Why collaborative storytelling is a meaningless phrase

[Cynthaer]

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.

I would agree if we replaced the word "inherently" with "exclusively" or "primarily, for all players".

The thing is, I have to say that on some level, most TTRPGs are indeed "about" storytelling. Why do I say this?

Because every game designer is telling me so:

From the 4e Player's Handbook:
"A roleplaying game is a storytelling game that has elements of the games of make-believe that many of us played as children."

From the 5e Player's Handbook:
"Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils."

From the Buffy the Vampire Slayer rulebook:
"Okay, in truth, a roleplaying game is about shared storytelling. You get together with several friends and create a tale."

The whole White Wolf/Onyx Path system uses the word storytelling interchangeably with roleplaying, as in the Chronicles of Darkness core book:
"Chances are you know what a storytelling — or roleplaying — game is already."

And just look at all of this from the first page alone of the 5e basic rules, starting from the very first line:

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.

You don't have to agree with the game designers*, but I have yet to see anybody at least acknowledge they are arguing that the game designers are wrong about what their own games are "about".

* Although the "death of the author" angle would be a curiously...postmodernist...approach to take, given the discussion thus far...

Again, I am not saying that anybody has to care about or engage with the story when playing a TTRPG. I want everybody to enjoy whatever they're enjoying. Do not change your playstyle or preferences. They are good and valid.

Saying TTRPGs are generally "about storytelling" does not change any of this.

[Blackjackg]

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.

[And lots of other interesting, well thought-out stuff]

Clarifying this was my main goal in distinguishing the purpose of a game from the objective of a game (again, my terms; we could probably find better ones). The purpose of a game (as I had defined it) could be considered synonymous with the motivation of the player. It is indeed highly subjective, to the point where five people playing the same game could have totally different purposes (and maybe not even know it!).

The objective, on the other hand is... well, objective. It's built right into the game. If you're playing checkers, you have a single objective: capture all of the opponent's pieces before they capture all of yours. If you're playing Magic: The Gathering, whatever your motivation for playing is, your objective is to reduce your opponent to 0 life points (or run out their deck, or whatever other win mechanisms have been put in since I last played).

Lots of games don't have any built-in purpose/motivation... in fact, I have a hard time thinking of any that do. But tabletop RPGs are different from most other games in that they don't have any built-in objective. The players (including the DM) have the option of creating their own, but it's not required.

We-- at least I-- have talked about two reasonable common-use definitions of the phrase "collaborative storytelling," as regards roleplaying games. The first regards the games themselves, inherently and necessarily, and the second regards a style or philosophy of play. When we talk about motivation, we're really talking about the second definition, by which some players may be engaging in collaborative storytelling while other players of the same game (even in the same game) might be engaging in a different process. That's a great definition, but it's not the one I was working with in this case.

I was really talking about the first definition, which concerns the game itself on a definitive level. It's all well and good to say that all tabletop roleplaying games function by collaborative storytelling by definition (which I believe has been well-demonstrated here), but some of the opponents of that definition are right it doesn't effectively exclude a number of other games that also fall into the fairly broad definition of "collaborative storytelling."

What I proposed here was modifying the (first) definition of "collaborative storytelling game," from "game which functions by collaborative storytelling," to "game which functions by collaborative storytelling and has no other inherent objective," on the principle that when a journey has no destination, the journey itself is the destination. I wasn't sure it worked, and the more I think about it the less sure I get, but that's what I was talking about.

In any case, reading the more recent posts and the blog pages that Max_Killjoy linked (which, I agree, have some interesting points), I have managed to become convinced that there could be a third reasonable, defensible common-use definition: collaborative storytelling as a subset of roleplaying games that are designed, philosophically and mechanically, with greater story quality and/or equitable collaboration in mind. This doesn't invalidate the other definitions or make them redundant, but it might more accurately reflect what some folks here are talking about. It's still a bit of a squidgy definition as it describes a nebulous range on a continuum rather than a discrete category; but then, so did the second "play style" definition.

[Aliquid]

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?

If I use a word to mean something, AND at least 2/3 of the people on this thread say "that's how I understand the word too", AND multiple dictionaries match my definition, AND various published RPG manuals on the subject use the word in the same way... then I'm not being unreasonable to use the word in that manner.

[Blackjackg]

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".

Hey, Aristotelian teleology. Nice. You're right, that is a fallacy of equivocation.

The definition of collaborative storytelling that encompasses all tabletop RPGs is not a "more or less" definition, it's a binary choice. Either a game functions by collaborative storytelling or it doesn't. The definition by which a game can be more story-focused or less story-focused is a different definition. When you use two definitions in a single argument, that's equivocation.

Whether collaborative storytelling describes all TTRPGs by definition, some TTRPGs by design intent, or any TTRPG by player intent, depends entirely on which definition you're using. And which definition you'll use can depend on who you're talking to and why.

Next time you encounter some of these purists telling you all tabletop RPGs are collaborative storytelling by definition, and therefore the iterations and approaches that emphasize story quality are right or best, you send 'em my way. I'll fight them just as hard as I've been fighting you.

(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.)

You bolded the right word, because it's that "about" that changes which definition we're using. All TTRPGs are collaborative storytelling, but not all TTRPGs are about collaborative storytelling.

I kind of suggested that all TTRPGs are about collaborative storytelling in my last couple of posts about objective, but you can ignore that. That's just one person thinking out loud rather than many people's overall position.

[Max_Killjoy]

You bolded the right word, because it's that "about" that changes which definition we're using. All TTRPGs are collaborative storytelling, but not all TTRPGs are about collaborative storytelling.

I don't think it does change anything. When you say RPGs ARE collective storytelling, you're saying they're ABOUT collective storytelling and that collective storytelling is how they're played.

[Blackjackg]

I don't think it does change anything. When you say RPGs ARE collective storytelling, you're saying they're ABOUT collective storytelling and that collective storytelling is how they're played.

Heh. That's funny, the way you quote me saying something, then tell me that I'm saying the opposite of the thing you just quoted me saying. As I recall, some folks around here consider that deeply, deeply insulting. Personally, I find it vaguely perplexing.

[Max_Killjoy]

Heh. That's funny, the way you quote me saying something, then tell me that I'm saying the opposite of the thing you just quoted me saying. As I recall, some folks around here consider that deeply, deeply insulting. Personally, I find it vaguely perplexing.

To be clear, the point is that the statement "all RPGs are cooperative storytelling" is also to some degree inherently "all RPGs are about comparative storytelling".

The "you" was general, not specific.

E: though, after all, if I can't play an RPG without "collaborative storytelling" no matter what my intent is, or my thoughts on the matter are, or what I'm there for...

[Blackjackg]

If I said you couldn't play the trombone without breathing, would you say that playing the trombone is, to some degree, about breathing?

Edit: Actually, that's not a great example, because I now realize I do think that playing the trombone is, to some degree, about breathing.

Ok, so maybe we do agree. You're just using a different definition of "about" than I was. I suppose, using your definition, I am saying that tabletop RPGs are, to some degree, about collaborative storytelling. But hey, if that bothers you, you could just use a different definition and then I wouldn't be saying that anymore.

[Max_Killjoy]

If I said you couldn't play the trombone without breathing, would you say that playing the trombone is, to some degree, about breathing?

Edit: Actually, that's not a great example, because I now realize I do think that playing the trombone is, to some degree, about breathing.

Ok, so maybe we do agree. You're just using a different definition of "about" than I was. I suppose, using your definition, I am saying that tabletop RPGs are, to some degree, about collaborative storytelling. But hey, if that bothers you, you could just use a different definition and then I wouldn't be saying that anymore.

One of the irksome things about this thread is the apparent assertion that the meaning of a term, phrase, or sentence can be parsed simply by stringing together chosen definitions of the individual words and in turn the words that make up some of those words, rather than considering the whole, and without considering the meanings those terms, phrases, or sentences might have due to their baggage.

(I hesitate to use the first example coming to mind, since it is at once both snarky, and completely out of scale, such that one might be accused of hyperbole or drawing an insensitive parallel. Perhaps I'll think of another.)

However, I am curious as to which definition of "about" you're using there, vs which one you think I'm using, that it would supposedly make a difference.

[Aliquid]

One of the irksome things about this thread is the apparent assertion that the meaning of a term, phrase, or sentence can be parsed simply by stringing together chosen definitions of the individual words and in turn the words that make up some of those words, rather than considering the whole, and without considering the meanings those terms, phrases, or sentences might have due to their baggage.

Well that's how logical arguments work...

Your argument can be broken down as follows. "If you can't do X without creating Y, then doing X must be about Y". And it is a flawed argument.

BUT, if your concern is "baggage", then just come out and say that in the first place. You know, say something like this:
"Sure, you technically collaboratively create a story when playing an RPG, but you shouldn't call it 'collaborative storytelling' because that phrase has a bunch of baggage attached to it which implies something else"

[Max_Killjoy]

Well that's how logical arguments work...

The philosopher asks "How do you know the chair is real?"

I respond, "I'm not sitting on the floor."

Your argument can be broken down as follows. "If you can't do X without creating Y, then doing X must be about Y". And it is a flawed argument.

That's actually not my argument. It's the thing I've been arguing against for umpteen pages -- the idea that because story can emerge in the course of playing an RPG, RPGs are storytelling and (either stated or implied) thus about storytelling That is, that RPGs are inherently storytelling -- which is not the same as saying that story might accidentally arise as a byproduct.

BUT, if your concern is "baggage", then just come out and say that in the first place. You know, say something like this:
"Sure, you technically collaboratively create a story when playing an RPG, but you shouldn't call it 'collaborative storytelling' because that phrase has a bunch of baggage attached to it which implies something else"

I did say that. Multiple times across the thread. So have a couple of other people.

[Aliquid]

I did say that. Multiple times across the thread. So have a couple of other people.

yes but it took pages upon pages of debate before you said that. It would have been much less confusing for the rest of us if you started out that way and stuck with that argument rather than repeatedly saying our definition was flawed.

Also, I might have missed it, but I haven’t seen you say that when you play an RPG you technically are collaboratively creating a story. The closest I recall seeing is you saying something a bit less committal, like it can create a story.

[Mutazoia]

The philosopher asks "How do you know the chair is real?"

I respond, "I'm not sitting on the floor."

The philosopher responds, "Can you not sit on things other than chairs?"

[Max_Killjoy]

yes but it took pages upon pages of debate before you said that. It would have been much less confusing for the rest of us if you started out that way and stuck with that argument rather than repeatedly saying our definition was flawed.

From how I recall the thread going it was probably said at least once before you noticed it, and again, I'm not the only one who tried to point it out.

Like here -- http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...l#post22711884 -- on page 5 of 14, five days ago now.

Of course, that seemed to have been generally ignored by most in the thread... in favor of telling people how wrong they are about why and how they play RPGs.

Also, I might have missed it, but I haven’t seen you say that when you play an RPG you technically are collaboratively creating a story. The closest I recall seeing is you saying something a bit less committal, like it can create a story.

Why would I say that when I don't think it?

"I said that" refers to the part about the term having baggage.

And of course RPGs can be collaborative storytelling, there are people who play them that way, and for that reason, and as long as they're having fun and also return that attitude towards others who play differently and for different reasons, it's all cool.

[Knaight]

One of the irksome things about this thread is the apparent assertion that the meaning of a term, phrase, or sentence can be parsed simply by stringing together chosen definitions of the individual words and in turn the words that make up some of those words, rather than considering the whole, and without considering the meanings those terms, phrases, or sentences might have due to their baggage.

The alleged baggage you describe appears to afflict exactly three people in this thread. Meanwhile the dominant definition in use among everyone else matches the straightforward case. On top of that, language usually does so - there's all sorts of specifically coded phrases with esoteric meanings (e.g. moral majority), but there's even more cases where you just stick an adjective in the vicinity of a noun depending on which language you're working in (e.g. red car).

[Segev]

To be clear, the point is that the statement "all RPGs are cooperative storytelling" is also to some degree inherently "all RPGs are about comparative storytelling".

The "you" was general, not specific.

E: though, after all, if I can't play an RPG without "collaborative storytelling" no matter what my intent is, or my thoughts on the matter are, or what I'm there for...

Is playing basketball "about" exercise? No.

Is playing basketball exercise? Yes.

Can you play basketball without getting any exercise? I doubt it, and if you could, people would legitimately question whether you were actually playing basketball or just kind of existing near the court.

Whether "exercising" is your intent or not, you are doing so if you legitimately play basketball. It isn't making basketball "about exercise" to state this fact.

[Blackjackg]

One of the irksome things about this thread is the apparent assertion that the meaning of a term, phrase, or sentence can be parsed simply by stringing together chosen definitions of the individual words and in turn the words that make up some of those words, rather than considering the whole, and without considering the meanings those terms, phrases, or sentences might have due to their baggage.

This time, the troublesome word in your argument is "the." As in "the meaning of a term," as distinct from "a meaning a term." Definite articles are a sneaky form of black-and-white language that is not always accurate. You can arrive at a meaning of a term by parsing definitions of the words. (I also note that you added "chosen" in there even though it's been stated clearly that we haven't been picking and choosing the most convenient definitions, just using the first ones that come up.) I also don't see any indication that we're failing to consider the whole.

It seems like what you're saying here is that the existence of one definition (conveniently, yours) of a phrase invalidates all other possible definitions and uses. Even though you've presented no evidence that yours came first, or is most commonly used by lay-people or by experts, and although you've argued that it's the most/only meaningful and useful definition, I would also say that you haven't made a particularly persuasive case for that.

You could, I guess, argue that the definition with the most negative baggage should be the default (in the same way we tend not to use the phrase "national socialist" to describe efforts toward socialism on a national scale). Is that what you're saying? That would be an interesting, if altogether different, conversation.

However, I am curious as to which definition of "about" you're using there, vs which one you think I'm using, that it would supposedly make a difference.

Well, I had been using "about" as an indication of purpose and motivation. As in "Home decoration is about creating a unique space." or "Education is about changing the way you think." It's the why of doing something. That's why I would not have said "Tabletop roleplaying games are about collaborative storytelling," because I can't speak to why a given person plays them or what they hope to get out of it.

It seems as though the definition of "about" you've been using also includes an expression of mechanism-- how something is done. So, tromboning is about breathing, and about moving your arm back and forth. Eating a meal is about putting a small amount of food in your mouth, chewing and swallowing. NASCAR, to paraphrase Robin Williams, is about making left turns.

And you know what, I get it. That's a fair way of using the word "about." So if we're using a definition of about that includes description of how a game is played, then I agree that my stance is that tabletop RPGs are necessarily about collaborative storytelling. Just please don't say this means that my stance is that everyone plays tabletop RPGs because they want to tell stories collaboratively, or that games that put more explicit emphasis on collaboration and storytelling are better. That is not my position.

[Aliquid]

Is playing basketball "about" exercise? No.

Is playing basketball exercise? Yes.

Can you play basketball without getting any exercise? I doubt it, and if you could, people would legitimately question whether you were actually playing basketball or just kind of existing near the court.

Whether "exercising" is your intent or not, you are doing so if you legitimately play basketball. It isn't making basketball "about exercise" to state this fact.

Furthermore, there are some people who might play basketball specifically for the exercise, and for them is is "about exercise", but just because they do it for that reason, doesn't suddenly imply that everyone else is doing it for that reason too.

[Max_Killjoy]

This time, the troublesome word in your argument is "the." As in "the meaning of a term," as distinct from "a meaning a term." Definite articles are a sneaky form of black-and-white language that is not always accurate. You can arrive at a meaning of a term by parsing definitions of the words. (I also note that you added "chosen" in there even though it's been stated clearly that we haven't been picking and choosing the most convenient definitions, just using the first ones that come up.) I also don't see any indication that we're failing to consider the whole.

It seems like what you're saying here is that the existence of one definition (conveniently, yours) of a phrase invalidates all other possible definitions and uses. Even though you've presented no evidence that yours came first, or is most commonly used by lay-people or by experts, and although you've argued that it's the most/only meaningful and useful definition, I would also say that you haven't made a particularly persuasive case for that.

You could, I guess, argue that the definition with the most negative baggage should be the default (in the same way we tend not to use the phrase "national socialist" to describe efforts toward socialism on a national scale). Is that what you're saying? That would be an interesting, if altogether different, conversation.

The horrible analogy I thought of earlier was... if someone were to open a camp for kids with studying difficulties, to teach them concentration skills... and then insist that the obvious name they derived by purely mechanistic combination of words (using their common definitions) was a perfectly valid and acceptable use of that name and that no one could rationally object to it.

It would be a gross scale error to equate that with a gaming discussion, but... at this point there's no way you can say that people are engaged in storytelling when their playing an RPG without that statement carrying the baggage of that comes from the Edwardian attempt to hijack gaming to serve one man's all-consuming bugbears and the rotten arguments used in that cause, and without running the risk of conflating RPGs with "storytelling games" / "storygames" that have high levels of character detachment, and without running the risk of conflating RPGs with deliberate collaborative storytelling exercises (such as writer's circles, etc).

Well, I had been using "about" as an indication of purpose and motivation. As in "Home decoration is about creating a unique space." or "Education is about changing the way you think." It's the why of doing something. That's why I would not have said "Tabletop roleplaying games are about collaborative storytelling," because I can't speak to why a given person plays them or what they hope to get out of it.

It seems as though the definition of "about" you've been using also includes an expression of mechanism-- how something is done. So, tromboning is about breathing, and about moving your arm back and forth. Eating a meal is about putting a small amount of food in your mouth, chewing and swallowing. NASCAR, to paraphrase Robin Williams, is about making left turns.

And you know what, I get it. That's a fair way of using the word "about." So if we're using a definition of about that includes description of how a game is played, then I agree that my stance is that tabletop RPGs are necessarily about collaborative storytelling. Just please don't say this means that my stance is that everyone plays tabletop RPGs because they want to tell stories collaboratively, or that games that put more explicit emphasis on collaboration and storytelling are better. That is not my position.

You can take meanings of the words "collaborative" and "story" and "telling" and find ways to make them individually fit what's going on in an RPG session, and then cram them together, such that it works for your argument. But that will never make RPGs inherently an act of actual collaborative storytelling or (by any meaning) about collaborative storytelling, and it will never make actual collaborative storytelling an acurate label for what all players are doing -- only for some players. The emergence of story is not the same as storytelling, and cooperating to play the game is not the same as collaborating to tell a story.

I think the "why" and "how" here are unavoidably entangled to some degree. Either way one is using "about", I don't think it's possible (beyond a very deliberaly narrow parsing) to say that gaming is collaborative storytelling, without saying it's about collaborative storytelling. The assertion that playing an RPG is "collaborative storytelling", is not just a flat description based on a technically correct parsing of the individual words, but an essential claim about what playing the game IS.

It's similar to the reasons why "translating" and "transliterating" are not the same thing.

[kyoryu]

BUT, if your concern is "baggage", then just come out and say that in the first place. You know, say something like this:
"Sure, you technically collaboratively create a story when playing an RPG, but you shouldn't call it 'collaborative storytelling' because that phrase has a bunch of baggage attached to it which implies something else"

I've personally said that in at least half of the posts I've made on this thread.

From how I recall the thread going it was probably said at least once before you noticed it, and again, I'm not the only one who tried to point it out.

Like here -- http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...l#post22711884 -- on page 5 of 14, five days ago now.

It's cool. I don't think I've ever been Warnocked as hard as this thread.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warnock%27s_dilemma

[Max_Killjoy]

I've personally said that in at least half of the posts I've made on this thread.



It's cool. I don't think I've ever been Warnocked as hard as this thread.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warnock%27s_dilemma

I kept expecting your posts to get some kind of response, since they were bringing up some of the same points I was... especially after I quoted and linked to a few of them. But nothing. I think I was experiencing Warnock-by-proxy.

[Aliquid]

I've personally said that in at least half of the posts I've made on this thread.

Looking back, you have tried to draw attention to the baggage and why people cringe at the phrase.

I don't think I've ever been Warnocked as hard as this thread.

To be honest, I scanned over many of your posts without actually reading them, including a couple of posts that I would have responded to... if I had actually read them. So I asked myself, "why didn't I read that the first time round?" My best guess is that when there is a heated debate, and hundreds of posts, I simply don't have time to read them all, and it appears I am more likely to read a post that is responding with a quote than a fresh post. The two posts of yours that I found most interesting were clean comments on their own without any quotes, and it appears that my eyes just slipped over them when looking at the dozens of new posts since the last time I read the thread.

Just an observation of my thread reading behavior. Don't know if others do the same or not.

[Blackjackg]

I can only speak for myself, but I have been aware that the "baggage" of the term is part of this conversation for a while. I've mostly responded to other things (though I have responded to the baggage argument as well) because it's never been the only point being raised, and also because there isn't a lot to say about it. Baggage is, practically by definition, a subjective addition based on your own experience of a term rather than its inherent meaning(s). When you say "the term has baggage," that is roughly equivalent to saying "I (and presumably some others) don't like it because of our experience of it," and I can't debate that. So I let it pass and attend to the other two people who are yelling that the dictionary definition of "story" is meaningless.

...at this point there's no way you can say that people are engaged in storytelling when their playing an RPG without that statement carrying the baggage of that comes from the Edwardian attempt to hijack gaming to serve one man's all-consuming bugbears and the rotten arguments used in that cause...

I hear what you're saying-- I can't use the term without invoking the baggage--, but here's the thing: I can. I've been using the phrase "collaborative storytelling" to describe roleplaying games for years, and this is the first time I've encountered anyone who debates that definition on the basis of their personal trauma at the hands of some schmo who abused the term.

And I get it. I do. Heaven help me, I'm even sympathetic to it. I'd be ticked off too if someone tried to force me to use a definition I don't agree with. But you have to recognize that your bad experiences with the phrase do not render it inherently without meaning. Least of all to those of us who have good experiences using it to help explain our beloved hobby to folks who haven't experienced it.

and without running the risk of conflating RPGs with "storytelling games" / "storygames" that have high levels of character detachment, and without running the risk of conflating RPGs with deliberate collaborative storytelling exercises (such as writer's circles, etc).

Yeah, the risk of conflation is always there. English is an inexact language, and sometimes you have to engage in a process of questioning definitions to realize that you're using the same term to mean different things.

[Aliquid]

I can only speak for myself, but I have been aware that the "baggage" of the term is part of this conversation for a while. I've mostly responded to other things (though I have responded to the baggage argument as well) because it's never been the only point being raised, and also because there isn't a lot to say about it.

Yes, when there isn't a lot to say about it, and there is most certainly a lot to say about the other things being said... it is easy to gloss over it.

Two theoretical debate scenarios

Scenario 1
Me: "The term means this"
Other person: "no the term doesn't mean that, and the term has baggage"

I'm going to skip right over the baggage part and focus my attention on the definition part... you can't go anywhere in a debate until you have an agreed understanding of what the terms mean.

Scenario 2
Me: "The term means this"
Other person: "Technically yes, but there is a bunch of baggage with the term being used that way, so you shouldn't use it"

Then I will notice the baggage issue and discuss it.

I've been using the phrase "collaborative storytelling" to describe roleplaying games for years, and this is the first time I've encountered anyone who debates that definition on the basis of their personal trauma at the hands of some schmo who abused the term.

Me too.

[Tanarii]

Some of you need to google "collaborative storytelling", then check the wikipedia entry that pops up, before you try to continue to push your agenda that all RPGs are collaborative storytelling and that's the normal definition being applied correctly.

[Tinkerer]

Some of you need to google "collaborative storytelling", then check the wikipedia entry that pops up, before you try to continue to push your agenda that all RPGs are collaborative storytelling and that's the normal definition being applied correctly.

Yeah... because if we are going by Wikipedia the phrase collaborative storytelling doesn't show up as a definition within Role-Playing Game, indeed in the same paragraph distinctly placing the Role-Playing Game as a sub-categorization of storytelling game.

[Max_Killjoy]

Some of you need to google "collaborative storytelling", then check the wikipedia entry that pops up, before you try to continue to push your agenda that all RPGs are collaborative storytelling and that's the normal definition being applied correctly.

Are you referring to the article about "storytelling games" that comes up, where such games are described as a subgenre of RPGs?

And yet at the same time seems just so slyly slanted toward the notion that such games are more "modern" and "free" in a binary contrast with games that aren't story-based?

[Knaight]

Some of you need to google "collaborative storytelling", then check the wikipedia entry that pops up, before you try to continue to push your agenda that all RPGs are collaborative storytelling and that's the normal definition being applied correctly.

Collaborative fiction has a Wikipedia entry. Storytelling game has a Wikipedia entry. Collaborative story doesn't have one. The collaborative fiction page also explicitly links to the role playing games page in see also, under recreational collaborative fiction.

It also includes this line: "Such table top role-playing has always been an exercise in collaborative fiction, but can possess more structured rules". Our agenda appears to be using the term's actual definition.

[Max_Killjoy]

Collaborative fiction has a Wikipedia entry. Storytelling game has a Wikipedia entry. Collaborative story doesn't have one. The collaborative fiction page also explicitly links to the role playing games page in see also, under recreational collaborative fiction.

It also includes this line: "Such table top role-playing has always been an exercise in collaborative fiction, but can possess more structured rules". Our agenda appears to be using the term's actual definition.

Or someone with an agenda edited the page? Outside of heavily curated and observed entries, Wikipedia is often as "definitive" as the last person to edit the page in question.

The article is a bit of a mess, either way... the sentence right before that says (emphasis added) "Other forms of collaborative fiction have evolved from the practices of tabletop and role-playing video game gamers and related 'fandom' activities. Role-playing games such as Dungeons and Dragons are often seen as a process to generate narratives though each characters interactions."

[Knaight]

Or someone with an agenda edited the page?

This is downright conspiratorial. Your position is that on a page primarily about written fiction with the potential to be edited by that huge audience some agenda driven* niche RPG player (a much tinier population segment) edited the page, which we only found out about because someone on your side of the argument tried to bring it in as evidence.

*Because the idea of agendas as something held only by specific people in a dispute against non-agendad neutral parties is so totally rational.