, I could assert that:

Example 3:

"This Atom has 3 Neutrons, therefore: not only must this atom have 3 protons it must have 3 electrons and therefore be a Lithium Atom!"

Example 4:

"All Atoms have a number of Electrons, this Atom has no Electrons, therefore: This is not an Atom; it is a previously undiscovered unit of matter!"

Returning to the central issue here. Intent can matter a great deal. It should be assumed that each individual considers their intent meaningful. But to an outside observer Intent doesn't always matter. The result of this is arguments proceeding from individual intent are bad arguments.

This is what's happening here.

But what's happening here is some people saying "but your motorcycle is actually a car". For example:

No. I establish an attempted, and the GM tells me the results. This establishes the event happens. That is not an account, it's events happening.

You are attempting to define a motorcycle as a car.

Incorrect.

What is occurring here, is that you are attempting to define other people's cars as not being motorcycles in response to those people providing you with a definition of vehicles.
Occasionally the discussion becomes confused by people mentioning trains.

And what about those players whose enjoyment of the game takes significant negative impact when thinking about the characters as fictional elements, let alone when letting "intentional story" concerns into the equation?

By which you mean yourself?

Don't make your problems other people's problems. When in Rome. Read the Room. You do you. Live and let live.

All of the above are reasonable responses when confronted with a player or group of players who are detracting from your enjoyment of the game.
What is not reasonable is attempting to redefine, by exclusion, the entirety of human knowledge to rationalize your irritation.

And you know what... I hate when they do that. It's awful. Journalists do it more and more, too, and it makes the articles so hard to wade through.

Don't try to tell me a narrative, just give me the facts.

Oh. So many things make sense now. Try googling "Hunt the Good Stuff." Or videos of cats.

[Max_Killjoy]

That's cool and all, but my point still stands: If you don't like thinking about it as a "story"—which is an entirely valid way to feel!—then your best bet is probably to play with people who feel the same way, or will at least respect your wishes.

I did, for many years actually.

And this "storytelling" fixation never came up, except in White Wolf's pretentious sneering rants about how anyone who wasn't munching angstburgers was playing their games wrong and should go back to D&D.

When someone new to TTRPGs asks what the "point" of D&D is if you can't "win" at it, the phrase "collaborative storytelling" makes it click for them damn near 99% of the time. They get it. If it doesn't make any sense to you, you're in an extreme minority.

If someone had told me 30+ years ago when I was just getting into RPGs, "They're about collaborative storytelling", I'd probably have said "Oh", and walked away, because I wouldn't have pictured what goes on at the gaming table, I would have pictured a "story circle" or a group of people trying to write a novel using dice and reference books... or some sort of actual collaborative storytelling.

[Max_Killjoy]

By which you mean yourself?

Don't make your problems other people's problems. When in Rome. Read the Room. You do you. Live and let live.

All of the above are reasonable responses when confronted with a player or group of players who are detracting from your enjoyment of the game.
What is not reasonable is attempting to redefine, by exclusion, the entirety of human knowledge to rationalize your irritation.

Except it's not just me, and as the terms have actually been used specific to RPGs for quite a while now, I'm not redefining anything.

Part of the problem here is that some are insisting that they can reconstruct the terms from the root by dragging in the broad definitions of the individual words make them up, while steadfastly clinging to feigned or deliberate ignorance of the usages these terms have picked up over the years specific to RPG discussions.

When you tell someone "you're engaged in storytelling when you play an RPG", you're not making a neutral statement, no matter how much you want it to be one. It's like announcing you're having a tea party meeting, and then calling people "delusional idiots" (see this thread for examples of that happening) for not realizing that you're actually meeting to have tea and biscuits, no politics involved. Or naming one of the continents in your new setting "Thule" and then acting shocked (SHOCKED, I SAY!) when someone wonders if there are... certain leanings in your work, perhaps.

Someone else tried to explain this, and so far has been steadfastly ignored, I don't think I've seen a single person reply to one of his posts on this thread.

[Pelle]

Max, do you have a good suggestion for a neutral umbrella term that will include 'roleplaying games', 'storytelling games' and games that are both, but not include board games? That would be useful to me at least.

So far, lots of people seem to be content using 'collaborative storytelling' for this. You seem to be offended by this, and as I agree that it feels a little misleading I would be happy to find something better.

[Darth Ultron]

And you know what... I hate when they do that. It's awful. Journalists do it more and more, too, and it makes the articles so hard to wade through.

Don't try to tell me a narrative, just give me the facts.

Oh, I hate this too. I see an interesting line..and what to know the details, but not the 11 minute drawn out multi media presentation about the story...just the details. Just X. I have to scroll through so much just to get to that X. I wish it could be more ''here is X, oh and if you'd like more see below..."



So I wonder what ''Story'' everyone is talking about....assuming there is a ''story''. I see only three:

1.The Game's Story
2.The DM's Story
3.The Players Story

So, 3. seems like the most obvious one everyone will agree on: Each player wants to tall the personal story of their character

2. Will get a lot of hostility as many think the DM should not ever tell a story or do anything but react to the players.

1.Well, this sounds like whatever one is talking about...some group hug storytelling amazing thing for the players(with the DM only reacting, of course)

So to break them down....

3.The Players Story is not much. They have a character and can act out what the character does....but that is it. There really is not much of a story, as really all the player can do is react to the game/setting/DM. The player only has control of the character, so they can't ''tell a story'', they can only ''tell the actions of a single character". The player themselves are not making a story...just a small story fragment that is part of another bigger story.

1. and 2. do get a bit mixed...the DM's story and the Game story are really the same thing. The DM is making the setting and everything in it...including a back ground story.

And before the hostility rises too much, keep in mind that the DM's Game Story is a bit open...like a Mad Lib. So the Story has a start, middle and end....but a lot of the details are left open. So yes the players can effect things, in the frame work of the Story, but they are not making a new story and don't have full control: they are just effecting an already made story, with blank details they can fill in.

So the DM and players are making a story together...but it is not an equal split. It's much more 95% DM and 5% Players. Of course people see the numbers and go crazy as they think everything must be 50/50 at all times....but reality is not like that. The DM, will total control over the game and game world, can tell or not tell any story they want: they can do anything. The player can only effect the game and game world through their character, AND only do what the DM, even lightly allows.

If the player wants to say ''have a gnome that tells jokes'' they have to, in the game world, have that character approach an npc and tell a joke. And to do that they have to ask the DM where any and all npcs are, and then tell the DM that they will walk over to them. Then the player can have the character tell a joke and the DM will tell the player what the reaction is. The DM, on the other hand, can have a gnome tell a joke to a huge crowd of NPC and have any sort of reaction the DM wants. The DM controls it all. If the DM wants the joke to fail, then the npc crowd groans and throws tomato's, for example.

Now RPGs have rules.....but not for everything...so if the game has a ''Laughter Rule'' then it's possible for ''the rules'' to say what happens when the players gnome tells a joke. BUT even then RPG rules are WAY vague enough so the DM can STILL do whatever they want, and still follow the rules 100%. And when the DM is storytelling....the rules don't apply. The DM can just say ''the gnome tells a joke and everyone laughs'' WITHOUT rolling a Laughter Check for all the NPCs.....the DM could, but they don't have too. But a player can't do that, they have to roll and ask the DM what happens.

So is any of this close to the ''Story'' everyone is talking about?

[Tinkerer]

On the flip side, I'd say that even if RPGs are all inherently "collaborative storytelling", that doesn't tell us that much, because there are other things that aren't RPGs that are "collaborative storytelling", from the way movies and television shows are produced, to those "storytelling games", to many examples of children playing... hell, even "MadLibs" could be seen as "collaborative storytelling".


For the links... you'd have to listen to a lot of podcasts, as in about 150 hours and counting.

Indeed it doesn't tell us much. Because RPGs are a more specific subset of collaborative storytelling. It's a general umbrella term as I've mentioned at least 3 times before. That is what umbrella terms do. Going back to the team sports analogy again it doesn't tell you if you are referring to football or baseball or hockey or soccer. And that is okay, the term isn't supposed to tell you what you are playing. That doesn't mean that the term team sports is useless or meaningless.

Or if you would prefer another example the word mammal doesn't specify if you are talking about a dolphin or a dog or a human. That doesn't mean the word mammal is useless or meaningless.

And that's okay on the links. Go ahead and provide them. I usually listen to podcasts at an accelerated rate anyway unless they are really well produced.

EDIT:

Part of the problem here is that some are insisting that they can reconstruct the terms from the root by dragging in the broad definitions of the individual words make them up, while steadfastly clinging to feigned or deliberate ignorance of the usages these terms have picked up over the years specific to RPG discussions.

Citation required. As I mentioned earlier "storytelling game" does have an established meaning now however to the best of my knowledge "collaborative storytelling" itself is still a neutral term.

[Max_Killjoy]

Indeed it doesn't tell us much. Because RPGs are a more specific subset of collaborative storytelling. It's a general umbrella term as I've mentioned at least 3 times before. That is what umbrella terms do. Going back to the team sports analogy again it doesn't tell you if you are referring to football or baseball or hockey or soccer. And that is okay, the term isn't supposed to tell you what you are playing. That doesn't mean that the term team sports is useless or meaningless.

Or if you would prefer another example the word mammal doesn't specify if you are talking about a dolphin or a dog or a human. That doesn't mean the word mammal is useless or meaningless.

And that's okay on the links. Go ahead and provide them. I usually listen to podcasts at an accelerated rate anyway unless they are really well produced.

I'm still trying to find the pertinent discussions again in all these episodes, but here's the link to the first season archive (they just ended season 12).

http://www.writingexcuses.com/catego...son/season-01/

Max, do you have a good suggestion for a neutral umbrella term that will include 'roleplaying games', 'storytelling games' and games that are both, but not include board games? That would be useful to me at least.

So far, lots of people seem to be content using 'collaborative storytelling' for this. You seem to be offended by this, and as I agree that it feels a little misleading I would be happy to find something better.

I would love to have that term myself.

Personally I struggle with terms (because they almost always end up with implications one didn't intend) and with definitions (because they almost always end up "netting" things that one didn't intend them to net, or excluding things one didn't intend to exclude).

[Tinkerer]

I'm still trying to find the pertinent discussions again in all these episodes, but here's the link to the first season archive (they just ended season 12).

http://www.writingexcuses.com/catego...son/season-01/

Oh don't do that that unless you really feel like it. I didn't mean to be a bother, just curious as your statement flew in the face of what I've heard from accomplished writers over the years (unfortunately I have serious issues with names so I can't equally provide a citation). I'll check that out over the next few weeks.

[Blackjackg]

If someone had told me 30+ years ago when I was just getting into RPGs, "They're about collaborative storytelling", I'd probably have said "Oh", and walked away, because I wouldn't have pictured what goes on at the gaming table, I would have pictured a "story circle" or a group of people trying to write a novel using dice and reference books... or some sort of actual collaborative storytelling.

And you also recognize that your personal negative reaction to a particular descriptor doesn't invalidate it, right?

When someone new to TTRPGs asks what the "point" of D&D is if you can't "win" at it, the phrase "collaborative storytelling" makes it click for them damn near 99% of the time. They get it. If it doesn't make any sense to you, you're in an extreme minority.

That's always been my experience. On this note, for those of us who are caught up to the conversation, I have an additional wrinkle to consider. This was something that I brought up in my original definition of collaborative storytelling that I later dropped because it sort of blurred the lines between the definitions of collaborative storytelling as a genre of game and as a style of play. It has to do with objectives, and may help to further distinguish between tabletop RPGs and some other games that use similar mechanisms of storytelling.

Here I distinguish between the purpose of a game and the objective of a game. The purpose as I define it (and if folks really want to get pedantic, they can argue these definitions, but they're conceptual placeholders in my argument so there doesn't seem to be much point) is the reason we play the game: to have fun; to demonstrate skill or intelligence; to develop skill or intelligence; to kill time; etc. etc. The objective is the mechanic that tells you when the game is over and who, if anyone, has won. Everyone's purpose in playing a game is very individual, but the objective of most games is built into the rules: the objective of chess is to checkmate your opponent; the objective of Monopoly is to be the last player who isn't bankrupt; the objective of most sports and many modern board games is either to be the first to X points, or to score the most points in X time.

As we have defined collaborative storytelling (first definition, for those keeping track: a style of games characterized by collectively creating an account of events), we have been describing the primary mechanism of the game: how it is played. Some folks will (doubtless) argue that it's not how they play the game, but we can set that aside for the moment. Using our definition, people telling each other what their characters do and being told what happens in the world as a result is the main mechanism of tabletop RPGs and the primary reason that they can be called collaborative storytelling games.

While that definition can generally distinguish them from lots of other games, there are some games that are a little bit trickier to differentiate. The first that come to my mind are story-centered board games like Arkham Horror and Tales of the Arabian Nights, in which players control characters (albeit not ones they create and without the necessity of developing a unique personality for that character) and make decisions on their behalf. Some video games could arguably fall into this broad definition as well.

I'm suggesting that --perhaps--, we could have a more robust and meaningful definition of collaborative storytelling as a genre of game if we include a consideration of objective in the definition. Tabletop RPGs, unlike most mass-marketed games, don't have an objective built into the rules. Certainly, individual groups running individual games can create their own objectives (e.g., "Your goal is to slay the ogre king. If you succeed, you will have finished this adventure. If you all die, you have failed.) and that's a totally valid way to play, but it's equally valid to run a game with no objective (e.g., "Here is a world. It ain't gonna explore itself.").

In the absence of a built-in objective, one might be able to argue that the mechanism takes the place of the objective. Here's an analogy: When you take your car out to the beach, the beach is your objective and driving is your mechanism. You could say "I'm driving to the beach," and that would be entirely correct; or you could just say "I'm going to the beach" with no mention of driving, and that would be accurate too. When, however, you're taking your car out without any objective, you're more likely to just say "I'm going out for a drive."

So, what about that? What if the phrase "collaborative storytelling" as a genre didn't only refer to the mechanism of play, but also the lack of an objective outside of experiencing that mechanism? That certainly jibes with the way I use the phrase, but as I said it starts to blur that line between a broad descriptor that necessarily includes all tabletop RPGs and a narrower descriptor of a style of play (i.e., it opens up the door for people to say "When I play D&D, it's not a storytelling game, it's an ogre king-killing game.").

Something to chew on.

[Cynthaer]

I did, for many years actually.

And this "storytelling" fixation never came up, except in White Wolf's pretentious sneering rants about how anyone who wasn't munching angstburgers was playing their games wrong and should go back to D&D.

So...you're saying that discussions of games as storytelling never came up when you were playing games with people who, like you, didn't like discussing games as storytelling?

Is that particularly surprising to you?

If someone had told me 30+ years ago when I was just getting into RPGs, "They're about collaborative storytelling", I'd probably have said "Oh", and walked away, because I wouldn't have pictured what goes on at the gaming table, I would have pictured a "story circle" or a group of people trying to write a novel using dice and reference books... or some sort of actual collaborative storytelling.

And if you communicated to that person what you thought they were describing, they would have the chance to clarify that it's not like "writing a novel" so much as "having an adventure", and you could continue to discuss it until you understood each other.

Not every wording is going to completely and perfectly work for every single person. That's what conversations are for. And I'm sorry that this phrase carries a lot of baggage for you personally, but again, in practice it demonstrably conveys an accurate, high-level sense of what TTRPGs are like for most people.

Here I distinguish between the purpose of a game and the objective of a game. The purpose as I define it (and if folks really want to get pedantic, they can argue these definitions, but they're conceptual placeholders in my argument so there doesn't seem to be much point) is the reason we play the game: to have fun; to demonstrate skill or intelligence; to develop skill or intelligence; to kill time; etc. etc. The objective is the mechanic that tells you when the game is over and who, if anyone, has won. Everyone's purpose in playing a game is very individual, but the objective of most games is built into the rules: the objective of chess is to checkmate your opponent; the objective of Monopoly is to be the last player who isn't bankrupt; the objective of most sports and many modern board games is either to be the first to X points, or to score the most points in X time.

As we have defined collaborative storytelling (first definition, for those keeping track: a style of games characterized by collectively creating an account of events), we have been describing the primary mechanism of the game: how it is played. Some folks will (doubtless) argue that it's not how they play the game, but we can set that aside for the moment. Using our definition, people telling each other what their characters do and being told what happens in the world as a result is the main mechanism of tabletop RPGs and the primary reason that they can be called collaborative storytelling games.

[...]

I'm suggesting that --perhaps--, we could have a more robust and meaningful definition of collaborative storytelling as a genre of game if we include a consideration of objective in the definition. Tabletop RPGs, unlike most mass-marketed games, don't have an objective built into the rules. Certainly, individual groups running individual games can create their own objectives (e.g., "Your goal is to slay the ogre king. If you succeed, you will have finished this adventure. If you all die, you have failed.) and that's a totally valid way to play, but it's equally valid to run a game with no objective (e.g., "Here is a world. It ain't gonna explore itself.").

[...]

So, what about that? What if the phrase "collaborative storytelling" as a genre didn't only refer to the mechanism of play, but also the lack of an objective outside of experiencing that mechanism? That certainly jibes with the way I use the phrase, but as I said it starts to blur that line between a broad descriptor that necessarily includes all tabletop RPGs and a narrower descriptor of a style of play (i.e., it opens up the door for people to say "When I play D&D, it's not a storytelling game, it's an ogre king-killing game.").

This distinction between mechanics and objectives is actually a crucial point. The one change I'd make is to focus less on the objective of the game and more on the motivation of the player.

Magic: the Gathering has three famous "player psychographics", which describe "why" people play. They're not mutually exclusive—almost every player has a mix of all three—but together they cover the major reasons people have fun with the game:

Why does Tammy or Timmy want to play Magic? They are eager to experience something. They seek an emotional and/or adrenaline rush. One way that some Timmies and Tammies experience this is with big creatures or spells. It can be exhilarating to cast a giant thing and watch it have a huge impact on the game. For other Timmies and Tammies, this rush comes from social interactions. It can be great fun interacting with your friends as you play. Yet other Timmies and Tammies like high-variance cards, because there's ongoing surprise. [...]

Johnny and Jenny are the same. They want to use the game as a means to express something about themselves. For some, that is creative deck building. For others it's combos. For yet others, it is finding uses for cards in ways no one expects. [...]

Spikes want to prove themselves. The game is a means of demonstrating what they are capable of. That might come from having the highest win percentage, or having the most people play the deck they tuned, or constantly bypassing accomplishments they set for themselves.

The key here is that all of these players are playing the same game with the same rules (let's assume Standard for simplicity). They're all facing each other with 60-card decks, 20 life points, playing 1 land per turn, casting creatures and spells, and trying to win the game. Yet a Tammy may play a Jenny, and each player might particular joy in a different aspect of the game even while they're doing the same things from a mechanical standpoint.

(Let's not get bogged down in how broad or specific M:tG's psychographics are, please. They're broad because that's what's useful for the designers, but we can be as specific as we like for our own discussion.)

I believe more popular (not to say better) TTRPGs like D&D are good at pulling this same trick: Designing the game so that people with different motivations can play together while enjoying different aspects of the game.

This is precisely why people in this thread are saying that storytelling is an inherent part of the game, but each player is free to not care about it.

Consider the following players in a D&D 5e group:

A is excited to contribute to a group storytelling effort. Every word spoken, every spell cast, every sword swung is a part of the story, and the result is a unique narrative that nobody could have come up with on their own.

B is also excited about storytelling, but is particularly interested in her own character. Her character has some odd vocal tics and funny obsessions that are amusing to act out—but the best part will come later on in the campaign, when she and the DM will reveal to the whole party the dark secret that casts all of her previous actions in a different light. It will blow their minds.

C hates thinking of the game as a "story". He just wants to embody his character and experience the action moment-to-moment as that character.

D is here for some BIG NUMBERS. Just tell him what character build rolls the most d12s per session and get out of his way.

E knows the system inside and out. She's not the DM, but she's a walking PHB. She spends much of her time in-session reminding less experienced players about bonuses and abilities they've forgotten they have, tracking things so the DM doesn't need to, and generally keeping the game running smoothly.

All of these players are primarily enjoying different parts of the game, but they can all play at the same table in harmony.

Now, there are other people who would not fit in—F likes optimizing a billion numbers, and should go play 3.PF or something similarly crunchy, while G wants something more explicitly about writing a story, and should go play Fate or similar. That's fine.

The point isn't that everybody likes 5e; it's that many mainstream TTRPGs can satisfy multiple types of player motivations at the same time, even while the group as a whole is using one set of mechanics to achieve one in-game objective.

EDIT: I'll note that we're not the first people to think of this. It's the basic idea behind GNS theory, in which Max_Killjoy is a consummate Simulationist, and fears the rest of us are staunch Narrativists pushing an agenda (we're not), and behind WotC's market research conclusions from 1999, which would classify Max_Killjoy as a "Character Actor" who fears we are trying to make them become a "Storyteller" (we're not).

Like any social classification system, none of these are definitive or universal. Some of these might be useful when targeting an audience for your game, or when trying to understand a conflict between players, or when deciding what game system your group should play, etc.

It's just like how "it's about storytelling" is a rough but useful way to distinguish TTRPGs from video games for newcomers, but it's also still useful to distinguish "role-playing games" from "storytelling games" once you're familiar with the hobby. There's no ultimate objective taxonomy, just terms that are either useful in practice or not.

[kyoryu]

It seems to me that there's a number of people that don't see a difference between my Type 1 and Type 3 interactions.

Now, there are other people who would not fit in—F likes optimizing a billion numbers, and should go play 3.PF or something similarly crunchy, while G wants something more explicitly about writing a story, and should go play Fate or similar. That's fine.

I'd dispute this. Fate creates more "story-like" games, but is still mostly fairly traditional in approach. You really want "storytelling", go for Fiasco, or PTA, or Penny For My Thoughts, or something like that.

The point isn't that everybody likes 5e; it's that many mainstream TTRPGs can satisfy multiple types of player motivations at the same time, even while the group as a whole is using one set of mechanics to achieve one in-game objective.

Yes, which is the thing that RE never understood.

Max_Killjoy is a consummate Simulationist, and fears the rest of us are staunch Narrativists pushing an agenda (we're not)

With all respect, the issue is that to the outside observer, the behavior of many people in this thread is exactly identical to "staunch Narrativists pushing an agenda." As in, we've seen the exact same arguments from people that were pushing an agenda. And it's actaully fairly common.

It's just like how "it's about storytelling" is a rough but useful way to distinguish TTRPGs from video games for newcomers, but it's also still useful to distinguish "role-playing games" from "storytelling games" once you're familiar with the hobby. There's no ultimate objective taxonomy, just terms that are either useful in practice or not.

The problem here is the fact that you're using it as a way to distinguish video games from TTRPGs for people that don't need the distinction, which leads to a presumption of the second. The second issue is that using the same term for both leads to an assumption that the "storytelling" side of the second split is Good and Correct.

The third issue is that for me, at least, when I think of "collaborative storytelling" in a vacuum, I don't really think of anything like a TTRPG. I think of things more like a writer's circle. So I don't know how useful that phrase really is even to outsiders.

It's just got a lot of baggage, that's going to bring up a lot of reactions in a lot of gamers. Combined with the three issues above, I don't think it's a particularly useful phrase (except perhaps for certain varieties of storygames), regardless of whether or not it's technically correct by some definitions.

[Tinkerer]

I'd dispute this. Fate creates more "story-like" games, but is still mostly fairly traditional in approach. You really want "storytelling", go for Fiasco, or PTA, or Penny For My Thoughts, or something like that.

Indeed, a major distinction which separates RPGs from storytelling games is the lack of a randomization element.

With all respect, the issue is that to the outside observer, the behavior of many people in this thread is exactly identical to "staunch Narrativists pushing an agenda." As in, we've seen the exact same arguments from people that were pushing an agenda. And it's actaully fairly common.

And the behavior of a handful of people in this thread seems to be pushing the agenda of Tanarii's definition of story. Namely that of

My definition of story in RPGs is "using narrative resolution instead of causal resolution".

A definition which seems quite far from what I've heard any person outside this thread define the term as. It is this definition which I take particular umbrage with as it seems pulled from nowhere and extremely counter-intuitive.

The problem here is the fact that you're using it as a way to distinguish video games from TTRPGs for people that don't need the distinction, which leads to a presumption of the second. The second issue is that using the same term for both leads to an assumption that the "storytelling" side of the second split is Good and Correct.

The third issue is that for me, at least, when I think of "collaborative storytelling" in a vacuum, I don't really think of anything like a TTRPG. I think of things more like a writer's circle. So I don't know how useful that phrase really is even to outsiders.

It's just got a lot of baggage, that's going to bring up a lot of reactions in a lot of gamers. Combined with the three issues above, I don't think it's a particularly useful phrase (except perhaps for certain varieties of storygames), regardless of whether or not it's technically correct by some definitions.

My apologies I can't quite figure out what you mean by your second issue.

In regards to your third issue however I do agree that it encompasses many things and RPGs are not necessarily the first thing which springs to mind. The phrase is not meant to be used alone though. If I see something outside of my window and I wanted to describe it I wouldn't say "It's orange." This statement while true is pretty useless however it is not meaningless. The first thing which springs to mind when I say orange is an orange which the item definitely is not. I would probably say "It's an orange mid 90's pickup truck."

Similarly if I were to describe RPGs I definitely agree that saying "they are collaborative storytelling" doesn't really get much of the point across. I would instead say "they are a form of collaborative storytelling with two groups. The players, who control specific characters that they create, and the Game Master (or GM for short), who controls the rest of the world and creates the scenarios the characters are exposed to. When the players wish to do something more advanced than basic actions they usually roll dice based on the character sheet that they created to try and accomplish the task." Sorry about the lousy description I had to hammer this out in a rush, if I don't make it back have a good weekend all!

[kyoryu]

My apologies I can't quite figure out what you mean by your second issue.

Basically you're setting the expectation that RPGs are "about" storytelling, which when we get to the secondary (in terms of time) split (between storygames and other games), the default expectation is that "storygames" are the right answer.

In regards to your third issue however I do agree that it encompasses many things and RPGs are not necessarily the first thing which springs to mind. The phrase is not meant to be used alone though. If I see something outside of my window and I wanted to describe it I wouldn't say "It's orange." This statement while true is pretty useless however it is not meaningless. The first thing which springs to mind when I say orange is an orange which the item definitely is not. I would probably say "It's an orange mid 90's pickup truck."

My point is that it adds little, if any information, and the expectations that it creates are not well-grounded in reality. It confuses more than it clarifies.

Similarly if I were to describe RPGs I definitely agree that saying "they are collaborative storytelling" doesn't really get much of the point across. I would instead say "they are a form of collaborative storytelling with two groups. The players, who control specific characters that they create, and the Game Master (or GM for short), who controls the rest of the world and creates the scenarios the characters are exposed to. When the players wish to do something more advanced than basic actions they usually roll dice based on the character sheet that they created to try and accomplish the task." Sorry about the lousy description I had to hammer this out in a rush, if I don't make it back have a good weekend all!

This is an excellent example. My point is that the clarity of your explanation is not diminished *one iota* by removing the term "collaborative storytelling" and replacing it with just about any other term (such as, perhaps, game).

[Max_Killjoy]

The problem here is the fact that you're using it as a way to distinguish video games from TTRPGs for people that don't need the distinction, which leads to a presumption of the second. The second issue is that using the same term for both leads to an assumption that the "storytelling" side of the second split is Good and Correct.

Indeed. The "logic" was something like...

If

A -- "Collaborative storytelling" is posited to be what distinguishes a TTRPG from a CRPG and is generally definitive of what makes a TTRPG a TTRPG.

and

B-- More "collaborative storytelling" is also posited to be what separates one kind of TTRPG from another kind of TTRPG.

then

C -- TTRPGs with more "collaborative storytelling" are also "more RPG" and thus "better" than those with less "collaborative storytelling".


And the term "collaborative storytelling" is thus covertly shifted from descriptive to prescriptive, and every time someone who is using it descriptively says "RPGs are about collaborative storytelling", the prescriptive meaning also sneaks in.

(Setting aside the fact that for many players, RPGs are not about collaborative storytelling even using the purely descriptive meaning, and also setting aside that to say something is "about" something is somewhat inherently prescriptive to begin with.)

[Aliquid]

In regards to your third issue however I do agree that it encompasses many things and RPGs are not necessarily the first thing which springs to mind. The phrase is not meant to be used alone though. If I see something outside of my window and I wanted to describe it I wouldn't say "It's orange." This statement while true is pretty useless however it is not meaningless. The first thing which springs to mind when I say orange is an orange which the item definitely is not. I would probably say "It's an orange mid 90's pickup truck."

Similarly if I were to describe RPGs I definitely agree that saying "they are collaborative storytelling" doesn't really get much of the point across. I would instead say "they are a form of collaborative storytelling with two groups. The players, who control specific characters that they create, and the Game Master (or GM for short), who controls the rest of the world and creates the scenarios the characters are exposed to. When the players wish to do something more advanced than basic actions they usually roll dice based on the character sheet that they created to try and accomplish the task." Sorry about the lousy description I had to hammer this out in a rush, if I don't make it back have a good weekend all!

Good point. I would be curious if any of the people who have a problem with the phrase "collaborative storytelling" could think of a way to describe a TTRPG with two words. If someone actually asked me to describe a TTRPG in two words, I would say "it's complicated"... and leave it at that. If I could answer with a short paragraph, I might use the term collaborative storytelling as part of that paragraph, but I would certainly use the word "story" at some point or another.

[Max_Killjoy]

Good point. I would be curious if any of the people who have a problem with the phrase "collaborative storytelling" could think of a way to describe a TTRPG with two words. If someone actually asked me to describe a TTRPG in two words, I would say "it's complicated"... and leave it at that. If I could answer with a short paragraph, I might use the term collaborative storytelling as part of that paragraph, but I would certainly use the word "story" at some point or another.

If someone asked me to describe TTRPGs in two words... my two words would be "You can't".

But snark is a personal failing of mine.

[Cynthaer]

I'd dispute this. Fate creates more "story-like" games, but is still mostly fairly traditional in approach. You really want "storytelling", go for Fiasco, or PTA, or Penny For My Thoughts, or something like that.

Sure. The exact game doesn't really matter. The point is that most games can scratch more than one type of itch, but not all.

With all respect, the issue is that to the outside observer, the behavior of many people in this thread is exactly identical to "staunch Narrativists pushing an agenda." As in, we've seen the exact same arguments from people that were pushing an agenda. And it's actaully fairly common.

Okay. Let's try to resolve this, then.

- I agree that there are people who try to demand others change the way they play.
- I agree that some of those people argue a "narrativist" approach—in which decisions are made first and foremost for their effect on the story—is objectively superior.
- I agree that these people use the existence of a story in TTRPGs to assert that the story must be the primary concern of every player.

The only part I disagree with is that anyone's behavior here has been "exactly identical" to the agenda-pushers.

We have argued that playing TTRPGs inherently creates a story, but it does not follow that the narrative flow of that story must be every player's primary concern. This is a bad-faith argument on the part of those arguing people should play the game their way.

This is why I emphasize that boundaries are fuzzy, and both games and people contain multitudes.

D&D is a role-playing game, but a player doesn't need to care about the role-playing.

D&D is a game about storytelling, but a player doesn't need to care about telling a story.

D&D is a game of rolling dice, but a player doesn't need to care about rolling dice.

D&D is a game about having adventures, but a player doesn't need to care about having an adventure.

If it makes a difference, I personally am much closer to a "simulationist" than a "narrativist" in terms of what I like about the game. I see no contradiction between this and describing D&D as a "game about storytelling", because without the story, I wouldn't be "simulating" much of anything!

The problem here is the fact that you're using it as a way to distinguish video games from TTRPGs for people that don't need the distinction, which leads to a presumption of the second.

So, let's talk about context.

Recall the OP of the thread: The initial argument was that "collaborative storytelling" is a meaningless phrase. Why? Because people use it to refer to all TTRPGs, instead of only "storytelling games" with narrative-based mechanics, so it doesn't tell you what kind of TTRPG you are playing.

In this context, it makes sense to respond that it does have meaning when you are distinguishing TTRPGs from (say) video games.

The existence of the gaming jargon phrase "storytelling games" doesn't invalidate the meaning in the first context. English is filled with words that have popular layperson meanings in addition to technical meanings for certain contexts.

Words like "force", "power", and "energy" mean different things in physics and casual speech. A tomato is a fruit in a botanical context, but a vegetable in a culinary context. In biology, a "bug" is an insect of order Hemiptera, but in common speech it's any insect.

Similarly, in the context of all games and hobbies, answering "so what's the point" with "it's basically collaborative storytelling" is a perfectly good answer. At the same time, in the context of TTRPGs in general, it makes perfect sense to say, "this is a storytelling game, not a role-playing game" as a more specific distinction.

I see no conflict here.

The second issue is that using the same term for both leads to an assumption that the "storytelling" side of the second split is Good and Correct.

Does it, though?

Because I'm looking at the front page of this subforum right now, and nearly every single thread is explicitly or implicitly about "role-playing games" rather than "storytelling games". (The rest are generic ideas/art/setting questions.) In the vast majority of discussions, people use D&D 3.5e, PF, and D&D 5e as reference points, with Fate and other role-playing games also showing up fairly often. Whenever a specific storytelling game is mentioned, it's almost always presented as something most people wouldn't be familiar with.

And yet just about everybody around here seems to agree that all TTRPGs are, in a broad sense, about storytelling. If saying TTRPGs are about storytelling actually created a bias towards storytelling games over role-playing games, surely they would have at least some presence on this board?

The third issue is that for me, at least, when I think of "collaborative storytelling" in a vacuum, I don't really think of anything like a TTRPG. I think of things more like a writer's circle. So I don't know how useful that phrase really is even to outsiders.

Personally, I don't see this as a problem.

The biggest reason is that I don't think we're using "collaborative storytelling" in a vacuum. I agree that this is a useless exchange:

Me: "Hey, ever play Dungeons and Dragons?"

Them: "Nope. What is it?"

Me: "Collaborative storytelling."

Them: "..."

However, I've had variations on the following exchange a number of times over the years:

Me: "Hey, ever play Dungeons and Dragons?"

Them: "Nope. What is it?"

Me: "It's a fantasy tabletop role-playing game. Basically a group of people each play as one character, and one 'dungeon master' controls the enemies, describes the game world, that kind of thing. Think swords and sorcery, elves and dwarves. Lots of rolling dice to hit monsters and do other things."

Them: "Ah. So is it like a board game, or what?"

Me: "Not exactly—think more open-ended. In a board game, you can only do what the rules say you can do. In D&D, you could theoretically decide to do anything, within reason. You've got a human DM telling you what the result is, so it's not a problem."

Them: "So if you could do anything, how do you win? Like, what's the goal? Why are people playing it?"

Me: "Think of it as an exercise in collaborative storytelling. You don't really 'win the game'; it's more about having your character pursue their goals and seeing how the story unfolds from their actions. Of course, every group is different, and some people just like running through a dungeon killing goblins. The point is, your DM and your group generally decide what the specific goal is."

Them: "Cool, I get it."

For me, the question of how useful the phrase is in practice is really the only thing that matters. I've had success using it to explain things to newcomers, and most people on this board seem to be using the same general definition with only 2-3 people as an exception.

Plus, I haven't seen anybody fail to recognize that there is a difference between games that have narrative mechanics ("storytelling games") and games that do not have narrative mechanics ("role-playing games") as a result of this phrase existing.

In sum, it seems quite useful to me.

[Segev]

Serious question, stepping back for a moment: What point or points are those still arguing in this thread trying to prove or disprove? What is the thesis and antithesis being discussed? And for what purpose?

Pretend for a moment you convinced everybody in the thread to agree with you. What would that agreement look like? What would their agreement allow us to move on to as discussion points, or what resolutions would it allow is to come to?

I'm getting the feeling this has become argument for argument's sake, or worse, argument over whether we're "allowed" to have opinions about the nature of RPGs.

[Max_Killjoy]

Serious question, stepping back for a moment: What point or points are those still arguing in this thread trying to prove or disprove? What is the thesis and antithesis being discussed? And for what purpose?

Pretend for a moment you convinced everybody in the thread to agree with you. What would that agreement look like? What would their agreement allow us to move on to as discussion points, or what resolutions would it allow is to come to?

I'm getting the feeling this has become argument for argument's sake, or worse, argument over whether we're "allowed" to have opinions about the nature of RPGs.

It would look something like:

That the fact that story can emerge from playing an RPG, is not enough to make RPGs or playing an RPG inherently about storytelling.

That the fact that playing an RPG can be collaborative storytelling, does not make playing an RPG inherently about collaborative storytelling.

That some players' preference for collaborative storytelling in their RPGs, does not inherently make what other players are doing collaborative storytelling.

[Segev]

It would look something like:

That the fact that story can emerge from playing an RPG, is not enough to make RPGs or playing an RPG inherently about storytelling.

That the fact that playing an RPG can be collaborative storytelling, does not make playing an RPG inherently about collaborative storytelling.

That some players' preference for collaborative storytelling in their RPGs, does not inherently make what other players are doing collaborative storytelling.

Okay. So, for you, this argument is about getting across an idea that not all RPG players are doing it for the purpose of collaborative storytelling, and that you, personally, don't want the term applied to your playing of it. Is that accurate?

If so, why do you dislike that last point so much? What does it matter if they say you're engaging in "collaborative storytelling," but you disagree? Does it impact what you do in a game to have others call it that?

[Knaight]

It would look something like:

That the fact that story can emerge from playing an RPG, is not enough to make RPGs or playing an RPG inherently about storytelling.

That the fact that playing an RPG can be collaborative storytelling, does not make playing an RPG inherently about collaborative storytelling.

That some players' preference for collaborative storytelling in their RPGs, does not inherently make what other players are doing collaborative storytelling.

The first two of those are widely agreed on. "Contains X" is not remotely the same thing as "Is about X". The third is also widely agreed on - preferences have jack all to do with anything here.