Why collaborative storytelling is a meaningless phrase

[drakir_nosslin]

This ground has been very well covered at this point, and your "position" already thoroughly addressed.

Your random grab of old points comes across as crap-stirring. Try at least reading to the end of the thread first.

Having read the entire thread I just wanted to add my voice to the crowd here.

Regardless of (the player's or the character's) intent when playing a RPG, by narrating the actions of the character one is playing one is constructing a story. Now, it might not be a good story, but it is still an account of events. When a single person does this it is storytelling. If multiple people are engaged in this together, it becomes collaborative storytelling. As long as they provide some recounting of events which happen in some shared 'universe', it does not matter wether they are interested in telling a story or interested in collaborating, the end result still becomes collaborative storytelling.

Now, if they instead were discussing the different monster stats, other game mechanics or which parts of a car to replace that would not result in collaborative storytelling IMO, as they are not recounting events of a character.

Does this stop anyone from playing the game without any intent of creating a story, and not caring if a story is created? Not at all, but a story will emerge wether you like it or not. The fact that stories emerge from playing TTRPGS should not in the slightest impact the way people can, should or will enjoy the game.

[Tanarii]

For what it's worth I'm in complete agreement with them on everything except the definition of "storytelling" and "story". And "account" apparently... and a few of the digressions. Unfortunately when the definition of collaborative storytelling is the point of the thread that doesn't really account for much. They are a trio though.

I can say the same thing.

Hey, I'll take that as a good sign. :)

But as two people participating in this thread for a while, let me post an variant question to you, which it's entirely possible you answered previously and at length and I'm forgetting, but I'm interested in:

Why do you find "RPGs are about collaborative storytelling", used as a universal thing that all RPG play either participates in, or requires, or is done by every player just by playing their character, to be a useful and meaningful application of the term "collaborative storytelling"?

My intention is to ask about the converse of my contention, that using it in this way strips it of meaningful and useful context and definition, making it too broadly applicable to tell you anything about playing the game. Ie describing different play styles.

If that question doesn't accurately represent your position, for example you don't feel you're holding a diametrically opposed position to mine, I'd love to know why that is the case too.

On that and as a note, often in forum arguments, it's possible to see yourself as contesting another posters 'extreme' viewpoint, 'defending' against aspects of it with your moderate point of view, as opposed to being the opposite 'extreme'. For the record, that's how I viewed myself coming into this thread: Defending against an extremist definition with a more moderate viewpoint. Aggressively defending though. Pretty sure many other posters see themselves doing the same in their counterpoints.

[ImNotTrevor]

Hey, I'll take that as a good sign. :)

But as two people participating in this thread for a while, let me post an variant question to you, which it's entirely possible you answered previously and at length and I'm forgetting, but I'm interested in:

Why do you find "RPGs are about collaborative storytelling", used as a universal thing that all RPG play either participates in, or requires, or is done by every player just by playing their character, to be a useful and meaningful application of the term "collaborative storytelling"?

My intention is to ask about the converse of my contention, that using it in this way strips it of meaningful and useful context and definition, making it too broadly applicable to tell you anything about playing the game. Ie describing different play styles.

If that question doesn't accurately represent your position, for example you don't feel you're holding a diametrically opposed position to mine, I'd love to know why that is the case too.

On that and as a note, often in forum arguments, it's possible to see yourself as contesting another posters 'extreme' viewpoint, 'defending' against aspects of it with your moderate point of view, as opposed to being the opposite 'extreme'. For the record, that's how I viewed myself coming into this thread: Defending against an extremist definition with a more moderate viewpoint. Aggressively defending though. Pretty sure many other posters see themselves doing the same in their counterpoints.

It is useful as a term for beginners trying to grok the general shape of Roleplaying.

For instance, if I'm talking about Greek Architecture with a total beginner, I'm not going to begin with Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian columns and move into the various styles of relief. That's too much, too fast, and they don't have the basics yet.

Flying immediately into the minute distinctions is a quick way to lose your audience.

For instance, when I'm describing Warframe (a game I enjoy) to someone who knows nothing about gaming, I say it's a game about being "Ninjas in space with laserbeams."

This is not actually accurate, but people now have a foundation of understanding. If I'm talking to a gamer, I'll say "it's an mmo pseudo class-based looter-shooter" and they'll have an idea of what I'm talking about. But this description is not useful to those who know nothing.

If I had to describe Warframe to someone who had done a little research and wanted to know what separated it from similar titles, I would say:
"Warframe focuses a lot on mobility compared to others in its genre. It is fairly grind-heavy but levels are somewhat randomized so it doesn't feel like a chore, but if grinding isn't your idea of a fun time, stay away. With that however, the individual warframes offer a lot of playstyle variety and playing with friends is a blast."

The details increase according to my audience. "Collaborative Storytelling" is useful because it gives the general shape of things happening at the table when talking to someone who knows nothing. People who hear that are no longer surprised to hear character voices and descriptions of attacks and conversations because they've been primed to see something like that. The distinctions can be included as their understanding increases.

And at the end of the day, it is accurate in the same way that "ninjas in space with laserbeams" describes Warframe.

[Aliquid]

Hey, I'll take that as a good sign. :)

But as two people participating in this thread for a while, let me post an variant question to you, which it's entirely possible you answered previously and at length and I'm forgetting, but I'm interested in:

Why do you find "RPGs are about collaborative storytelling", used as a universal thing that all RPG play either participates in, or requires, or is done by every player just by playing their character, to be a useful and meaningful application of the term "collaborative storytelling"?

Short answer? I don't.

Group A: Play RPGs because they want to participate in "collaborative storytelling".
Group B: Don't care about the "story", and play for other reasons.

For group B, describing RPGs as "collaborative storytelling" is misleading and counterproductive. For group A, describing RPGs as "collaborative storytelling" is meaningful and useful.

A good portion of people are somewhere in the middle. They like the "story" aspect, but it isn't the main, or the only reason they play. For them "collaborative storytelling" is a meaningful but simplistic description that doesn't tell the whole story. It might not be their first choice for how to describe a RPG, but it is "good enough" for a brief description.

Technically speaking, group B still is "collaboratively telling a story", but that is not why they are playing the game... also, Technically speaking I could say that when I look out the 3rd floor window of a building that I am "high as a kite". Others might interpret me saying that in a different way.

[Florian]

@Aliquid:

To talk about something, you've got to define that something and also accept when there's enough overlap with other things that look and feel similar.

Example: I play Golf, not because of the game itself, but because I like the regular exercise, being outdoors and in friendly competition with other players. Should someone confront me with it, I´d have no problem accepting that I'm no "true Golfer" because I have no emotional investment here.

That, tho, seems to be the key difference in this discussion, maybe also add ego to it.

[Aliquid]

@Aliquid:

To talk about something, you've got to define that something and also accept when there's enough overlap with other things that look and feel similar.

Example: I play Golf, not because of the game itself, but because I like the regular exercise, being outdoors and in friendly competition with other players. Should someone confront me with it, I´d have no problem accepting that I'm no "true Golfer" because I have no emotional investment here.

That, tho, seems to be the key difference in this discussion, maybe also add ego to it.

Well I think that hints at the biggest problem for Tanarii and Max. To follow your golf analogy, it might suggest that if they don't play an RPG for the story, then they are no "true roleplayer", and from what I have read that is offensive to them (and understandably so)

[Knaight]

For what it's worth I'm in complete agreement with them on everything except the definition of "storytelling" and "story". And "account" apparently... and a few of the digressions. Unfortunately when the definition of collaborative storytelling is the point of the thread that doesn't really account for much. They are a trio though.

I'm pretty much in a similar place, although I'm totally fine with a metagame heavy author stance approach. I don't use it much, but I've got no beef. I'd also disagree regarding the extent to which various factions actually have influence over the industry/hobby.

But as two people participating in this thread for a while, let me post an variant question to you, which it's entirely possible you answered previously and at length and I'm forgetting, but I'm interested in:

Why do you find "RPGs are about collaborative storytelling", used as a universal thing that all RPG play either participates in, or requires, or is done by every player just by playing their character, to be a useful and meaningful application of the term "collaborative storytelling"?

My intention is to ask about the converse of my contention, that using it in this way strips it of meaningful and useful context and definition, making it too broadly applicable to tell you anything about playing the game. Ie describing different play styles.

Useful and meaningful are two separate questions here. I'd consider the term meaningful because it generally exists as a cohesive category - and RPGs aren't particularly relevant to that question. If nobody ever came up with the idea it would still be a meaningful term.

I'm not particularly interested in defending the utility of the term. That's never been what my contention was about. With that said in terms of introducing RPGs to people (or more often quickly dismissing a question asked about an RPG book on a shelf or something) it's a useful quick phrase. It's not how I'd introduce the games to everyone, but that doesn't make it useless.

EDIT: In both these cases I'd thoroughly avoid the term "about". This is a matter of category fitting, not defining focus. An RPG is no more necessarily about collaborative storytelling than a play is about a bunch of people acting on a stage or a book about a series of printed lines on a page. They can be about it, in that there are plays about plays and books about books, but that's by no means necessary.

My standard description, before tailoring it, is actually closer to "a cross between board games and improvisational theater".

On that and as a note, often in forum arguments, it's possible to see yourself as contesting another posters 'extreme' viewpoint, 'defending' against aspects of it with your moderate point of view, as opposed to being the opposite 'extreme'. For the record, that's how I viewed myself coming into this thread: Defending against an extremist definition with a more moderate viewpoint. Aggressively defending though. Pretty sure many other posters see themselves doing the same in their counterpoints.

Pretty much, although I'd characterize the other viewpoint less as "extreme" and more as "bizarre and counterfactual".

[Max_Killjoy]

Technically speaking, group B still is "collaboratively telling a story", but that is not why they are playing the game... also, Technically speaking I could say that when I look out the 3rd floor window of a building that I am "high as a kite". Others might interpret me saying that in a different way.

That actually comes close to part of my position...

Yeah, technically, with a very precisely chosen usage of the words, anyone in a tall building is "high as a kite". But if someone described their coworker as "high as a kite" and it caused trouble, no one would them off the hook because "a kite flies about as high as this floor of the building so it's technically true, and you can't object to me saying it."

Yeah, technically, with a very precisely chosen usage of the words, anyone playing an RPG is engaged in "collaborative storytelling"...

[Florian]

That actually comes close to part of my position...

Yeah, technically, with a very precisely chosen usage of the words, anyone in a tall building is "high as a kite". But if someone described their coworker as "high as a kite" and it caused trouble, no one would them off the hook because "a kite flies about as high as this floor of the building so it's technically true, and you can't object to me saying it."

Yeah, technically, with a very precisely chosen usage of the words, anyone playing an RPG is engaged in "collaborative storytelling"...

Max, you fail to see and accept how the mainstream changed and how that in turn changed the definition of the hobby. Pharao and Dragonlance replaced the "sandbox" in popularity and that changed the perception and terms.

[Knaight]

That actually comes close to part of my position...

Yeah, technically, with a very precisely chosen usage of the words, anyone in a tall building is "high as a kite". But if someone described their coworker as "high as a kite" and it caused trouble, no one would them off the hook because "a kite flies about as high as this floor of the building so it's technically true, and you can't object to me saying it."

Yeah, technically, with a very precisely chosen usage of the words, anyone playing an RPG is engaged in "collaborative storytelling"...

If anything it's the opposite. If you describe someone who has recently consumed a large amount of marijuana as "high as a kite", just about everyone will understand it. If someone then objects to this because the person consuming marijuana is at ground level, and that "high as a kite" is actually an ornithological term used by birdwatchers to identify similar raptors at a distance from their flight patterns, and that the use of that term to describe someone inebriated from illicit substances was actually support of unusual terminology from a particular strain of unorthodox bird watchers they'd be rightly considered as ridiculous.

That's what's going on here.

[Tinkerer]

The claim that a game is either purely one thing, or "bad", is part of Edward's baggage... evidently when someone called their game mechanics the "Storyteller" system but it wasn't a "narrative game system", it was equivalent to child abuse and caused brain damage to Mr Edwards (his words, not mine). The more Edwards explained his reasons, the more ridiculous he got.

Thing is, I'd say the opposite is true, and that in order to even be an RPG, a thing has to blend all those elements -- it needs rules (gamist) to provide framework and neutral arbitration, and in order to allow the characters to interact with each other and their fictional world (simulationist), and from that interaction a story emerges (narrativist), not to mention that gaming and fiction share certain things like characters, and worldbuilding.

Exclude any element or go too far into any one element, and you've gone off to a neighboring country that's not really the land of RPGs.

This was the quote which I was mentioning earlier for establishing that story happens during RPG sessions. Now Herra Killjoy did mention (paraphrased) that the views expressed here are a couple of months old and not necessarily reflective of current viewpoint, that emergent story is not the same thing as deliberate storytelling, that he felt the wording was too ambiguous, and that Storytelling Games border on going too far in one direction (Sorry, I felt that was relevant and didn't want to wait, please correct any error).

Why do you find "RPGs are about collaborative storytelling", used as a universal thing that all RPG play either participates in, or requires, or is done by every player just by playing their character, to be a useful and meaningful application of the term "collaborative storytelling"?

My intention is to ask about the converse of my contention, that using it in this way strips it of meaningful and useful context and definition, making it too broadly applicable to tell you anything about playing the game. Ie describing different play styles.

If that question doesn't accurately represent your position, for example you don't feel you're holding a diametrically opposed position to mine, I'd love to know why that is the case too.

... I don't think that I ever said that RPGs are about collaborative storytelling. I think I said that RPGs are collaborative storytelling. There is a subtle bit of difference between those two sentences although at first glance they are very similar. Bambi is a movie, it is not about a movie. If I did say the former then it was an error in my communication and I apologize.

Collaborative storytelling is a supercategory of RPGs, not a subcategory. Just like how Game is also a supercategory of RPGs. It isn't meant to describe different play styles, if it was then the statement "All RPGs are collaborative storytelling" would be impossible for anyone to claim and the argument against it would be extremely simple.

Now if you wanted to call collaborative storytelling a generally useless term for discussing the particulars of RPGs I would be inclined to agree. Since it encompasses all RPGs it would be completely useless to discuss the difference between play styles for instance. However useless and meaningless are two quite distinct phrases.

Regarding the assertion that due to the word having certain connotations in certain communities I'd have to say that if the term Role Playing Game can exist as the main identifier without being associated with the Gamist term the community should be fine. Also darn (only I didn't say darn) you Max_Killjoy for making me look at that trash again, for someone who dislikes Edwards you do seem awfully fond of shoving him in as often as possible.

On someone's recommendation I did in fact google collaborative storytelling and I did see many pages with collaborative storytelling being used as a supercategory to denote RPGs and Storytelling Games and several other types of activities.

EDIT: Sorry I keep getting called away and the point escaped me. How is it useful? Well they are engaged in storytelling and everybody has input. That's it. A basic definition. I did actually put it to a test though out of curiousity and 2/3 non-gamers used the word story to describe the event's at a game table. Of course that was an extremely small test group and I can't be certain I didn't influence their word choices. I tried but that's why double blind tests are important... and proper sized and chosen sample groups... okay the test was almost worthless but still.

[Max_Killjoy]

If anything it's the opposite. If you describe someone who has recently consumed a large amount of marijuana as "high as a kite", just about everyone will understand it. If someone then objects to this because the person consuming marijuana is at ground level, and that "high as a kite" is actually an ornithological term used by birdwatchers to identify similar raptors at a distance from their flight patterns, and that the use of that term to describe someone inebriated from illicit substances was actually support of unusual terminology from a particular strain of unorthodox bird watchers they'd be rightly considered as ridiculous.

That's what's going on here.

Describing someone as "high as a kite" because they're in a tall building relies on a specific parsing of the words that ignores the broader usages of the phrase.

Describing a place where kids can spend a week improve their studying skills as a "concentration camp" relies on a very specific parsing of the individual words, and ignores the history (ask VIA what happened when they used the name "KZxxx" for a line of chipsets) -- never mind how some might attempt to defend it by trying to portray anyone who objects to the name as a tinfoil-hat-wearing idiot who doesn't understand what the words "concentration" and "camp" mean.

(And yes, I understand that I open myself up to being ridiculed for a gross scale error by using the above analogy... but I'm hoping most readers will understand that this is about the deliberate narrow parsing and and not an attempt to compare the seriousness of the two situations. I prefer the "high as a kite" example for being less loaded, but this one does convey the ridiculousness of the "as long as the parsing is correct it's a valid untroubled usage" argument.)

Describing all RPGs as "collaborative storytelling" relies on a specific parsing of the words "collaborate", "story", and "telling" and ignores:

• the broader usages of "collaborative storytelling" that have nothing to do with RPGs
• the narrower usage of "collaborative storytelling" within the RPG hobby for a specific subtype (or related type) of game
• the history of the term within RPG gameplay and design theory discussion
• the untrue implications it has regarding the "why" and "how" of some RPG participants

It is no more helpful, useful, or informative to describe all RPG gameplay as "collaborative storytelling" than it is describe someone standing on the third floor of a building as "high as a kite".

If people wanted to use it in the form of "For some gamers, RPGs are collaborative storytelling", I'd personally be 100% fine with that as a legitimate statement. What I will never accept (recall the "I will die on this hill" thread from last year) is anyone describing what I'm doing when as a player in an RPG as collaborative storytelling. It is either a mistake, or a lie: I am not collaborating to tell a story.

[Max_Killjoy]

This was the quote which I was mentioning earlier for establishing that story happens during RPG sessions. Now Herra Killjoy did mention (paraphrased) that the views expressed here are a couple of months old and not necessarily reflective of current viewpoint, that emergent story is not the same thing as deliberate storytelling, that he felt the wording was too ambiguous, and that Storytelling Games border on going too far in one direction (Sorry, I felt that was relevant and didn't want to wait, please correct any error).

Storytelling games / storygames (see here) lean towards and sometimes cross into "too far".

The wording I used in that quote regarding the "narrative" element was a struggle, and an attempt at brevity, that somewhat failed.

Does this mean I'm going to have to spend considerable time on each post taking into account how the wording I use in that post might be brought up months later?

... I don't think that I ever said that RPGs are about collaborative storytelling. I think I said that RPGs are collaborative storytelling. There is a subtle bit of difference between those two sentences although at first glance they are very similar. Bambi is a movie, it is not about a movie. If I did say the former then it was an error in my communication and I apologize.

Collaborative storytelling is a supercategory of RPGs, not a subcategory. Just like how Game is also a supercategory of RPGs. It isn't meant to describe different play styles, if it was then the statement "All RPGs are collaborative storytelling" would be impossible for anyone to claim and the argument against it would be extremely simple.

Now if you wanted to call collaborative storytelling a generally useless term for discussing the particulars of RPGs I would be inclined to agree. Since it encompasses all RPGs it would be completely useless to discuss the difference between play styles for instance. However useless and meaningless are two quite distinct phrases.

The term (collaborative storytelling) itself is nearly identical to a term for a subcategory (storytelling games or storygames), and some of the arguments used in favor of the term are nearly identical to arguments used promoting the supposed superiority of that subcategory in comparison to other subcategories.

Regarding the assertion that due to the word having certain connotations in certain communities I'd have to say that if the term Role Playing Game can exist as the main identifier without being associated with the Gamist term the community should be fine. Also darn (only I didn't say darn) you Max_Killjoy for making me look at that trash again, for someone who dislikes Edwards you do seem awfully fond of shoving him in as often as possible.

From my point of view, I find his assertions, and the arguments he used in favor of his assertions, shoved into discussions about gaming quite often.

Several of the arguments made here that all gaming is collaborative storytelling are very hard if not impossible to distinguish from steps in his chain of argument that all gaming either is or should be about deliberate telling of stories and use of story for exploration.

[Aliquid]

If anything it's the opposite. If you describe someone who has recently consumed a large amount of marijuana as "high as a kite", just about everyone will understand it. If someone then objects to this because the person consuming marijuana is at ground level, and that "high as a kite" is actually an ornithological term used by birdwatchers to identify similar raptors at a distance from their flight patterns, and that the use of that term to describe someone inebriated from illicit substances was actually support of unusual terminology from a particular strain of unorthodox bird watchers they'd be rightly considered as ridiculous.

That's what's going on here.

Actually, I agree with Max_Killjoy on this one.

Technically speaking "high as a kite" could refer to someone being on the 3rd floor
Technically speaking "collaborative storytelling" could refer to someone playing an RPG

But... because of people's understanding of the phrase:

"high as a kite" reefers to being stoned
"collaborative storytelling" refers to a bunch of story-Nazi people opinion of the "right way" to play the game.

The difference is: Everyone that grew up speaking English should know that if they say "high as a kite", someone will immediately think of being stoned. But with "collaborative storytelling", it appears (based on this thread) that only a minority of the population are aware of its negative connotations.

(And yes, I understand that I open myself up to being ridiculed for a gross scale error by using the above analogy... but I'm hoping most readers will understand that this is about the deliberate narrow parsing and and not an attempt to compare the seriousness of the two situations. I prefer the "high as a kite" example for being less loaded, but this one does convey the ridiculousness of the "as long as the parsing is correct it's a valid untroubled usage" argument.)

your example is valid. "Lost my marbles" is another option.

Describing all RPGs as "collaborative storytelling" relies on a specific parsing of the words "collaborate", "story", and "telling" and ignores:

• the broader usages of "collaborative storytelling" that have nothing to do with RPGs
• the narrower usage of "collaborative storytelling" within the RPG hobby for a specific subtype (or related type) of game
• the history of the term within RPG gameplay and design theory discussion
• the untrue implications it has regarding the "why" and "how" of some RPG participants

Before this thread:
If someone said "hey, I like hack and slash games where I only care about treasure and levelling up. I don't think 'collaborative storytelling' is a good description of that"... I would have said "fair point".

If someone had said "there is a narrow usage of that term in the RPG hobby", or "There is a history with that term and gameplay theory", or "There is a broader usage of the term that has nothing to do with RPGs"... I would have said "Wait... what are you talking about?"

It is no more helpful, useful, or informative to describe all RPG gameplay as "collaborative storytelling" than it is describe someone standing on the third floor of a building as "high as a kite".

I would say that it is very useful for some styles of play, vaguely useful for other styles of play, and completely useless for the remaining styles of play.

If people wanted to use it in the form of "For some gamers, RPGs are collaborative storytelling", I'd personally be 100% fine with that as a legitimate statement. What I will never accept (recall the "I will die on this hill" thread from last year) is anyone describing what I'm doing when as a player in an RPG as collaborative storytelling. It is either a mistake, or a lie: I am not collaborating to tell a story.

I'm not going to argue with you on this at all... especially because you said in a previous post:

Yeah, technically, with a very precisely chosen usage of the words, anyone playing an RPG is engaged in "collaborative storytelling"...

That's all I needed to hear to make me shut up and back off.

[Max_Killjoy]

Speaking of that article from The Alexandrian, here's a comment on definitions:

"Starting in the early ’90s, however, we started to see some creative experimentation with the form. And in the last decade this experimentation has exploded: GM-less game. Diceless games. Players taking control of the game world beyond their characters. (And so forth.) But as this experimentation began carrying games farther and farther from the “traditional” model of a roleplaying game, there began to be some recognition that these games needed to be distinguished from their progenitors: On the one hand, lots of people found that these new games didn’t scratch the same itch that roleplaying games did and some responded vituperatively to them as a result. On the other hand, even those enthusiastic about the new games began searching for a new term to describe their mechanics — “story game”, “interactive drama”, “mutual storytelling”, and the like.

In some cases, this “search for a label” has been about raising a fence so that people can tack up crude “KEEP OUT” signs. I don’t find that particularly useful. But as an aficionado of Scott McCloud’s Understanding Comics, I also understand the power of proper definitions: They allow us to focus our discussion and achieve a better understanding of the topic. But by giving us a firm foundation, they also set us free to experiment fully within the form.

For example, people got tired of referring to “games that are a lot like Dungeons & Dragons“, so they coined the term “roleplaying game” and it suddenly became a lot easier to talk about them (and also market them). It also allowed RPGs to become conceptually distinct from “wargames”, which not only eliminated quite a bit of confusion (as people were able to separate “good practices from wargames” from “good practices for roleplaying games”), but also allowed the creators of RPGs to explore a lot of new options."

For me, definitions that allow for distinction and specificity are almost always more useful than definitions that are trying to be as broad and open as possible.


E: also, I really hope that those who are looking for a deeper understanding of why the topic of this thread is so contentious for some of us will read that essay in full. And this one: https://refereeingandreflection.wordpress.com/2014/12/22/remembering-the-forge/

[Tinkerer]

For me, definitions that allow for distinction and specificity are almost always more useful than definitions that are trying to be as broad and open as possible.

Indeed they are (that's the point) however that doesn't make the broad definitions worthless. Just because we have a word for "duck" and "peregrine" and "pelican" doesn't make the word "bird" useless.

[Knaight]

For me, definitions that allow for distinction and specificity are almost always more useful than definitions that are trying to be as broad and open as possible.

I get that. With that said, in terms of classification specifically I find it really helpful to have a wide range of nested sets. Taxonomy in particular is an example of that done extremely well, and the general structure of taxonomy of establishing a few big classes then separating out these big classes into more and more smaller classes works well for a lot of purposes.

Tinkerer gave a few examples with birds, but I'd take that a step further - it's useful to have broad terms like "organic matter" or "life form". It also helps to have slightly narrower terms, like "animal", yet narrower terms like "vertebrates", so on and so forth until you've identified a particular segment of an individual species. Sometimes you want to talk about everything mostly CHNOPS, sometimes you want to talk about Tet/Kan resistant M13 phage. Language should be able to handle both.

"Collaborative storytelling" is roughly equivalent to something like "mammals". There's a huge variety there, but it's still a lot more specific than "animals", which is more equivalent to "communication".

[BoringInfoGuy]

in roleplay proper, narrative is more about opportunities due to its improvisational nature. often its just seeing that there is an opportunity for the character to logically show this side of them and thus make them a better character for reacting like that. this same anti-war person in roleplay, is more about properly recognizing the moments where they should be reacting to war's horrors and roleplaying it out in a plausible way so that it feels both real and emotional. the point is getting to those moments that the character was made for, the method doesn't really matter to me, but honestly I wish I were better at connecting the dots on my own in writing. I have so many moments I want to do, but its always the scenes that connect them together and make one logically flow to another that is the problem.

Proper is a loaded term. If something is presented as “proper” Roleplaying, then it creates an immediate connotation that other methods of Roleplaying must be improper.

What you describe reads to me as a story focused approach to Roleplaying. Your character is described as being anti-war. As a player, you have a number of scenes you want to play out regarding this theme. For you, the challenge is how to get your character into those scenes. Your character is something you built to create scenes with.

I prefer a more classic Roleplaying approach. Call it character focused. If I were to take the same basic concept - my character is anti war - then I start thinking about how that belief shapes his world view. What events in his past left him with the his skills and abilities, an anti war sentiment, yet still prompts him to lead the violent life of an adventurer? My challenge is to understand this person. To develop this personality so that I can get to the point where I can stop talking in character and just let the character speak.

I am actively curious how that idea sounds in this post GNS - Edwardian influenced age.

[Lord Raziere]

Proper is a loaded term. If something is presented as “proper” Roleplaying, then it creates an immediate connotation that other methods of Roleplaying must be improper.

What you describe reads to me as a story focused approach to Roleplaying. Your character is described as being anti-war. As a player, you have a number of scenes you want to play out regarding this theme. For you, the challenge is how to get your character into those scenes. Your character is something you built to create scenes with.

I prefer a more classic Roleplaying approach. Call it character focused. If I were to take the same basic concept - my character is anti war - then I start thinking about how that belief shapes his world view. What events in his past left him with the his skills and abilities, an anti war sentiment, yet still prompts him to lead the violent life of an adventurer? My challenge is to understand this person. To develop this personality so that I can get to the point where I can stop talking in character and just let the character speak.

I am actively curious how that idea sounds in this post GNS - Edwardian influenced age.

I do not see how thats different from my own approach to be honest.

again this sounds like "thoughts in my head before any of this ever hits the table" sort of stuff. whatever happens in your head to make a character work doesn't really matter, since the whole difference is so abstract and seemingly hair-splitting to me. developing the character leads to those scenes and those scenes lead to developing the character, they're inextricably linked together, since characters are practically built off of defining moments and events that allow seemingly contradictory actions and beliefs to exist. story and character and pretty much inextricably tied together, since if you don't have a character, you don't really have a story, and if you don't have a story you don't really have a character.

Like I'm really starting to wonder how much of this is just our own perception of how we roleplay vs. how we roleplay in practice. Like, in practical rolepalying terms of actual play, whether its story or character or whatever seems pretty meaningless to me, since its all connected together, and works to make a bigger harmonious whole. So I doubt any of these viewpoints people are expressing are as pure as people try to make it out to be. roleplaying is all about being this mixed bag that creates an interactive experience unlike any other in the world and has never been pure this or that, so its like.....whats so important about identifying and cultivating this pureness really? what is the practical actual difference these two views and how would they actually affect the table? I cannot see how'd they be different for the life of me, because our views are not as pure and isolated from other methods as we believe.

and the fact that your read the implication into that use of "properly" says more about you than me. I didn't mean it like that, so I don't care for your reprimand because it wasn't needed.

Really all this seems to just be nerds hair-splitting over semantic definitions for the sake of it. Which I don't approve of. Its worrying about the process of making the beautiful painting when the important part is that it gets made. As long there the result is good, there is no problem.

[Florian]

I prefer a more classic Roleplaying approach. Call it character focused. If I were to take the same basic concept - my character is anti war - then I start thinking about how that belief shapes his world view. What events in his past left him with the his skills and abilities, an anti war sentiment, yet still prompts him to lead the violent life of an adventurer? My challenge is to understand this person. To develop this personality so that I can get to the point where I can stop talking in character and just let the character speak.

The german RPG scene is heavily influenced by our local 800pt gorilla - DSA. We use a term for the kind of character exploration that you describe, and a lot of folks find it offensive: "Playing with your Barbie".

There's a dual problem with this kind of method acting. First, it happens completely off table and off the actual game. It´s basically a pure solo activity to develop the "character" of a Character to be explored later. While it might be nice to attain immersion into the character, the can at worst stay a solo activity or be actually disruptive to the game itself. Yes, that sounds harsh.

As an example, i gm L5R a lot and I mainly focus on the "samurai drama". At my table, what you have to do is create a Character straight for having conflicts and trouble, with you as the player behind that character going directly for the kinds of clashes that you want to experience along with your co-players, because that is the "game" that is going to be played. That means the "author stance" is more important than the "immersive stance", as by already taking an active part in the creative phase (you know which conflicts are coming), and already committed your character to a certain course of action.

[Theoboldi]

The german RPG scene is heavily influenced by our local 800pt gorilla - DSA. We use a term for the kind of character exploration that you describe, and a lot of folks find it offensive: "Playing with your Barbie".

Wow. The more I hear about my country's RPG scene, the more pretentious, elitist, and condescending it sounds. Thank god I never got suckered into it.

I'd have no fun whatsoever with the kind of game that you are describing, nor with the very meta-plot focused games offered around here. I much prefer creating a character the classical way and building him until I can see him as a person, and then improvising conflicts and interactions as fitting situations come up in actual play.

That does not mean that the roleplaying happens off-screen or without the rest of the party being engaged. No, when I create a character I will often at length discuss his personality with other players, while also listening to their descriptions of their characters. We will even often talk about potential future interactions and conflicts between them, though we never plan them out and always keep it at a strict level of 'potential'.

Can it be disruptive if handled improperly? Sure. But I still like this style of play, and vastly prefer it to what you describe. It has lead to some of my favorite roleplaying moments that would have never happened without this kind of spontaneity.

Of course, I should probably add that most of my games have a larger adventuring plot besides the inter-pc drama. I've not had too much experience with purely character-driven drama, and I imagine it works better there.

[Florian]

@Theoboldi:

That and some of the Forge discussions sound a bit offensive, condescending even, but mostly because they tried to tackle some of the underlying issues with RPGs as a hobby, which triggers a lot of vitriol.

What we do is playing a "game" and a "game" is defined by the rules how you conduct it. That's not about the rules you use for your character, those are "in-game rules", but rather concrete rules for how the "game" parts work.

You write "Of course" but you don't give it much thought: When the job of a gm is "create content for the players to engage with" and the job of the players is to "engage with the content using their character and the provided in-game rules as a method", then were already talking about a "hard rule" of the "game" is being played. That separates a "game" from a "toy".

The offensive part happens when you drill "game" down and separate the chaff. You can straight out say "This game is about you engaging the adventure plots", which is true when nothing happens when the content is not engaged, or rather, no "game" happens at that point.

So the thing is, when going for a more drama or conflict based game as content to interact with, that will highlight "game" over "play" (or even "toy") a bit, even more so when the "in-game rules" start to be integrated into the "conduct a game rules".

[Tanarii]

Thanks for those of you who responded to my last question.

What I find particularly interesting is several of you seem to think that "collaborative storytelling" is a description of what players and GMs do when playing an RPG, at least the roleplaying part of it. And possibly technically accurate. But that you don't think the best way to phrase it is "... about Collaborative storytelling".

The reason I find this interesting is "... about collaborative storytelling" is almost exclusively the way I see it used. Either "Roleplaying is about collaborative storytelling" or "RPGs are about colloborative storytelling" or "D&D is about collaborative storytelling." And when I say see it used, I mean by posters in these forums. It's a very common statement used to describe RPGs and roleplaying.

And that's one of the primary reasons I object. I don't believe any of those are true as a general statement of what they are about, the why or the purpose or the goal. That's obviously a different issue from a statement of how it's being done, the method being employed. (Even though I also disagree with the latter.)

----------------

Also Tinkerer, please note although I primarily think of storytelling, in regards to roleplaying games, as narrative mechanics or narrative resolution, as opposed to a predetermined story, that's just what leaps to mind. As I covered in post 438 that's not the only definitions I accept. An emergent story is a story. In other words, my definition of story in RPGs in the first post is my 'Strong' definition, but there is a valid broad one that includes recounting emergent story.

Or to put it another way, I accept that more broadly, a story is an account of events.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/shows...&postcount=438

I just disagree strongly that a player describing intent and approach, followed by GM resolving them and describing outcomes and possibly consequences, is an account of events. That is events happening in the in-game world. The mere fact that communication is necessary for events to occur in the in-game world, just because one of them is (necessarily) playing the part of the universe resolving the outcome of things being attempted, does not convert it from "event" to "account of events".**

(Edit: **important disclaimer: I am not saying that all RPG playing is done this way. What the player and DM are doing, their purpose, their goal, is what causes the division between "events occur" and "an account of events". Some people it's discussing established facts and describing them, others it's establishing the facts.)

----------

Let's add another question, that just occurred to me while typing up that last paragraph:
If talking to a DM necessarily is an account of events, when we replace the DM with a computer, and the player enters commands by keyboard and mouse instead of vocally, does gameplay suddenly change back from an account of events, to actual events occurring?

[Darth Ultron]

If people wanted to use it in the form of "For some gamers, RPGs are collaborative storytelling", I'd personally be 100% fine with that as a legitimate statement. What I will never accept (recall the "I will die on this hill" thread from last year) is anyone describing what I'm doing when as a player in an RPG as collaborative storytelling. It is either a mistake, or a lie: I am not collaborating to tell a story.

I agree here.

Yeah, technically, with a very precisely chosen usage of the words, anyone playing an RPG is engaged in "collaborative storytelling"...

Getting this technical is very pointless. It's like saying the janitor is part of the movie-making process. Sure the janitor is helping to make the movie, but not exactly at the same level of the writer or director.

Players taking control of the game world beyond their characters.

This is one of the big changes.

Classic Games, like D&D, are NOT collaborative storytelling games.

But a lot of people like ''collaborative storytelling'' and made games, unlike D&D, that ARE collaborative storytelling games. And the big thing collaborative storytelling games must have is players taking control of the game world beyond their characters. And the games have this built into the rules. No GM, everyone is a player, and so forth.

But then, oddly, the people that love and play all the Other Then D&D type games stop playing those games and come back to D&D, and they bring the whole collaborative storytelling idea with them...and then in mass of confusion think all RPGs must be collaborative storytelling, because that is the type they like.

[Max_Killjoy]

As an example, i gm L5R a lot and I mainly focus on the "samurai drama". At my table, what you have to do is create a Character straight for having conflicts and trouble, with you as the player behind that character going directly for the kinds of clashes that you want to experience along with your co-players, because that is the "game" that is going to be played. That means the "author stance" is more important than the "immersive stance", as by already taking an active part in the creative phase (you know which conflicts are coming), and already committed your character to a certain course of action.

That's what I would call "story-focus". There can be plenty of character and roleplaying, but there's an ongoing central concern for the ongoing and upcoming story.

And for me, personally, it would be a terrible drag. I'm not interested in intentionally setting my character up for trouble and loss -- if I see those things coming, my every gaming instinct is to head them off, not walk into them face-first. If I'm forced to walk into a problem my character doesn't see coming but I do, that's going to be me as the player going through the motions without any enjoyment and perhaps even a touch of bitterness about it.

And, as the player, I'm no more concerned about "the story" than my character is. Most people don't go through their lives worried about whether their daily or long-term life would "make for a good story"... why should an RPG character have that worry? And if my character doesn't have that worry... why should I, as the player?

[Florian]

@Max

Your wouldn't turn up for a game where nothing happens. No dangers, no threats, only thing you´ve got decide is when your regular Joe goes to the loo and that doesn't have consequences, not even getting your Joe fired or into a "we-both-take-a-pee-here-right-now"-conversation.

Try "hex-crawling" in the greater Berlin area as a game: Roll 1d6. 1-2 is joggers, 3 is people with dogs and 4-6 is joggers or people with dogs and you roll a reflex save to not step in dog poo. Great game, right?

I'm just honest about both aspects of it, that's why I don't ask wh Elminster is not saving the Dales...

[kyoryu]

@Theoboldi:

That and some of the Forge discussions sound a bit offensive, condescending even, but mostly because they tried to tackle some of the underlying issues with RPGs as a hobby, which triggers a lot of vitriol.

That's.... fairly minimizing of the problems with the Forge. I recommend you read the link Max posted - it's a good summary of the whole mess.

[Florian]

That's.... fairly minimizing of the problems with the Forge. I recommend you read the link Max posted - it's a good summary of the whole mess.

While I already know the linked contend, I chose to ignore it because there're some things that are pretty unique to the US RPG industry that you don't find elsewhere and the discussion started by the Forge was has with another entirely different tone in other countries, generating way more productive results.

[Darth Ultron]

And for me, personally, it would be a terrible drag. I'm not interested in intentionally setting my character up for trouble and loss -- if I see those things coming, my every gaming instinct is to head them off, not walk into them face-first. If I'm forced to walk into a problem my character doesn't see coming but I do, that's going to be me as the player going through the motions without any enjoyment and perhaps even a touch of bitterness about it.

Yet again, I agree.

This is exactly why Players are not big part of the Storytelling: They can't tell a story that they are part of in live game play.

First off, few people want to play a game with no trouble and loss. A game that was just a cakewalk of not really doing much of anything and just succeeding is not even really much of a game. To just not play through a non-game to just see how a character succeeds does not interest most people(but there are some, sure.)

So accepting that a game needs trouble and loss and negative things in general; the players can't know the specifics. For a player to know that there is a deadly spider inside a chest, and then to be forced to role play out that their character, that does not know about the spider at all, is really one of the worst types of Railroading.

And it's the same for Storytelling. A good, dramatic story...even more so an action adventure type one needs trouble and loss and hardships and conflict. And again, the player can not know about the story outline in advance. For a player to know that their characters mentor must die for their character to go on their heroes journey, and then be forced to role play that happening is some of the worst type of role playing.

And, as the player, I'm no more concerned about "the story" than my character is. Most people don't go through their lives worried about whether their daily or long-term life would "make for a good story"... why should an RPG character have that worry? And if my character doesn't have that worry... why should I, as the player?

Exactly. The character and the player should never know the story details, outline or plot. The player should always be role playing the character 100% as the character in the game reality.

[Florian]

Had to decide whether I want to tackle that drunk or sober, settled on drunk being more reasonable...

DU, we cannot have a "game" without conflict and we cannot have "victory conditions" without (the chance of) loss. That much is clear.

Now the point is what Edwards called out as "Brain Damage". We are playing the game for the conflict, loss and drama and we should act, role-play and immerse in "normal people" of a setting that naturally want to avoid said things. There's a disjunction here, like "wash me, but don't make me wet".
This simply cannot be resolved.

It´s simply easier to state what exact kind of conflict, loss and drama you enjoy experiencing, as active participation makes it an easier task when it happens in a "game". It also means that your examples amount to BS, because you don't understand the concept behind it.

... need more beer.

Edit: Maybe check out games like Mountain Witch or Lady Blackbird to help get at the core of the trouble we having with that discussion. Maybe you'll also notice that folk with an interest in the overall theory and know the possible failings have less trouble accepting your interpretation of "railroading". Never wondered why that is so?