Why collaborative storytelling is a meaningless phrase

[kyoryu]

That is exactly why people dislike GNS theory. For starters it was entirely superfluous when it was released, being essentially a ripoff of the Threefold Model simply with the emphasis placed on different points. Secondly it is entirely too divisionary of a model encouraging people to ignore the other aspects and indeed being outright insulting to other methods (routinely calling people who enjoy combat idiots or morons for example). Thirdly it fails as a tool of analysis because of that divisiveness due to the fact that the categories are not mutually exclusive. As an example if it were describing a car the three aspects could be something like colour, engine, and body type.

It also gained traction because it used smart-sounding words, and said that a particular style of game was Super Important, that others had dismissed. It's the category of "theory" (sic) that essentially exists to prove a particular opinion as Objectively Correct.

A better car analogy would be that cars were either for Carrying People, Carrying Things, or Going Fast. And that a coherent car would either sacrifice everything for person-carrying capabilities, would maximize cargo space, or maximize performance. In other words, everything should either be a minivan, a hyper-sports car, or a pickup truck (preferably with the seat removed).

This completely ignores many categories of vehicles that do more than one of these things competently (sports sedans, SUVs, trucks with crew cabs, etc.). Under Car GNS, these cars would be "incoherent" and objectively bad.

Forge theory also fails as a theory because incredibly popular games that have many, many players, are deemed objectively "bad", while Forge theory itself, especially games that really try to adhere to it, have failed to make a truly huge success. The two most successful games (AW and Fate) either loosely (at best) adhere to GNS, or are actually (per the author) a refutation of GNS.

At best, GNS is a good predictor for "Will Ron Edwards (and others with the same tastes as him) like this game?"

(Note that I am not presuming popularity is an absolute measure of quality. However, for something to be popular, a number of people must find something of value in it. And if GNS was as good of a theory as some people seem to think, given that it is a prescriptive model, some works developed from it should be at least highly successful independent/secondary games behind the 800 pound gorilla of D&D).

[Max_Killjoy]

It also gained traction because it used smart-sounding words, and said that a particular style of game was Super Important, that others had dismissed. It's the category of "theory" (sic) that essentially exists to prove a particular opinion as Objectively Correct.

A better car analogy would be that cars were either for Carrying People, Carrying Things, or Going Fast. And that a coherent car would either sacrifice everything for person-carrying capabilities, would maximize cargo space, or maximize performance. In other words, everything should either be a minivan, a hyper-sports car, or a pickup truck (preferably with the seat removed).

This completely ignores many categories of vehicles that do more than one of these things competently (sports sedans, SUVs, trucks with crew cabs, etc.). Under Car GNS, these cars would be "incoherent" and objectively bad.

Forge theory also fails as a theory because incredibly popular games that have many, many players, are deemed objectively "bad", while Forge theory itself, especially games that really try to adhere to it, have failed to make a truly huge success. The two most successful games (AW and Fate) either loosely (at best) adhere to GNS, or are actually (per the author) a refutation of GNS.

At best, GNS is a good predictor for "Will Ron Edwards (and others with the same tastes as him) like this game?"

(Note that I am not presuming popularity is an absolute measure of quality. However, for something to be popular, a number of people must find something of value in it. And if GNS was as good of a theory as some people seem to think, given that it is a prescriptive model, some works developed from it should be at least highly successful independent/secondary games behind the 800 pound gorilla of D&D).

GNS is also something of an example of trying to find a single defining characteristic that makes a thing what it is, and then assuming that more of that characteristic makes a thing "more that thing", and less of that characteristic makes a thing "less that thing". Because it assumes mutually exclusive "creative agendas" and that mixing is bad, it assumes that systems/games that go as far as possible towards serving only one "creative agenda" are "better", and those which blend "creative agendas" are worse.

This is where the old post of mine quoted upthread a ways came in -- it was an attempt at the time to set aside all the other disputes and disagreements for the moment, and refute simply that one assertion.

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.

My point was that they had something very important exactly backwards -- that what they were calling the separate "creative agendas" are ways of describing elements that together make a thing actually an RPG, and that by attempting to purify for any one of those "agendas", they were actually moving their games towards or beyond the borders of what can actually be called an RPG instead of something else.

[flond]

Telling a Tale is the way the anti-D&D folks do it: they just do a pile of random unplanned stuff and then stop at some point...look back...and then tell what happened and call it a (Barley) Story. This is the easy, casual way to run a game that a lot of people like.

My way is more Focused Storytelling: The DM makes the Stories, and the players run through the stories.



I don't really get the hate for the Story Before, as that is the only way to have a Good Real Story. The Story Now is just the random mess, and the Story After is the Barley Story.

Like for example: The set up is The player makes a backstory for a character of their sister was kidnapped, but the player makes up no details and specifically leaves the story open for the DM to fill in. So then the game starts with a typical first adventure, like say goblin bandits with it's own story. But both the DM and the Player do want to do the save the sister story as part of the game and tie it in with the groups adventure. And the Player, being just a Player can not do anything to make the save the sister story happen outside the game or metagamewise, the only thing they can do is in character take actions(like they can ask a npc if they have seen her).

Story Before: Well the DM takes a couple minutes and comes up with a who/what/why/how the sister was grabbed, a rough timeline and where she is now. Then, knowing all the details, the DM can start the active story of Save the Sister, by dropping a clue(or three, per the standard) in the bandits lair. This is the only way to advance a real story.

Story Now: Well, the DM does nothing. They have their novel of setting notes, but don't do anything because they refuse to make a story or do anything without reacting to the players. So the players randomly have their characters do random things in the game. The DM has not made any details of the sister story, so they can't drop a clue. And even if they did drop a clue, it would just be a random one based on nothing: as the DM has nothing to base it on. And at worst :The player can look at the non-clue, randomly say whatever is whatever and not follow the clue as no matter where they go or what they do the DM will just make the sister story out of thin air, right in front of the character.

Story After: Well, this DM does nothing as well. Except this DM won't make the story right in front of the character.

So, the only way to have a Good, Real Story is to have the Story First.

Nah. I called you a Telltale GM. You know, based on the video games. The ones that claim to have a giant branching story where you matter...but after your third one you need to decide if you're ok with the fact that everything is super on rails.

Secondly, why would the GM (if there is one) have a book full of setting knowledge. This is probably no myth! What's on the table is probably what was established in sessions 0-n. So, we know exactly how much of a sister story there is. And more importantly, if someone with the ability to say so (by the rules, horror of horrors, or group consensus, double horrors), says something is a clue and explains how, that's now the truth at the table. Same as if a GM stated it in a "Story First" sort of game (Or a Story After sort of game). The difference is we didn't come here to have a static story told to us, we came to all get immersed in crafting one, one that will be unpredictable because of us and the dice, and other people. And if you don't like the way it's going, speak up. And if you have irreconcilable differences with someone who keeps inserting dozens of marvel superheros...why are you playing with them? Same as why do you play with the DM who keeps stealing their notes from the last Days of our Lives.

And as for Story After. I could be wrong, but I think they set up everything beforehand. They just don't force it. As much as possible is dispassionately refereed. It produces a different feeling of suspense because, yes, the clue is in that cave, but it's in that cave. If the players get it wrong, dead sister. And you play it where it lies. And that itself is a fun, exciting sort of tension.

(tl;dr, I don't think DU cares about "story" so much as about a specific division of surprise. Players 100% DM 0%)

[kyoryu]

You know, I was on Facebook, in a Fate group, and the discussion was "how do you prep for Fate?"

One person's response was "practice standing in front of a mirror and saying things like 'Okay, you succeed. What piece of information do you find that helps you?' and 'Okay, so you failed, what complication happens as a response?'"

I said that while that was certainly *a* valid play style, it wasn't the only one, and that games where you run completely on that style of gameplay always kind of rub me wrong.

The response from someone else? "My mantra is 'collaborative storytelling."

That's why I argue against the use of the term as a blanket description of all RPGs. Because that description is used to describe that style of play, and, to be honest, I think it's closer to the assumptions that most people make when they hear that phrase.

[Max_Killjoy]

You know, I was on Facebook, in a Fate group, and the discussion was "how do you prep for Fate?"

One person's response was "practice standing in front of a mirror and saying things like 'Okay, you succeed. What piece of information do you find that helps you?' and 'Okay, so you failed, what complication happens as a response?'"

I said that while that was certainly *a* valid play style, it wasn't the only one, and that games where you run completely on that style of gameplay always kind of rub me wrong.

The response from someone else? "My mantra is 'collaborative storytelling."

That's why I argue against the use of the term as a blanket description of all RPGs. Because that description is used to describe that style of play, and, to be honest, I think it's closer to the assumptions that most people make when they hear that phrase.

And for some players, those two questions are exactly what they really don't want to hear from their GM in the middle of a session.

It completely blows up the sense of entering a "secondary world", a place-that-could-be-real, a place that invokes the emotional impression that it's a living, breathing reality that exists before, beyond, and after.

Coldly, rationally, I know these places and people aren't real... but emotionally, I cannot treat them that way or drains everything compelling... whether we're talking about playing an RPG, worldbuilding, or writing fiction.

[Darth Ultron]

Nah. I called you a Telltale GM. You know, based on the video games. The ones that claim to have a giant branching story where you matter...but after your third one you need to decide if you're ok with the fact that everything is super on rails.

Nah, I hate video games and don't play them.

Secondly, why would the GM (if there is one) have a book full of setting knowledge. This is probably no myth! What's on the table is probably what was established in sessions 0-n. So, we know exactly how much of a sister story there is. And more importantly, if someone with the ability to say so (by the rules, horror of horrors, or group consensus, double horrors), says something is a clue and explains how, that's now the truth at the table. Same as if a GM stated it in a "Story First" sort of game (Or a Story After sort of game). The difference is we didn't come here to have a static story told to us, we came to all get immersed in crafting one, one that will be unpredictable because of us and the dice, and other people. And if you don't like the way it's going, speak up. And if you have irreconcilable differences with someone who keeps inserting dozens of marvel superheros...why are you playing with them? Same as why do you play with the DM who keeps stealing their notes from the last Days of our Lives.

If there are no setting notes...and no setting, then the game just takes place nowhere?

Now see your crossing the line from a Player that wants to play a single character in a story and a Author that wants to create stories.

So your talking about the type of game where anyone can simply randomly do anything, where everyone has control over everything and just says ''and then this happens''. Then the next person says ''and then this happens'' and so on. But this is not even a game at this point.

And do you really go through all the silliness of the Player knows all, then just pretends to be the character not knowing it all. Like ''well I know my sister is in the Dark Tower to the North, but my character will go south and search the Wild Coast''. Like how long do you avoid doing the right thing? At what point does the player randomly have the character go in the right direction?

And as for Story After. I could be wrong, but I think they set up everything beforehand. They just don't force it. As much as possible is dispassionately refereed. It produces a different feeling of suspense because, yes, the clue is in that cave, but it's in that cave. If the players get it wrong, dead sister. And you play it where it lies. And that itself is a fun, exciting sort of tension.

But if you set up the Story beforehand...that is Story Before, not Story After.

(tl;dr, I don't think DU cares about "story" so much as about a specific division of surprise. Players 100% DM 0%)

I don't think I try to ''surprise'' players....that seems pointless. As a DM you can just automatically surprise the players, so that makes it a bit worthless.

And for a player to be all focused on trying to surprise the DM is very much Player vs DM thinking and that is always bad, and makes the player a jerk at best, and a cheater at worst. It's the worst when a player outright cheats, and like say writes down 1000 hit points, and then after talking tons of damage is like ''surprise DM, my character has 1000 hit points!"

Now a player that role players their character well and good and does something the DM finds surprising is great....but sadly, rare.

[flond]

If there are no setting notes...and no setting, then the game just takes place nowhere?

Now see your crossing the line from a Player that wants to play a single character in a story and a Author that wants to create stories.

So your talking about the type of game where anyone can simply randomly do anything, where everyone has control over everything and just says ''and then this happens''. Then the next person says ''and then this happens'' and so on. But this is not even a game at this point.

And do you really go through all the silliness of the Player knows all, then just pretends to be the character not knowing it all. Like ''well I know my sister is in the Dark Tower to the North, but my character will go south and search the Wild Coast''. Like how long do you avoid doing the right thing? At what point does the player randomly have the character go in the right direction?

Firstly, the game takes place where it's established as taking place. By the group. In a session zero. And generally, the rule is that established facts (that is, things that were declared to be true in play, can't be taken back) Secondly, usually there are roles and rules which make it a game. Kinda like how you could run a story before game without any rules, and just "if the players do the right thing they move forward" but you need things like, you know, combat to make it matter.

Also, while sometimes players decide to do the wrong thing, usually what happens is twists get introduced. Calculations. Things that throw in curveballs (while not refuting the fiction in play, because you know that'd be dumb.)

It's no more random than a full GM story, because well, people can build off each other and talk things out just as well as you can. Are your stories random because you can summon orcus at any time? If not, neither are these.

[Darth Ultron]

Firstly, the game takes place where it's established as taking place. By the group. In a session zero. And generally, the rule is that established facts (that is, things that were declared to be true in play, can't be taken back) Secondly, usually there are roles and rules which make it a game. Kinda like how you could run a story before game without any rules, and just "if the players do the right thing they move forward" but you need things like, you know, combat to make it matter.

But it's the GM that makes the established place setting for the game, unless it is a storytelling game were each person is an author/controller/GM and just says ''and then'' and it is.

I'm not really sure what ''facts'' can't be taken back....this sounds like more of a hostile player thing where a player demands something in the game and then never wants it changed.

Any game that is not a Storytelling type game, does not have story rules.

Also, while sometimes players decide to do the wrong thing, usually what happens is twists get introduced. Calculations. Things that throw in curveballs (while not refuting the fiction in play, because you know that'd be dumb.)

It's no more random than a full GM story, because well, people can build off each other and talk things out just as well as you can. Are your stories random because you can summon orcus at any time? If not, neither are these.

Sure A group of people can sit down and build a story, but that is not playing a RPG. And a group of people can sit down and play a storytelling RPG where each person just randomly says ''and then'' for a time...then they all stop and look at the random pile of story they have made.

But when one person (or a group even) makes a story, ahead of time before any game play, it's not random...it's pre made/planned/set/thought out/prepared.

[Florian]

@Darth....

You keep repeating that nonsense.

Let me give you an example: I'm gm´ing a L5R campaign that uses both, "classic" and a "storytelling" techniques at the same time.

The setting (Rokugan), the meta-plot (Prelude to the Scorpion Clan Coup timeline, 5 years before the Clan War) and my plot for this campaign (friction between three political factions governing the city) are in effect, understood by the players and set in stone. The goal for this campaign is also agreed on: Rise in power with one of those factions, eliminate or befriend the other two.

Those are facts that cannot be "unmade", even with "story power". Once told, they are "true". There is a Shogun, there is a Chamberlain, there is the Red Lotus sect with a High Priest, they are part of play and you cannot "storytell them out", as they're already a part of the "Relationship Map", meaning facts of the setting.

As gm, I have the facts of the story already laid out and connected to the plot and meta-plot:
- Young lord uses blood magic, plans a coup along with some friends to show they're "true samurai"
- Some underworld ronin provide victims for blood magic, household servitor are witness but cowed
- Family matriarch steps in, kills ronin and witness, stages "fake lover suicide"
Adventure starts with a simple: "Two dead found at the lake".

Now the job of the players is to "role-play" that and "stay in character" for it, but they have greater narrative control and, unlike Max believes it to be, that can actually help with the "Immersion". Each player has narrative power that fits setting and character, so it actually feels more natural when the "Crab Clan Samurai" declares: "There's a Kuni Witch Hunter working as city coroner. Take the bodies there and have them examined!". Who do they declare that to? Well, they're Emerald Magistrates, there should be regular beat cops around.....

So stuff your "and then.. and then...". You shouldn't participate in this kind of game when you can't get "in character" and "in setting".

[Max_Killjoy]

Now the job of the players is to "role-play" that and "stay in character" for it, but they have greater narrative control and, unlike Max believes it to be, that can actually help with the "Immersion". Each player has narrative power that fits setting and character, so it actually feels more natural when the "Crab Clan Samurai" declares: "There's a Kuni Witch Hunter working as city coroner. Take the bodies there and have them examined!". Who do they declare that to? Well, they're Emerald Magistrates, there should be regular beat cops around.....

So stuff your "and then.. and then...". You shouldn't participate in this kind of game when you can't get "in character" and "in setting".

I agree with your refutation against the person you're arguing against there.

I agree that what you're describing can be a good approach for some players, and can even be more immersive for some players.

However... your "unlike Max believes it to be" comment comes off as an assertion that it's better for not just for some immersion-seeking players, but for all immersion-seeking players, universally. And thus an assertion that we don't know what we actually like... or that we'd like it if we just gave it another try, or that we need to be more "open minded", or... whatever.

I started off saying that some players don't like the "'Okay, you succeed. What piece of information do you find that helps you?' and 'Okay, so you failed, what complication happens as a response?'" approach, and then explained why that is.

That wasn't a questioning or criticism of your enjoyment of what you enjoy, or your success with approaches and styles that have been successful for you. It was an attempt to explain my position and why certain things don't work for me and gamers like me.

For some of us, the approach you describe doesn't feel natural at all, and makes it harder to get "in character" and "in setting" (and that's a big part of what makes gaming fun for us, character and setting). That's not an assertion that the approach you describe doesn't work for you. It's a flat statement of fact that handing us player-level control over the setting, as opposed to character-level interaction with the setting, is actively detrimental for our immersion.

I've tried very hard (in part due to conversations with posters here, kyoryu for example) to control my gut reflexes developed in the days when online RPG discussion in the US was practically a battlefield, and those of us who weren't "old school" or "narrative" were caught in the middle, and the games being produced somewhat reflected this... and it really really felt like anyone who wasn't in one of those camps was being squeezed out entirely and would eventually be left without anything being published that wasn't targeted at one of those camps. Even now, it feels like a lot of new stuff coming out is "rules lite", "OSR clone", or "Forge legacy" in some way.

It doesn't help me fight those reflexes when comments read like the sort of "you only believe that because you don't understand" / "you'd like this if you actually gave it a try, so if you don't like it you must not have honestly tried it" comments that were so common back in those days.

[Aliquid]

For some of us, the approach you describe doesn't feel natural at all, and makes it harder to get "in character" and "in setting" (and that's a big part of what makes gaming fun for us, character and setting). That's not an assertion that the approach you describe doesn't work for you. It's a flat statement of fact that handing us player-level control over the setting, as opposed to character-level interaction with the setting, is actively detrimental for our immersion.

I wonder if it is some sort of RPG style Rorschach test... Is this a reflection of how people view the real world. (not a negative comment on either side of the argument)

It doesn't help me fight those reflexes when comments read like the sort of "you only believe that because you don't understand" / "you'd like this if you actually gave it a try, so if you don't like it you must not have honestly tried it" comments that were so common back in those days.

That's a massive failing in people for so many reasons beyond just this. People seem to have a hard time comprehending that other people don't think and feel the same way that they do.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's a massive failing in people for so many reasons beyond just this. People seem to have a hard time comprehending that other people don't think and feel the same way that they do.

In many areas of life. Things that are facially obvious to one are incomprehensible to another. Things that are self-evidently right to one are absolutely and unalterably wrong to others. A little epistemic humility (accepting that I don't have all the answers and that what I know may not be either universal or objectively true) would help tremendously for all of us (myself very much included).

/digression

[ImNotTrevor]

1. Stop feeding Darth. He's been trying to derail this thread and it hasn't worked until these past few pages.

2. Why are we parading GNS's old corpse around again? Most rpg design discussion happens on google+ nowadays or in discord chats. I've never seen anyone but people just barely starting on design research mentioning GNS as legitimate. Actual designers have already taken the useful bits and discarded the baggage.

This actually parallels Freud and Jung. Aside from armchair psychology enthusiasts and psych 101 students, basically no one uses Freudian techniques. (I literally work at a psych hospital. I sit in on therapy sessions all the time. I've not heard a single usage of Freudian psych in nearly 7 years here.) EXCEPT the Rorschach test, which actually can be used to accurately diagnose schizophrenia (and nothing else), the term "subconscious" since it is useful for describing actions done without realising it (since describing them as Unconscious makes it seem like you are not awake), and a few other useful words with better uses nowadays.

What it seems like is that people use a few words from GNS (which, newsflash, aren't exclusive to GNS) and a few alarmists show up to drag the corpse out of its grave on puppet strings like the monster walks again.

Meanwhile, the Forge has been closed for years and Edwards has abandoned GNS as a theory.
The only people talking about it are amateurs, and the only response needs to be this: "eh. Nobody uses GNS anymore. Even the creator abandoned the theory."
As opposed to
"GNS and its cronies are cancer and I hate them and their cult."

Like.... wow. It's like watching grandpa flip out about communist sympathizers. Like, sure it was a bad thing and it has some holdouts but.... it's not exactly the pressing issue of the day.

[kyoryu]

The funny thing here is that I'm fairly in the middle in terms of the whole divide.

I've been a "traditional" game for a long, long time. Probably close to 35 years I've been elf-gaming. I picked up Fate a few years ago to figure out this whole "narrative" thing.

So I can dig both styles. I understand the jarring nature of some of this stuff, as I felt that at one point (I did find that, for me, that went away after a while, but I still get it). So I can understand where people are coming from when they say it's "collaborative storytelling" - it is, to you. And I can understand where Max is coming from when he says it's not - because to him, it's not. There's different ways of engaging with the hobby, none are "correct", and the biggest issue I see is that people assume that how they approach the hobby is necessarily the only way.

In many ways, people playing an old school dungeon/hexcrawl, people playing a more "traditional" Adventure Path style game, people playing more open story-focused games, and people playing storygames (note the distinction) are all playing very, very different games - different enough that coming up with one description that covers them *all* is going to be incredibly difficult.

Really, the best descriptions I've seen are "let's pretend, but with rules" and "you play a character in a world. The GM tells you what's happening around you, and you tell the GM how you respond." These are both wildly insufficient (and the second one is almost, but not quite universal), but seem to be the major commonalities and best address the "core" of the hobby.

[Segev]

And for some players, those two questions are exactly what they really don't want to hear from their GM in the middle of a session.

It completely blows up the sense of entering a "secondary world", a place-that-could-be-real, a place that invokes the emotional impression that it's a living, breathing reality that exists before, beyond, and after.

Coldly, rationally, I know these places and people aren't real... but emotionally, I cannot treat them that way or drains everything compelling... whether we're talking about playing an RPG, worldbuilding, or writing fiction.

I agree with you, here. If I want to tell the GM what my character finds, I'll suggest it to him as part of the action. If I'm asking, it's because I don't know what there IS to find, and I expect the world to exist sufficiently in the GM's head that he DOES.

I'm a fan of the Exalted stunting system, but that's proactive, not reactive. If you're inventing elements as part of a stunt, you're taking the initiative to say, "I think this would be a cool way to achieve this." Having said what you do, THEN being asked what its results are in the world, is a bit...what's the GM actually bringing to the table, again?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Really, the best descriptions I've seen are "let's pretend, but with rules" and "you play a character in a world. The GM tells you what's happening around you, and you tell the GM how you respond."

Those (and mostly the second one) is how I naively (before this thread) used "collaborative storytelling"--as a mostly-true (but loose) approximation to that full(er) description.

[flond]

But it's the GM that makes the established place setting for the game, unless it is a storytelling game were each person is an author/controller/GM and just says ''and then'' and it is.

I'm not really sure what ''facts'' can't be taken back....this sounds like more of a hostile player thing where a player demands something in the game and then never wants it changed.

Any game that is not a Storytelling type game, does not have story rules.



Sure A group of people can sit down and build a story, but that is not playing a RPG. And a group of people can sit down and play a storytelling RPG where each person just randomly says ''and then'' for a time...then they all stop and look at the random pile of story they have made.

But when one person (or a group even) makes a story, ahead of time before any game play, it's not random...it's pre made/planned/set/thought out/prepared.

Facts not being taken back is how you accomplish no myth play. It's how you build a coherent story at the table. It doesn't mean that things can't change. It just means that, for example, if there's a river between two towns (as was declared three sessions ago) there can't not be one now. (I mean, there could be a dam or the like.) And that's the foundational issue here. What you keep calling "random" and "a pile" is multiple people working together to shape a story, building with each other (and also probably using the rules to divide labor.)

And that is why people get on your case. Not because you've discovered a new and piercing insight, but because you fundamentally misidentify games, and do so in a frankly pretty obnoxious way. Narrative Role Playing Games are no more "random piles" than (I hope) your games are like that example from the SUE files, wherein, because the plot is pre-determined, if all the crew of star trek were destroyed, the ship would re-assemble itself and go from planet to planet, doing its own exploring, empty.

(Also, I'll note I feel like some games totally have Storytelling rules without any division of authority. (I'm mostly looking at white wolf here, Especially things like 1e Promethean where the GM is obliged to write up milestones.)

[flond]

I agree with you, here. If I want to tell the GM what my character finds, I'll suggest it to him as part of the action. If I'm asking, it's because I don't know what there IS to find, and I expect the world to exist sufficiently in the GM's head that he DOES.

I'm a fan of the Exalted stunting system, but that's proactive, not reactive. If you're inventing elements as part of a stunt, you're taking the initiative to say, "I think this would be a cool way to achieve this." Having said what you do, THEN being asked what its results are in the world, is a bit...what's the GM actually bringing to the table, again?

I like how PbtA games do this (or at least how Apocalypse World does) where the questions are usually a seasoning, and also, generally focused on stuff the PC "should" know. So if you go poking around in the bottom of a well the DM might decide and tell you you find Demner's tools...and his skeleton. And then ask what he used to do in the hold. (Thus you know, justifying the need for a DM, while allowing the players to decide what job is either not being done, or being filled in for. (And probably what his tools are).

(I'm not saying this is for everyone, I just think it's a bit of neat tech)

[Florian]

I've been a "traditional" game for a long, long time. Probably close to 35 years I've been elf-gaming.

So I can dig both styles.

Wellcome to the club. Grew up in occupied Germany next to an US Army Base, the G.I.s there started gaming with their kids, so us class mates joined in. Been my hobby ever since. The army left, so I had to adjust to local german style, which was vastly different, even back then, then I started freelance work all over the EU and meeting still other different gaming cultures...

So a bit base on experience, a bit baed on my work and a bit based on some eccentric other hobbies (like making a wine and later beer Somelier), I'm acceptive of a lot of things, but I'm still very strict when it comes to differentiating between personal taste and judgement of general function.
I mean, I can give a wine a 94 out of 100 and discuss it, but it still might not be to my personal taste.

[Tanarii]

You know, I was on Facebook, in a Fate group, and the discussion was "how do you prep for Fate?"

One person's response was "practice standing in front of a mirror and saying things like 'Okay, you succeed. What piece of information do you find that helps you?' and 'Okay, so you failed, what complication happens as a response?'"

I said that while that was certainly *a* valid play style, it wasn't the only one, and that games where you run completely on that style of gameplay always kind of rub me wrong.

The response from someone else? "My mantra is 'collaborative storytelling."

That's why I argue against the use of the term as a blanket description of all RPGs. Because that description is used to describe that style of play, and, to be honest, I think it's closer to the assumptions that most people make when they hear that phrase.

It's certainly one of the things I think of when I hear the phrase.
Either:
- players taking responsibility for deciding narrative resolutions, not just their character's attempted & intended actions in the environment. This can be freeform like your example, or from explicit narrative-oriented mechanics.
- someone actively writing the emergent story down in some kind of campaign log, after the fact.

Certainly not: We're all talking. Therefore determining our character's intended action & approach, and the GM resolving natural outcomes and consequences, which is necessary to establish the event, somehow becomes an account of the event instead.

Note that the players getting involved in resolution, and thus in establishing events, doesn't have to be storytelling. But it usually is, because the questions the GM is asking or that they're using narrative-oriented mechanics to get involved in are not causal, but narrative. The first question on what information is found is a good example of a narrative-oriented question (ie it's loaded towards narrative, not a causal resolution), especially when determined by a player on the spot. The second one could conceivably be either a causal (natural consequences) resolution to a complication, or a narrative-oriented resolution to a complication.

Edit: There are definitely decision making paradigms involving some narrative-focus in between the "I think of" and "clearly not". Or that don't fit into either a "causal"<->"narrative" or "event"<->"account of event" division/spectrum at all.

[Mutazoia]

But when one person (or a group even) makes a story, ahead of time before any game play, it's not random...it's pre made/planned/set/thought out/prepared.

Unless you have a really bad, railroady GM, nobody makes the story ahead of time. A GM may make a situation, but they don't make up much else.

No GM I've ever heard of has ever said "Okay, you find the One Ring and have to take it to Mt. Doom. You have to pass through Rivendell and Moria, and you have to talk to these people, and say these things..."

GMs say "Okay, you found the One Ring. Gandalf says you should probably take it to Elrond." And that's all. Everything else is the players deciding what happens next. Sure the GM can have a few set encounters ready...such as meeting Elrond, but that's usually about it.

[Max_Killjoy]

I wonder if it is some sort of RPG style Rorschach test... Is this a reflection of how people view the real world. (not a negative comment on either side of the argument)

It would be interesting to find a way to see if there's any correlation between how much control and what sort of control one feels they actually have over the real world around them, and what sort of control one feels is most "natural" for playing an RPG.

That's a massive failing in people for so many reasons beyond just this. People seem to have a hard time comprehending that other people don't think and feel the same way that they do.

I am daily confronted with the reality that most people evidently do not think and feel the same way I do.

[Darth Ultron]

Let me give you an example: I'm gm´ing a L5R campaign that uses both, "classic" and a "storytelling" techniques at the same time.

Ok, thanks for the example. Now, looking at your example...your a pure Story First DM. The setting has a pre made story and you the DM have added to that story and made a story of your own. All before the first game session.

And then the players are adding to the setting story and the DM made story...but no player is creating worlds out of the blue: they are adding to the big game stories.

So stuff your "and then.. and then...". You shouldn't participate in this kind of game when you can't get "in character" and "in setting".

I agree this is a bad type of game, but it's popular and if people have fun doing it why should we care?

I started off saying that some players don't like the "'Okay, you succeed. What piece of information do you find that helps you?' and 'Okay, so you failed, what complication happens as a response?'" approach, and then explained why that is.

His example was not so clear....but is this what your talking about? This goes back to the Casual DM (or even the Lazy DM).

So when any story event happens in the game, you as DM, just sit back and do nothing and ask the players to be Side Table DM's for a minute and take control of the game and make and create things? If so, this just leads down the path to the Random Mess. You can't have a Real Story if you will just toss everything out the window at the whim of every player.

For some of us, the approach you describe doesn't feel natural at all, and makes it harder to get "in character" and "in setting" (and that's a big part of what makes gaming fun for us, character and setting). That's not an assertion that the approach you describe doesn't work for you. It's a flat statement of fact that handing us player-level control over the setting, as opposed to character-level interaction with the setting, is actively detrimental for our immersion.

I think this is a bad idea myself and would never do it in a game. I'm against player control of the game. I guess it ''feels good'' to some players as they can stand up and be all like ''I'm in control''. But it just seems to ruin a game.

First off, as the Game Story can be changed on a whim...it's a pointless, random mess. You can only have the Bad After Barley Story. And, even worse, you get that False Playing. Like say the characters are looking for some buried treasure...what is the point of even pretending to look when any player can just say ''oh the treasure is over under that tree''. How long to you ''play in circles'' when everyone in the game knows a ''fact'', but the players ''don't know''? And this also has the huge player exploit problem of players doing things to gain advantage in the game, like they take control of the game and say ''the bank only has one guard, 90 year old Gus and he is a sleep'', and then they slip back into character and rob the bank.

I myself, and plenty of other players, don't want that kind of control over the game as a player. It's very silly to pretend not to know things you know in active game play. And it really ruins the fun of even being a player to have control of the game. Like why not just say ''my character is made a demi god''?

I agree with you, here. If I want to tell the GM what my character finds, I'll suggest it to him as part of the action. If I'm asking, it's because I don't know what there IS to find, and I expect the world to exist sufficiently in the GM's head that he DOES.

To have a player say what a character finds sounds very bland. Sure, some players can improvise and make up amazing stuff in one second.....but most of the people that can and what to do that DM. And it's a bit dull to get asked ''what do you find'' and then you say ''a gold bar'', then...maybe..your role player your character and they say ''wow, a gold bar!''. This takes away a huge part of role playing: the interaction between DM and player...and the wonder, and surprise and fun of the unknown.

For a lot of players discovering people, places and things is a big part of the fun.

Facts not being taken back is how you accomplish no myth play. It's how you build a coherent story at the table. It doesn't mean that things can't change. It just means that, for example, if there's a river between two towns (as was declared three sessions ago) there can't not be one now. (I mean, there could be a dam or the like.) And that's the foundational issue here. What you keep calling "random" and "a pile" is multiple people working together to shape a story, building with each other (and also probably using the rules to divide labor.)

I'm saying that, unless your playing a storytelling game with specifically made storytelling rules you can't do this in every RPG. A DM, and a group of players, who want to just control a single character and play through the game adventure, plot and story can not ''collaborate''.

You seem to keep coming back to the ''and then '' type. Like the DM will say there is a river. Then player ones says there is a bridge. And player two says there is a troll guarding the bridge. And player three says it's a fire breathing troll. And player for says the fire breathing troll wants a toll of 1000 gold. Wow...guess some would say that was an amazing story building activity where everyone built something off of each other....right? But it is also Random. Each person is just saying ''whatever'' and there is no structure.

And notice the player that made the troll fire breathing...so he randomly made the troll a 'fire' troll to make it tougher as the characters can't just ''use fire to kill it'' like a classic troll. And sure, that is great...sort of. But what if one player says ''the troll is very old and weak'', well now that player is making it easy for the characters to attack and kill the troll.

If like any time a character encounters any sort of obstacle, the players just alter reality, what is the point of the game? The DM says ''the door is locked'', and the player says ''oh, my character looks under the mat, finds the key there, and opens the door."

Unless you have a really bad, railroady GM, nobody makes the story ahead of time. A GM may make a situation, but they don't make up much else.

No GM I've ever heard of has ever said "Okay, you find the One Ring and have to take it to Mt. Doom. You have to pass through Rivendell and Moria, and you have to talk to these people, and say these things..."

GMs say "Okay, you found the One Ring. Gandalf says you should probably take it to Elrond." And that's all. Everything else is the players deciding what happens next. Sure the GM can have a few set encounters ready...such as meeting Elrond, but that's usually about it.

Your confusing a RPG Story with a Novel Story. Yes...a Novel story is set in stone and can never, ever, ever be changed even a tiny bit. But then a Novel Story is just one person (most often) telling a specific story for a reason. It is not in any way, shape or form a person in anyway playing an RPG.

In an RPG, a Story is much like you have said. The DM has an outline of who,what, where, and when. And the DM has a vague plan of who, what and where will do (or attempt to do) in the immediate future. The DM has a bunch of pre planed encounters and events and things to happen. And an over all Story to tell. BUT, as was said pages ago, and RPG Story is like a Mad Lib(just in case no one knows what this is, it would be a simple story on a page like ''Bob went to the (blank) and bought a (blank)''. Then a person could write anything they wanted to in the blank. You could write ''store'' and ''loaf of bread'' or get goofy and write ''the Moon'' and ''a pocket full of sunshine'' or anything else you wanted to. BUT note Bob will always be going somewhere and always be buying something. ) So the Story has Holes in it (blanks) the players can fill. So if there are orc bandits in the dark wood, the players, by playing their characters, can change that story(fill in the blanks), but they are not making a story by themselves out of thin air and do not ever have full control over the whole Story and Game.

I am daily confronted with the reality that most people evidently do not think and feel the same way I do.

YUP

[The Random NPC]

So the Story has Holes in it (blanks) the players can fill.

This is called collaboration.

[Jormengand]

Nah. I called you a Telltale GM. You know, based on the video games.

DU will remember that.

[Thrudd]

DU will remember that.

Lol. Just like in the games, the relevance of that to the ultimate outcome of this whole thing is questionable. Probably makes no difference at all.

[Florian]

they are adding to the big game stories.

That, too, is collaboration.

[flond]

Ok, thanks for the example. Now, looking at your example...your a pure Story First DM. The setting has a pre made story and you the DM have added to that story and made a story of your own. All before the first game session.







I'm saying that, unless your playing a storytelling game with specifically made storytelling rules you can't do this in every RPG. A DM, and a group of players, who want to just control a single character and play through the game adventure, plot and story can not ''collaborate''.

You seem to keep coming back to the ''and then '' type. Like the DM will say there is a river. Then player ones says there is a bridge. And player two says there is a troll guarding the bridge. And player three says it's a fire breathing troll. And player for says the fire breathing troll wants a toll of 1000 gold. Wow...guess some would say that was an amazing story building activity where everyone built something off of each other....right? But it is also Random. Each person is just saying ''whatever'' and there is no structure.

And notice the player that made the troll fire breathing...so he randomly made the troll a 'fire' troll to make it tougher as the characters can't just ''use fire to kill it'' like a classic troll. And sure, that is great...sort of. But what if one player says ''the troll is very old and weak'', well now that player is making it easy for the characters to attack and kill the troll.

If like any time a character encounters any sort of obstacle, the players just alter reality, what is the point of the game? The DM says ''the door is locked'', and the player says ''oh, my character looks under the mat, finds the key there, and opens the door."

Firstly, that sure doesn't seem to be what you're arguing. (Re:collaborative storytelling games). It seems like what you're arguing is that collaborative storytelling is a crock.

But, since we're here, I'll note two things. One, it's entirely possible to do a freeform game, it happens all the time! And secondly, what you're describing isn't by any means something that only happens in author-stance games. Who hasn't had the DM who lets anything happens. Or, contrawise, the DM who decides to make the game a shaggy dog story of obstacles, where you can't progress because "and then something else is in the way". What you need to have a coherent narrative is everyone on board. That's it. (And having challenge focused play is only important if you, you know, want a challange. It's entirely possible to have other forms of play, with or without a GM.)

I don't think people who like exploration focused play are wrong. That's a fine sort of play. My goal here is to talk about everyone sharing narrative power, and how it can produce fine things, and is only as random as the players playing. Same as any game where the GM hasn't set their prep in stone.

[Darth Ultron]

This is called collaboration.

Yes, in a vague sense. Like the way the Janitor on the movie set collaborated with the Director to make a movie.

But it is not really ''collaboration'' when one person is in control of the story and a couple of other people have no control and do 5% of the work.

That, too, is collaboration.

It seems like everyone is saying a ''collaboration'' is any time two people are together.....and that is a very vague definition. Like Bob and Fred stood next to each other, so they collaborated.

Firstly, that sure doesn't seem to be what you're arguing. (Re:collaborative storytelling games). It seems like what you're arguing is that collaborative storytelling is a crock.

It is generally safe to assume that I am arguing whatever I type...though I lot of posters do ''see things'' between the lines.

But, since we're here, I'll note two things. One, it's entirely possible to do a freeform game, it happens all the time! And secondly, what you're describing isn't by any means something that only happens in author-stance games. Who hasn't had the DM who lets anything happens. Or, contrawise, the DM who decides to make the game a shaggy dog story of obstacles, where you can't progress because "and then something else is in the way". What you need to have a coherent narrative is everyone on board. That's it. (And having challenge focused play is only important if you, you know, want a challange. It's entirely possible to have other forms of play, with or without a GM.)

Yes, freeform games are possible? Ok, never said they were not?

Um...''coherent narrative'' = ''Story".

I don't think people who like exploration focused play are wrong. That's a fine sort of play. My goal here is to talk about everyone sharing narrative power, and how it can produce fine things, and is only as random as the players playing. Same as any game where the GM hasn't set their prep in stone.

My goal is to show how a player, with a single character playing in the game, can't share narrative power, and is a best a random mess, and worse just a random pile of non-playing.

[Max_Killjoy]

Writing about something in another thread, and realized that it made for a good example here too.

There's a TV series I used to love, a crime drama/comedy... but it got to the point where I could predict the outcome of each episode based not on the evidence at hand or the behavior of the characters, but on "story writing elements", on the tropes the writers liked to hit, on the patterns established, etc.

To understand what was happening and would happen next, the things going on within the "world" of the show mattered less than the things going on at "story level"... and it kinda ruined the series for me.