Why collaborative storytelling is a meaningless phrase

[Max_Killjoy]

Sorry, but there's hardly a way to avoid that as long as you keep insisting on two things:
- Characters exist and matter for that discussion
- Your preference that "stuff that happens" needs to have a realistic feeling to it, so you can enjoy it.

Yes, characters are a, if not the, central part of role-playing games, as they are the main playing pieces and act as window to the fiction(al world). But they´re still no active participants in the game itself because they don't exist at the table as players.
You want your character to be your toy, that's a purely "off stage" matter, which can be done with RPGs just fine, but is not central to them or their functions.

You keep clinging to the illusion of verisimilitude and use that as "proof" that story doesn't necessarily exist. Still, the central part of the game is having content to interact with, which is the "on stage" matter and practically everything there is. This is the "drama" part. Even the most passive sandbox consists of elements to interact with and uses random charts that are there to have things happen and none of it will work unless the players exhibit their agency to formulate goals and actively go out and do something in it.

"What I like about RPGs is the core of RPGs, but what you like about RPGs is just you clinging to an illusion".


You keep mistaking "knowing things about the character that inform who they are, what they want, how they behave and react, so that they're three-dimensional and consistent" with "playing with a toy". I'm not sure, but I suspect that tells us more about your assumptions and preferences, and perhaps your inability to see around them, than it does about the other gamers you keep insulting with your "Barbies" and "go play with your toys" comments. And then you double-down by accusing people of "clinging to illusions".

As with worldbuilding, sometimes that part of the iceberg under water that no one sees is what's holding up the part above water that's visible. This applies both to writing fiction and to playing RPGs. In writing, some authors don't care about anything that's not on the page, and some authors need to know more about the setting and the characters than will ever show up on the page. In an RPG, some players (including GMs) are fine with nothing but what's said at the table, but for others that almost immediately begins to feel like an old west movie set with building facades held up by angled 2x4s, and nothing inside behind the window dressing.

Just because maintaining the sense of a "world-that-could-be-real" and characters as "people-who-could-be-real" isn't part of your personal approach to RPGs, doesn't mean that it's some foofy tack-on. "What is an RPG" can't be boiled down to a single short easy definition, it's best expressed as an overlapping area on a Venn diagram of various qualities. And yet it appears that you have/are engaged in this largely counterproductive and exclusionary "paring away" to get to the "true essence" and "one true definition" of RPGs, and in the process you're just cutting out everything that's not YOUR way of doing things and insulting everyone who doesn't share YOUR tastes.

[Max_Killjoy]

I don´t argue the point that immersion and verisimilitude are great things and make the gaming experience more enjoyable by adding depth to it. Being able to relate to, or even feel empathy with your character is fine and a high art.

But: In principle, you'll always do "Exploration", whether of "character", "setting", "morality", you name it.... "using a character", which is an important point of differentiation here.
You need to be provided with appropriate content to do just that and that content should be geared towards it, else no "Exploration" happens. The outcome of this "Exploration" is always "Story".

The thing I'm arguing against is the strange active/passive divide going on here.

There's no active/passive divide here, it just looks that way when you mistake your personal approach to gaming -- why you game, how you game, what you enjoy about gaming -- for a universal objective definition of what an RPG "really is".

You assert that the outcome is always "Story", and in doing so utterly miss the gulf, the chasm in "why, how, and what" that exists between setting out to intentionally craft a story as part of the process of playing the game, or the characters doing things (or the players interacting with the setting and each other through the characters, or whatever you prefer I guess) that a story could happen to be told about later if one wanted to tell a story.

One of the few things The Forge actually got right was laying out the difference between "story before", "story now", and "story after". (Of course, the next step was to pick the one that RE liked and pare away everything else that didn't serve that goal.)

That happens and you've got to live with it. I don't have a problem saying "This is Maki Sushi" and "You can also make a great Maki roll using roast duck/Pulled Pork and cucumber", both using the basic ingredients for a Maki roll, the one using raw fish, the other something else. I don't argue taste, but points out the difference between "Maki" and "Sushi" and that there're similarities, but no overlap (as pulled pork doesn't qualify as raw tuna).

Edit: And for sake of discussion, we can either focus on "Maki" or "Sushi" or both, but we should be clear about naming what is what. Neither Pork nor Duck are Sushi, but they can be Maki.

Or rather, everything you're posting here just comes across as an assertion that the kind of sushi you subjectively prefer is "the core of what sushi really is", and that the kind of sushi that other people prefer is "just some stuff tacked on that you might as well eat by yourself".

[Max_Killjoy]

No, it is just a valid way to play RPGs. Of course it is not the only way, so that stuff is not central. But neither is the stage as you can play RPGs this way just fine.

Personally i prefer the same kind of game as Max_Killjoy. One that is not really story driven and where versimilitude is the most important goal. Doesn't mean that stories can't happen, but if they don't that is fine too.

Speaking of the "stage" terminology, that reminds me of something that RPG theory seems very vulnerable to -- people mistaking RPGs for something else that they has parallels with. Because they have parallels with authorial fiction, some people will mistakenly analyze and define RPGs purely as authorial fiction. Because they have parallels with acting (improv or otherwise), some people will mistakenly analyze and define RPGs purely as stage acting or improve theater. Because they have some parallels with storytelling, some people will mistakenly analyze and define RPGs purely as storytelling. Etc.

Related, some people will always analyze all RPG systems through the lens of their first system, all RPG campaigns through the lens of their early campaigns, etc -- positively or negatively. There are plenty of people out there who can't get past their own experience, playing game X first and not really liking it, then finding game Y and liking it so much more... that they fall into the convert's fallacy.

Not sure if this is just circular logic "an RPG always contain story -> when someone uses RPG rules to create something without a story, that is not an RPG experience ->an RPG always contain story" or just a true scotsman argument "real roleplaying always has story"

Or a little of both...

[Tanarii]

The real irony is that someone (me) already explained that the phrase is usually (ie, literally every time I or anyone I know in real life has used it) used to very quickly establish the gist of what TRPGs generally are.

And that's fine and dandy for anyone that's going to sit down at one of your tables.

But if that player then comes to sit down at a table I'm DMing, I might have to unteach them. Because they've been given a specific gist, and now they have to learn that it's only the gist for a specific subset of TRPG play style.

Conversely, I might teach them that for this very first game, I want them to pretend their character is just them with some special abilities, and to interact with the world.

I might teach the player about to sit down to a heavily battle mat based & dungeon of the week game of D&D, it will be primarily a miniatures combat game where you delve into dungeons and kill things.

Or I might teach them this game or that game, at my table, is primarily about improvised method acting. Pretending to be someone you are not.

I might teach the players in a game of Paranoia that the point of the RPG at my table is to personally experience (ie the player) the terror your character is feeling of everyone else being out to get you if your character doesn't get them first, and not knowing enough about anything. Also, you've just been executed for knowing that much.

[Max_Killjoy]

And that's fine and dandy for anyone that's going to sit down at one of your tables.

But if that player then comes to sit down at a table I'm DMing, I might have to unteach them. Because they've been given a specific gist, and now they have to learn that it's only the gist for a specific subset of TRPG play style.

Conversely, I might teach them that for this very first game, I want them to pretend their character is just them with some special abilities, and to interact with the world.

I might teach the player about to sit down to a heavily battle mat based & dungeon of the week game of D&D, it will be primarily a miniatures combat game where you delve into dungeons and kill things.

Or I might teach them this game or that game, at my table, is primarily about improvised method acting. Pretending to be someone you are not.

I might teach the players in a game of Paranoia that the point of the RPG at my table is to personally experience (ie the player) the terror your character is feeling of everyone else being out to get you if your character doesn't get them first, and not knowing enough about anything. Also, you've just been executed for knowing that much.

Indeed, "collaborative storytelling" is only the gist of a particular approach to RPGs. In and of itself this approach is neither good nor bad, some people like it, some people don't.

It's only when this approach is falsely asserted to be the definition of what an RPG is, the core of what an RPG is, or inherent to all RPG play no matter what, that things go wrong.

[kyoryu]

(For what it's worth, I would just mention that RE does talk about 'Hard Core' gamism being as incompatible with regular gamism as it is with N/S modes of play, in which case GNS + Hard Core looks rather similar to the Bartle taxonomy of player types.)

Do NOT get me started on Bartle Types. They're less of an overall taxonomy, and more of a glimpse of the people that were attracted to one particular MUD.

They suffer the common problem of over-generalization from a small set of self-selecting data.

[Max_Killjoy]

Do NOT get me started on Bartle Types. They're less of an overall taxonomy, and more of a glimpse of the people that were attracted to one particular MUD.

They suffer the common problem of over-generalization from a small set of self-selecting data.

To me their breakdown would be more useful if they treated them as different aspects that players could be more or less interested in, as opposed to mutually exclusive categories. As they stand, they imply that a particular player just simply cannot be highly interested in elements at both ends of an axis at the same time.

[kyoryu]

To me their breakdown would be more useful if they treated them as different aspects that players could be more or less interested in, as opposed to mutually exclusive categories. As they stand, they imply that a particular player just simply cannot be highly interested in elements at both ends of an axis at the same time.

They literally were developed by examining the player base of one particular MUD that Bartle ran.

While they may have applicability outside of that, that needs to be researched or proven, rather than (as is currently done) projected.

As an analogy, let's say that I run a MUD or game that focuses on yoyo tricks. While it may have some crossover, this MUD will attract people that like yoyo tricks and that also like MUDs.

So any study done on that will really be a study on "MUD gamers that like yoyo tricks" and not a study on the general population. While some of the findings *may* transfer, as a general rule we cannot presume that they transfer.

IOW, if you play MUD2, you'll understand the Bartle Types a lot better and say to yourself "yup, those are reasons someone might play this game", rather than "these are universal truths about games and gamers." The Types are more of a statement about the design of MUD2 than they are anythign else.

[Max_Killjoy]

They literally were developed by examining the player base of one particular MUD that Bartle ran.

While they may have applicability outside of that, that needs to be researched or proven, rather than (as is currently done) projected.

As an analogy, let's say that I run a MUD or game that focuses on yoyo tricks. While it may have some crossover, this MUD will attract people that like yoyo tricks and that also like MUDs.

So any study done on that will really be a study on "MUD gamers that like yoyo tricks" and not a study on the general population. While some of the findings *may* transfer, as a general rule we cannot presume that they transfer.

IOW, if you play MUD2, you'll understand the Bartle Types a lot better and say to yourself "yup, those are reasons someone might play this game", rather than "these are universal truths about games and gamers." The Types are more of a statement about the design of MUD2 than they are anythign else.

True.

I guess my point was just that a lot of these studies and theories seem to be set up to split gamers up into boxes and archetype them, then they're set up to actual understand anything.

[Lacuna Caster]

Do NOT get me started on Bartle Types. They're less of an overall taxonomy, and more of a glimpse of the people that were attracted to one particular MUD.

To me their breakdown would be more useful if they treated them as different aspects that players could be more or less interested in, as opposed to mutually exclusive categories...

They are. The related questionnaire rates you to varying 'percentages' across all four categories, with a total of 200%.

Some more recent formulations have turned up dimensions that I think match up reasonably well with, say Extraversion, Agreeableness and Openness within the Big 5 personality model. And there's likely to be a lot of self-selection among people who play games in the first place (low-extraversion, low-openness, high-conscientiousness individuals aren't likely to show up very much, for example.)

That doesn't exactly validate the original model, but the broad point- that people differ enough in motivations that no single activity (even disguised as 'role-playing') is going to be fun for all of them, seems pretty valid to me.

.

[Max_Killjoy]

They are. The related questionnaire rates you to varying 'percentages' across all four categories, with a total of 200%.

Some more recent formulations have turned up dimensions that I think match up reasonably well with, say Extraversion, Agreeableness and Openness within the Big 5 personality model. And there's likely to be a lot of self-selection among people who play games in the first place (low-extraversion, low-openness, high-conscientiousness individuals aren't likely to show up very much, for example.)

That doesn't exactly validate the original model, but the broad point- that people differ enough in motivations that no single activity (even disguised as 'role-playing') is going to be fun for all of them, seems pretty valid to me.

.

The Wikipedia article, particular the X and Y axis diagram, make it seem more "category" than "independent sliding scales", at least to me, so I might have misunderstood that part of it.

[kyoryu]

That doesn't exactly validate the original model, but the broad point- that people differ enough in motivations that no single activity (even disguised as 'role-playing') is going to be fun for all of them, seems pretty valid to me.

Yeah, that's pretty much a given.

[Darth Ultron]

In an RPG, some players (including GMs) are fine with nothing but what's said at the table, but for others that almost immediately begins to feel like an old west movie set with building facades held up by angled 2x4s, and nothing inside behind the window dressing.

Agreed here.

Speaking of the "stage" terminology, that reminds me of something that RPG theory seems very vulnerable to -- people mistaking RPGs for something else that they has parallels with.

True. Just look at everyone getting all wacky about the word ''Story''.

Yes, in all fiction the Story is set in stone and can not ever be changed. This is true of books and movies and TV shows and plays and such. But a RPG Story is more like a Mad Lib or a Choose Adventurer Book, and those still are only close as RPG's are unique.

[HidesHisEyes]

"Collaborative storytelling" certainly exists as a thing-- something like Fiasco is a very different beast than even a narrative-oriented RPG like Fate. I'd argue that the crucial distinction is in how attached players are to their characters--not just emotionally, but mechanically, functionally. In an RPG, players take the role of one discrete individual, and can primarily shape the world at large through their direct actions. By contrast, in a collaborative storytelling game, there is a lot more freedom--players can take control of NPCs and random quirks of fate. But they're also not so much "games" as "guided brainstorming tools."

A secondary distinction might be player goals-- in an RPG, you're making choices mostly with success in mind, or at least what your character would percieve as being the "right" choice. By contrast, in a CSG you'll often screw your own "character" over in the name of creating a more interesting overall narrative.

...actually, the whole distinction of "player" verses "GM" is a pretty good indicator that you're playing an RPG, not a CSG.

That's a really good explanation of the difference between the two things. Clearly they can overlap in places - FATE has elements of CSG in the form of game mechanics. You can do CSG stuff but only if you spend points.

My big personal "fight me" thread hinges on my insistence that D&D in particular shouldn't include any CSG elements whatsoever no matter how narrativey you like you D&D games.

[Cynthaer]

And that's fine and dandy for anyone that's going to sit down at one of your tables.

But if that player then comes to sit down at a table I'm DMing, I might have to unteach them. Because they've been given a specific gist, and now they have to learn that it's only the gist for a specific subset of TRPG play style.

Conversely, I might teach them that for this very first game, I want them to pretend their character is just them with some special abilities, and to interact with the world.

I might teach the player about to sit down to a heavily battle mat based & dungeon of the week game of D&D, it will be primarily a miniatures combat game where you delve into dungeons and kill things.

Or I might teach them this game or that game, at my table, is primarily about improvised method acting. Pretending to be someone you are not.

I might teach the players in a game of Paranoia that the point of the RPG at my table is to personally experience (ie the player) the terror your character is feeling of everyone else being out to get you if your character doesn't get them first, and not knowing enough about anything. Also, you've just been executed for knowing that much.

So, here's where I think your concern is disproportionate to the danger.

For a new player, and I would say most players, nothing you just described is incompatible with the general image they have for a "collaborative storytelling game". This is primarily because the distinction of "true storytelling games" as opposed to "role-playing games" only has meaning to a relatively small group of people who are deep into the tabletop gaming hobby to begin with.

It's the same reason I would have no problem describing Fate Accelerated to a new or casual TTRPG player as "sort of like D&D, but..."

To anybody who knows much about TTRPGs, Fate Accelerated isn't very much like D&D at all. Character creation is completely different, it's not tied to a fairly specific default setting, there's no concept of races or classes, you don't have multiple pages of stats and modifiers and skills and powers, combat looks nothing alike, and one of the central mechanics revolves around rewriting portions of the story in real time.

But! Both games involve a group of people sitting at a table, with one person controlling the "world" and the rest controlling individual characters (each of which has a character sheet with their personal stats). And during the game, those players dictate their respective characters' actions and role some dice according to the game mechanics and then see what happens next.

In the wide world of "things commonly understood to be 'games'", imprecise phrases like "storytelling games" or "like D&D" have a lot less baggage for the average person than they might for you or anybody else who's deep into the internal arguments that occur within the hobby.

The thing is, new players aren't coming from writing workshops. They're coming from video games and board games. That's their point of reference.

The point of saying "collaborative storytelling" is to shift their mental image of a "game" away from Carcassone, World of Warcraft, and League of Legends, and into something where the gameplay is cooperative, their choices aren't bound by the limits of the game mechanics, and the end goal isn't to "win" by accomplishing some standardized goal.

These players aren't going to jump straight to "creative writing exercises" because that's not part of most people's life experience.



Related: I know I keep posting this, but nobody so far has actually acknowledged it, so I'll include it again. I believe that my reasoning above is precisely the reason that all the mainstream TTRPG publishers very specifically describe their games as "storytelling games" and put a great deal of emphasis on the story aspect.

It is not because they want or expect their players to act in ways that make scripted, novel-like character arcs or whatever, or to abandon characterization in favor of a "better story". It's because they also are trying to speak to people familiar with video games but not TTRPGs:

Spoiler: a bunch of systems using the word "storytelling"

Show

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

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

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

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

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

[...]

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

[...]

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

[...]

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

[Lord Raziere]

Cynthaer has the right of it, for most people a simulation game is one of those videogames you make to have sandbox fun in.

like Yandere Simulator: its supposed to simulate someone in high school trying to get their crush to love them through Yandere methods. most games invariably end up with the player screwing up, killing a bunch of people, then dying like some sort of anime high school skyrim.

saying its a storytelling game is signalling people "hey you can try to be like one of those epic fantasy stories you like with this, but instead of pre-planned things that you can't do anything about, you can make that story using whatever you can imagine! want to grow wings and chop Sauron's face in half with an axe? if your group is ok with it, go for it!"

[Tanarii]

These players aren't going to jump straight to "creative writing exercises" because that's not part of most people's life experience.

Actually, I expect that if you tell someone that a game is about collaborative storytelling, they're going to think it's about sitting around making up a story together.

Nothing about "collaborative storytelling" implies any of the alternative things I posted and you quoted, nor does it imply:
"Both games involve a group of people sitting at a table, with one person controlling the "world" and the rest controlling individual characters (each of which has a character sheet with their personal stats). And during the game, those players dictate their respective characters' actions and role some dice according to the game mechanics and then see what happens next."

Things that aren't inherently sitting around making up a story together:
- one person controlling the world and the rest controlling individual characters
- dictating actions and roll dice to see what happens next
- method acting or getting deep into a character that isn't you, the player
- the player actually experiencing the terror, fear, confusion, despair, or whatever else is super appropriate emotional response for a character in genre or specific game
- tactical battlemat play

[Cynthaer]

Actually, I expect that if you tell someone that a game is about collaborative storytelling, they're going to think it's about sitting around making up a story together.

All I can say is that it didn't cause any confusion for me when I was starting out, and I've never seen it cause confusion for any other new player. I presume it's confused at least a few new players, statistically speaking, but that's unavoidable no matter what.

I can't help but notice that you've generally phrased your view in terms of how you expect new players to interpret this, while most of us have claimed that in practice it works out differently. Have you ever actually seen a new player get confused over this phrasing, or is it purely speculative?

And if it's the latter, do you think it's possible that most new players don't get the same mental image from the phrase that you do, even though it seems counterintuitive?

Nothing about "collaborative storytelling" implies any of the alternative things I posted and you quoted, nor does it imply:
"Both games involve a group of people sitting at a table, with one person controlling the "world" and the rest controlling individual characters (each of which has a character sheet with their personal stats). And during the game, those players dictate their respective characters' actions and role some dice according to the game mechanics and then see what happens next."

Sorry, I was drawing an analogy and perhaps confused my points.

First, I was highlighting those commonalities in reference to describing Fate as "like D&D", not describing both as "collaborative storytelling games". My point is that both are inaccurate from the perspective of a knowledgeable insider, but neither gives a false perception to newcomers.

Second I'm not saying that the phrase "collaborative storytelling game" implies any of the things you posted. I'm saying that the general idea it communicates to a new player doesn't contradict any of them, and you wouldn't need to "unteach" their preconceptions to get them to play that way.

I say this with some confidence, because what you described are by far the most common ways people play D&D, and there has not been an epidemic of confusion amongst the flood of new players playing 5e, despite the 5e PHB spending the entire introduction describing the game as a "storytelling game"!

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

[...]

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

[...]

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

[...]

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

[Tanarii]

I can't help but notice that you've generally phrased your view in terms of how you expect new players to interpret this, while most of us have claimed that in practice it works out differently. Have you ever actually seen a new player get confused over this phrasing, or is it purely speculative?

Second I'm not saying that the phrase "collaborative storytelling game" implies any of the things you posted. I'm saying that the general idea it communicates to a new player doesn't contradict any of them, and you wouldn't need to "unteach" their preconceptions to get them to play that way.

I say this with some confidence, because what you described are by far the most common ways people play D&D, and there has not been an epidemic of confusion amongst the flood of new players playing 5e, despite the 5e PHB spending the entire introduction describing the game as a "storytelling game"!

Yeah actually, IMX there is often confusion among new players who think RPGs are about storytelling, or at least DMs telling stories. Not helped at all by people that claim that's RPGs are about collaborative storytelling.

The other common thing they think is that "roleplaying" means funny accents, or talky-time. That one comes from players who are roleplaying elitists, and is not helped by shows like Critical Role.

Personally I love what I call 'method acting', or pretending I am the character in the fantasy environment, plus specific personality traits that aren't me. But I don't think that's what RPGs are all about.

[Thrudd]

Yeah actually, IMX there is often confusion among new players who think RPGs are about storytelling, or at least DMs telling stories. Not helped at all by people that claim that's RPGs are about collaborative storytelling.

I agree. Collaborative Story Telling is a misleading way to describe what goes on in the vast majority of RPGs to someone that knows nothing about them. The pedantics of defining those terms aside; I can't believe an uninitiated person would have an appropriate expectation going into, say, a game of D&D, having been told it was "collaborative storytelling". It's a set up for disappointment, or at least confusion- false advertising.

[Cynthaer]

I agree. Collaborative Story Telling is a misleading way to describe what goes on in the vast majority of RPGs to someone that knows nothing about them. The pedantics of defining those terms aside; I can't believe an uninitiated person would have an appropriate expectation going into, say, a game of D&D, having been told it was "collaborative storytelling". It's a set up for disappointment, or at least confusion- false advertising.

Just to clarify, since this came up earlier in the thread too:

Nobody has proposed that "collaborative storytelling" is a complete, self-sufficient description of a TTRPG like D&D. The argument has always been that it is a useful descriptor to convey certain aspects of the game. Specifically, those aspects that differ from the types of video games or board games that new players are likely to be most familiar with.

Incidentally, do you think that the introduction section of the D&D 5e PHB/basic rules does a good job of accurately describing the game of D&D 5e?

[Tanarii]

Incidentally, do you think that the introduction section of the D&D 5e PHB/basic rules does a good job of accurately describing the game of D&D 5e?

No. Not at all. In fact, that's a very old school 'module' way of running a game. No game I enjoy, nor most players I know will enjoy, has a DM ramble on and on telling his story in huge monologues like that. They keep descriptions short and snappy and to the point, otherwise they lose their players attention.

I'm a DM, and I zone out just trying to read the excessively overblown prose of many 'boxed text' module descriptions, trying to extract the necessary information the players will need when I'm running a game. The worst are TSR-era NPC monologues at the beginning of adventures. For example, Wrath of the Immortals is a snooze fest if you try and go btB boxed text.

And telling players "there's no winning" is a flat out lie, especially trying to pair it off with the 'don't worry if you die' mentality. Staying alive is one of the most common things many people consider winning in RPGs. As are various other kinds of 'challenge me'. "[H]aving a good time and creating a memorable story" might be winning for some people, but for others that's not enough.

Edit: really good old modules 'boxed text' was on point. Everything in it was information that could save your PCs life ... or a false flag that could cost it. You payed attention. Unfortunately somewhere along the way D&D lost its soul, and boxed text went from information you needed to keep your character alive, to trying to draw mental pictures in the minds of the players with words.

[Max_Killjoy]

"Staying alive' is often a good part of winning in real-life dangerous situations as well.

And yet characters acting with a modest sense of self-preservation is often seen as "metagaming" and "bag RP" by a certain sort of gamer...

[Tanarii]

"Staying alive' is often a good part of winning in real-life dangerous situations as well.

And yet characters acting with a modest sense of self-preservation is often seen as "metagaming" and "bag RP" by a certain sort of gamer...

It's seen as "bad RP" by some mechanical systems as well. Ones that give rewards for RPing in line with character traits that provide negative mechanical consequences, which can easily get you killed. Torchbearer or Paranoia for example.

I don't actually have a problem with that if the "winning" goal is explicitly not successfully keeping your character alive so you can RP or fill some other goal. But being told "you can't win" is just a turn off to a huge number of players. Instead the better thing to do is tell them what their goal is (short or long). In fact, that's one of the most important things left out of a session 0 for games.

Why are we playing this game? To experience the things our Pc is feeling, as a player? To keep our characters alive? To find fat lootz? To solve puzzles? To explore exciting places? To have interactions with NPcs? To create a story of epic heroes?

[Jormengand]

Edit: really good old modules 'boxed text' was on point. Everything in it was information that could save your PCs life ... or a false flag that could cost it. You payed attention. Unfortunately somewhere along the way D&D lost its soul, and boxed text went from information you needed to keep your character alive, to trying to draw mental pictures in the minds of the players with words.

I wouldn't call that "Losing its soul" so much as "Putting the RP in RPG". What, so you just played D&D as a wargame and ignored the fact that it wasn't meant to be any more? Maybe that's why you don't like the idea of collaborative storytelling, because you're not playing RPGs to do the primary thing that RPGs are for.

[Thrudd]

Incidentally, do you think that the introduction section of the D&D 5e PHB/basic rules does a good job of accurately describing the game of D&D 5e?

No, I do not think the 5e writers did a good job describing the game. Maybe it's the game they wish it was, but the actual mechanics don't bear that out. This has been the case for quite a long time, across multiple editions.

[Max_Killjoy]

I wouldn't call that "Losing its soul" so much as "Putting the RP in RPG". What, so you just played D&D as a wargame and ignored the fact that it wasn't meant to be any more? Maybe that's why you don't like the idea of collaborative storytelling, because you're not playing RPGs to do the primary thing that RPGs are for.

Or there's the "shocking" third possibility already discussed at length in this thread:

"Storytelling" is not the defining aspect of what an RPG is, or the key element that separates an RPG from a wargame. Furthermore one can roleplay their heart out without even a mote of storytelling, collaborative or otherwise, occurring.

[Thrudd]

Just to clarify, since this came up earlier in the thread too:

Nobody has proposed that "collaborative storytelling" is a complete, self-sufficient description of a TTRPG like D&D. The argument has always been that it is a useful descriptor to convey certain aspects of the game. Specifically, those aspects that differ from the types of video games or board games that new players are likely to be most familiar with.

Incidentally, do you think that the introduction section of the D&D 5e PHB/basic rules does a good job of accurately describing the game of D&D 5e?

Used in the form being proposed, the term is overbroad and therefore useless as a descriptor. Given the obvious and precise (aka useful) meaning, the term applies only to a select few TTRPGs.

[Jormengand]

Or there's the "shocking" third possibility already discussed at length in this thread:

"Storytelling" is not the defining aspect of what an RPG is, or the key element that separates an RPG from a wargame. Furthermore one can roleplay their heart out without even a mote of storytelling, collaborative or otherwise, occurring.

Right, except that wasn't what was being discussed in that instance. What was being discussed in that instance was whether the players should have any mental image of the world their characters are supposedly being role-played in at all. Not to mention that by most people's definition of story, roleplaying does tell a story.

[ImNotTrevor]

And that's fine and dandy for anyone that's going to sit down at one of your tables.

But if that player then comes to sit down at a table I'm DMing, I might have to unteach them. Because they've been given a specific gist, and now they have to learn that it's only the gist for a specific subset of TRPG play style.

Conversely, I might teach them that for this very first game, I want them to pretend their character is just them with some special abilities, and to interact with the world.

I might teach the player about to sit down to a heavily battle mat based & dungeon of the week game of D&D, it will be primarily a miniatures combat game where you delve into dungeons and kill things.

Or I might teach them this game or that game, at my table, is primarily about improvised method acting. Pretending to be someone you are not.

I might teach the players in a game of Paranoia that the point of the RPG at my table is to personally experience (ie the player) the terror your character is feeling of everyone else being out to get you if your character doesn't get them first, and not knowing enough about anything. Also, you've just been executed for knowing that much.

So the assertion is:
One portion of a description to get across a general gist when delivered once to a person will entirely ruin their understanding that things may indeed be more nuanced than that brief description they received once.

Just like how anyone told that geometry is about "math with shapes" will need to be entirely reeducated once they are faced with an angle or any other non-shape application.

That's flat-out the most ludicrous assertion I've seen yet and literally only works if the first description of a thing a person ever hears is the entire cute if everything they learn abiut it going forward. Which is as ludicrous as it is objectively wrong.