Why collaborative storytelling is a meaningless phrase

[Florian]

Then you've missed part of the point entirely.

The broader definition of "storytelling" is part of what makes it unhelpful in the first place.

The broad definition is "tell a story". Nothing more, nothing less. This is what you do when interacting with your fellow players (and gm) and add something to the ongoing narrative by declaring what your character does and describing it to them - you tell a story about fictional events and your fellow players act upon that.

[Lacuna Caster]

Third, there's the baggage -- and it goes back to before The Forge, even. Way way back, it starts with someone asserting that the only good way to game is to focus on "the needs of the story"...

...But The Forge cranked it up to 11, and tried to snap off the dial.

https://refereeingandreflection.word...ing-the-forge/

It's certainly true to say, as the article mentions, that the bulk of, ah, research and development at the Forge was concerned with Narrativist play and techniques, since RE and others considered this a rather neglected style of play as far as the major publishers were concerned. But I have never seen Ron write or say anything to the effect that 'Gamism and Simulationism are bad and inferior styles of play', and I don't know where you got that impression.

(He had plenty to say about the technical and social breaking-points of some popular G/S systems, particularly when they pretended to be Nar-focused and weren't, but that's another discussion.)

It is basically nonsense to describe a group of people producing a sequence of fictional events as "not collaborative storytelling". You are collaborating on a story. The assertions to the contrary are word salad. Also reflective of a deeply warped understanding of reality where it is impossible to do something that has significance you don't appreciate, or for the same thing to mean different things to different people.

The broad definition is "tell a story". Nothing more, nothing less. This is what you do when interacting with your fellow players (and gm) and add something to the ongoing narrative by declaring what your character does and describing it to them - you tell a story about fictional events and your fellow players act upon that.

Going back a bit, I would say that if you're defining 'story' as 'a sequence of fictional events', then yes, it is trivially true to say that role-playing produces a story. Though, given there are such things as 'true stories', I don't know why such events would even need to be fictional, and at that point anything that ever happens is 'a story'.

The question is whether the intentions of the people playing, and/or anything about the game mechanics, encourages stories that are about something interesting. And what qualifies as 'interesting'.

.

[Cosi]

The question is whether the intentions of the people playing, and/or anything about the game mechanics, encourages stories that are about something interesting. And what qualifies as 'interesting'.

I should hope that if you and four of your friends are getting together to spend several hours doing something whatever you choose to do is "interesting". I mean, if it's not, what's the point? Are the people who claim that what they're doing isn't collaborative storytelling contending that they spend their gaming sessions being bored because the events in those games don't interest them? If that's the case, why are they playing those games instead of doing something else?

[Max_Killjoy]

The broad definition is "tell a story". Nothing more, nothing less. This is what you do when interacting with your fellow players (and gm) and add something to the ongoing narrative by declaring what your character does and describing it to them - you tell a story about fictional events and your fellow players act upon that.

Wrong. There is no inherent ongoing narrative, any more than real life is an "ongoing narrative". YOU might be telling a story or crafting a narrative, but that doesn't mean every other gamer is doing so.

Stop trying to negate other gamers' reasons for gaming, their approaches to gaming, and their experience and enjoyment of gaming.

[Lacuna Caster]

I should hope that if you and four of your friends are getting together to spend several hours doing something whatever you choose to do is "interesting". I mean, if it's not, what's the point? Are the people who claim that what they're doing isn't collaborative storytelling contending that they spend their gaming sessions being bored because the events in those games don't interest them...

Of course it interests them. But their definitions of 'interesting' don't always sync up particularly well with the usual literary/dramatic criteria for what a 'good story' is. A slow-motion replay of an american football game may be captivating to the right audience, but it's reasonable to say the appeal is somewhat different from a teen romance novel or detective fiction.

[Max_Killjoy]

I should hope that if you and four of your friends are getting together to spend several hours doing something whatever you choose to do is "interesting". I mean, if it's not, what's the point? Are the people who claim that what they're doing isn't collaborative storytelling contending that they spend their gaming sessions being bored because the events in those games don't interest them? If that's the case, why are they playing those games instead of doing something else?

Because it doesn't have to be "an interesting story", or a story at all, to be interesting to the people playing.

[Lacuna Caster]

Because it doesn't have to be "an interesting story", or a story at all, to be interesting to the people playing.

Well... according to the definitions that Cosi is using, it does have to be 'an interesting story' in order to be interesting to the people playing. I just think that their definition of 'story' is too broad to be usefully descriptive, and if you're using it to define RPGs for the uninitiated it might give a misleading impression, depending on the system and the player's understanding of the word.

[Max_Killjoy]

their definition of 'story' is too broad to be usefully descriptive, and if you're using it to define RPGs for the uninitiated it might give a misleading impression, depending on the system and the player's understanding of the word.

And that's what some of us have been saying for many pages now. At the point "collaborative storytelling" becomes "technically true" of all RPG gaming, it's also rendered almost meaningless -- and that it is also misleading along multiple fronts.

[Cosi]

Of course it interests them. But their definitions of 'interesting' don't always sync up particularly well with the usual literary/dramatic criteria for what a 'good story' is. A slow-motion replay of an american football game may be captivating to the right audience, but it's reasonable to say the appeal is somewhat different from a teen romance novel or detective fiction.

Yes, different stories have different appeals. Mad Max Fury Road does not have the same appeal as Dilbert which does not have the same appeal as The Hobbit which does not have the same appeal as Romeo and Juliet which does not have the same appeal as a Sherlock Holmes collection. I literally do not understand what point you are trying to make.

Because it doesn't have to be "an interesting story", or a story at all, to be interesting to the people playing.

What kind of gaming are you trying to describe? What are you talking about when you say that something "isn't a story"? Do you mean a hack-and-slash dungeon crawl? Because I think that things like John Wick would indicate that "a bunch of fight scenes with the exact minimum amount of plot necessary to understand those fight scenes" totally qualifies as a story.

And that's what some of us have been saying for many pages now. At the point "collaborative storytelling" becomes "technically true" of all RPG gaming, it's also rendered almost meaningless -- and that it is also misleading along multiple fronts.

I think the problem you have is that you are misunderstanding what people mean when they describe RPGs as "collaborative storytelling". The point is to provide a term for the action of playing a RPG, so that we can better understand how to make RPGs good and enjoyable. For example, the collaborative storytelling perspective would suggest that part of making an effective RPG is providing a mechanism for synchronizing players' expectations about creatures and objects in the world so different people can make action declarations to interact with the same things in a coherent way.

[Lacuna Caster]

Yes, different stories have different appeals. Mad Max Fury Road does not have the same appeal as Dilbert which does not have the same appeal as The Hobbit which does not have the same appeal as Romeo and Juliet which does not have the same appeal as a Sherlock Holmes collection. I literally do not understand what point you are trying to make.

My point is that describing RPGs as 'collaborative storytelling', given your definition of 'story', doesn't actually describe anything worth paying attention to. If you want to accurately convey the appeal of a particular RPG, you'll need to tighten your definition or risk false advertising.

I would argue that on a certain level, Mad Max and The Hobbit and Shakespeare actually have a good deal more in common than they would with weather reports or badminton matches. But we can't discuss that until you agree that there are some things the word 'story' doesn't usefully summarise.

[Max_Killjoy]

It's certainly true to say, as the article mentions, that the bulk of, ah, research and development at the Forge was concerned with Narrativist play and techniques, since RE and others considered this a rather neglected style of play as far as the major publishers were concerned. But I have never seen Ron write or say anything to the effect that 'Gamism and Simulationism are bad and inferior styles of play', and I don't know where you got that impression.

(He had plenty to say about the technical and social breaking-points of some popular G/S systems, particularly when they pretended to be Nar-focused and weren't, but that's another discussion.)

Based on some of his writings back then, I'd say that there are some things RE understands about those who might say "sim is as close as your 3 choices get", and some things he grossly misunderstands.

Going beyond RE, there was a wing of The Forge who asserted that "sim" doesn't even exist.

Going back a bit, I would say that if you're defining 'story' as 'a sequence of fictional events', then yes, it is trivially true to say that role-playing produces a story. Though, given there are such things as 'true stories', I don't know why such events would even need to be fictional, and at that point anything that ever happens is 'a story'.

The question is whether the intentions of the people playing, and/or anything about the game mechanics, encourages stories that are about something interesting. And what qualifies as 'interesting'.

.

Saying that an RPG session or campaign would produce events about which a story could be told, is no different from saying that real life might do the same, and it's trivially true.

The problem is that this is not the same as setting out, in-session or in-campaign, to deliberately craft a story.

There's a huge gulf in fundamental approach to the game that's being papered over for various reasons... it appears that for some, it's important that the term "collaborative storytelling" be applicable to all gaming for purely technical, definitional reasons.

And it appears that for some, it's just that damn important to make all RPG gaming "about story" even if it means ignoring and erasing any experience of gaming that doesn't fit their theory.

[Max_Killjoy]

I think the problem you have is that you are misunderstanding what people mean when they describe RPGs as "collaborative storytelling". The point is to provide a term for the action of playing a RPG, so that we can better understand how to make RPGs good and enjoyable. For example, the collaborative storytelling perspective would suggest that part of making an effective RPG is providing a mechanism for synchronizing players' expectations about creatures and objects in the world so different people can make action declarations to interact with the same things in a coherent way.

"Synchronized player expectations about creatures and objects" is not "collaborative storytelling". This gets right back to the insistence that communicating about fictional elements is "storytelling", which is just as useless and unhelpful as insisting that all communication is "storytelling", or that all of real life is "narratives".

Coherent interactions, synchronized player expectations about creatures and objects and events and the basic "physics" of the world, rules and setting coherence, etc -- those are all things at the core of how I approach gaming.

But for the umpteenth time, I am not telling a story, and I am not collaborating with anyone else's attempt to tell a story, and therefore, I am not engaged in collaborative storytelling. I do not think about, care about, or engage in story when I am playing my character in an RPG. My character is not worried about "story" as they go about their day and deal with whatever they have to deal with, and I am not worried about "story" at any point in playing my character. There is no effort made to craft a compelling or interesting story. Tropes, archetypes, and arcs are utterly ignored or even rejected outright. I refuse in total any attempt to decide, construct, or analyze my character or the events of their "life" as a narrative.

[Florian]

Wrong. There is no inherent ongoing narrative, any more than real life is an "ongoing narrative". YOU might be telling a story or crafting a narrative, but that doesn't mean every other gamer is doing so.

Stop trying to negate other gamers' reasons for gaming, their approaches to gaming, and their experience and enjoyment of gaming.

You are a player participating in a game based on "exploration" and you are handed content to explore and rules to help you do so. What you apparently don´t get is that everything there is, it´s there for exploration and to provide joy while doing so, no matter what it is.

[Lacuna Caster]

Based on some of his writings back then, I'd say that there are some things RE understands about those who might say "sim is as close as your 3 choices get", and some things he grossly misunderstands.

Going beyond RE, there was a wing of The Forge who asserted that "sim" doesn't even exist.

The thing is, according to some analyses of the relevant theory, I can kind of see where that's coming from.

When I was reading through that essay you linked, one thing that struck me was that Story Before should not, strictly speaking, be particularly compatible with any of the three creative agendas. In a way, I can agree with that, in that I'm not sure imposing a pre-planned storyline adds particular value to any of the creative agendas, although I'd consider it more directly in conflict with Nar priorities than others.

However, I suspect that if you took baseline Simulationism, removed the railroading, and injected some effort at modelling character psychology, you'll often get something that's at least looks similar to 'low-pressure Narrativism' from the outside, in that a bona fide story emerges. Since I don't think railroading has anything to do with simulation, and character psychology does, you could argue that Sim and Nar might 'merge' under those conditions, or at least that shifting that way is pretty common.

Now, I know RE did not agree with that analysis, and he has a lot more experience than me, and there are certainly plenty of habitual Sim-inclined players who would, like yourself, disagree with that position. But it could be an understandable mistake.


I think this discussion is getting a little too tense, though. Perhaps it might be helpful to cool off for a while?
.

[Max_Killjoy]

You are a player participating in a game based on "exploration" and you are handed content to explore and rules to help you do so. What you apparently don´t get is that everything there is, it´s there for exploration and to provide joy while doing so, no matter what it is.

None of that has anything to do with collaborating to tell a story.

Fictional world, doesn't equate to or necessitate story.

Exploration, doesn't equate to or necessitate story.

Shared expectations, doesn't equate to or necessitate story.

Communication, doesn't equate to or necessitate story.

Character, doesn't equate to or necessitate story.

Stop trying to negate other people's reasons for, methods of, and experiences of, playing RPGs.

[Max_Killjoy]

[QUOTE=Lacuna Caster;22790363]
The thing is, according to some analyses of the relevant theory, I can kind of see where that's coming from.

When I was reading through that essay you linked, one thing that struck me was that Story Before should not, strictly speaking, be particularly compatible with any of the three creative agendas. In a way, I can agree with that, in that I'm not sure imposing a pre-planned storyline adds particular value to any of the creative agendas, although I'd consider it more directly in conflict with Nar priorities than others.

However, I suspect that if you took baseline Simulationism, removed the railroading, and injected some effort at modelling character psychology, you'll often get something that's at least looks similar to 'low-pressure Narrativism' from the outside, in that a bona fide story emerges. Since I don't think railroading has anything to do with simulation, and character psychology does, you could argue that Sim and Nar might 'merge' under those conditions, or at least that shifting that way is pretty common.

Now, I know RE did not agree with that analysis, and he has a lot more experience than me, and there are certainly plenty of habitual Sim-inclined players who would, like yourself, disagree with that position. But it could be an understandable mistake.


Re-reading this, it does seem that RE keeps expressing doubt that Simulationism can really be a thing, a disbelief that there really are those players who aren't engaged at all in either of the other two Agendas. On one hand, I say, duh, yeah, that basic assumption of absolutist exclusivity between the Agendas is a core fault in your approach -- you're trying to drive apart when it's the overlapping space where RPGs live; on the other hand it does seem to show a certain skepticism towards the very existence of "Sim".

"The Hard Question
Well, here it is. Before getting bent out of shape, remember that each mode is gonna get one of these.

Role-playing is a hobby, leisure activity. The real question is, what for, in the long term? For Simulationist play, the answer "This was fun, so let's do it again," is sufficient.

However, for how long is it sufficient? Which seems to me to vary greatly from person to person. Is the focus on Exploration to be kept as is, permanently, as characters and settings change through play? Some say "sure" and wonder what the hell I'm talking about, or perhaps feel slightly insulted. Or, is Drift ultimately desirable? Is play all about getting "it" to work prior to permitting overt metagame agendas into the picture? Some might answer "of course" and wonder why anyone could see it otherwise.

So! Is there an expected, future metagame payoff, or is the journey really its own reward? Is Simulationist play what you want, or is it what you think you must do in order, one day, to get what you want?

I judge nothing with these questions. I think that they're important to consider and that answers are going to vary widely, that's all. "

Which comes across as "Are you sure? OK, are you really sure? For certain?"

I think this discussion is getting a little too tense, though. Perhaps it might be helpful to cool off for a while?
.

Things tend to get tense when people are trying their damnedest to invalidate and negate your experiences of something you really enjoy.

What's going on in this thread, still, with a couple of posters, is exactly the same thing that's been happening going back to those Usenet debates ~2 decades ago -- the effort to assert that "story" is what makes RPGs what they are, that "story" is the essence of RPGs, etc. The next step has always, inevitably, inexorably, been the assertion that what separates a "good RPG" from a "bad RPG" is "more story" and "supports narrative" and "decisions that support the best story are encouraged over other decisions", and that those who "embrace story" are "better gamers" than those who ignore or reject story.

[Tanarii]

Basically, you're skipping the first step and solely focus on the second step, which seems to be the cause of all this confusion on the topic.

The first step is a group of people meeting up to play a game together where everyone plays one character and participates in the game by describing what that character does. You work together to play the game, so it is collaborative and the method is by telling stories about what happens.
There is simply no game when no-one provides the fictional content to interact with and no-one choses to act upon that.

You were doing so well right up to the bolded part, at which you jumped the shark.

You're directly quoting my style of play and telling me it, and my reasons for it, are not valid. And instead I'm playing your way.

So let's try a modified version Aliquid's advice here, since it's applicable.

Maybe I am by your definition of ‘story’, but that doesn’t change the fact that the phrase is misleading and not useful for describing the way I play RPGs.

[Lacuna Caster]

Things tend to get tense when people are trying their damnedest to invalidate and negate your experiences of something you really enjoy...

Max, with respect, you're gone long past the point where this particular style of argumentation is going to convince anyone who isn't already convinced. I'm gonna bow out for the moment, but I will just say that I, certainly, am not trying to invalidate your preferences, and as someone who has strong Sim inclinations myself I never felt that Ron was either.

In fact, I might just suggest that you go talk to him. I mean, be polite, obviously, but he's not that hard to contact on a variety of channels, and if you really feel this strongly that he's somehow done the hobby a disservice, perhaps you should convey your perspective directly, with some first-hand examples of play?

.

[Tanarii]

I'm gonna bow out for the moment, but I will just say that I, certainly, am not trying to invalidate your preferences, and as someone who has strong Sim inclinations myself I never felt that Ron was either.

Hold up. You're defending a guy who's views on "story" led him to say that playing certain kinds of RPGs causes developing players mental harm ("brain damage")?

Edit: okay, that came out wrong, too attack-y. Sorry about that. It's not about you. The important part is that kind of indicates that he doesn't think very straight on this subject, and is competely willing to try to invalidate other people's experiences, let alone preferences.

[Florian]

Hold up. You're defending a guy who's views on "story" led him to say that playing certain kinds of RPGs causes developing players mental harm ("brain damage")?

That guy was not wrong by pointing out that "Challenging" and "Fair" are not really on the same page.

[Rhedyn]

I've heard of GNS theory. Where ttRPS are explained in needing Game, narrative, and simulation aspects.

The game's crunch should be fun.
The rpg should support development of a narrative.
The rules should simulate enough aspects to be immersive.

Individual players' low tolerance for each element is different.

I've personally found that people who throw around ”collaborative storytelling” phrase tend to just be an ass to anyone who bothers to learn rules, while at the same time being bad at story telling.
Like guys, if you are playing Pathfinder, 3.5, or any version of D&D, the rules are part of the "collaborative story". You thinking your guy should be able to spin in the air and kill something in one blow, just doesn't matter. The rules prevent it. Think of a different narrative. "Why is this low op character **** at combat? Come on guys let's House rule the whole system rather than just build our characters right so we do cool things. It's way easier for me to bitch than crack open a rule book."
There are plenty of RPGs out there that are well designed for "the rule of cool". Don't try to force 3e to be that vehicle and stop acting like ignorance is some Hallmark of good role-playing.
But these same people hate rules, so the idea of "learning a system" scares them because they think it might turn them into a min maxer if they read a rule book. So they never learn about the system that they actually want to play. /Rant

[RazorChain]

Me and my family were telling a collaborative story the other day; it was about a family that went out skiing and playing in the snow. Great times

Then me and some mates did some collaborative storytelling; the story was us fighting terrorists or being terrorists in a CS Go matches. Great times

Today I did some collaborative storytelling with my colleagues at work; the story was about us organizing and executing a private security contract. Great times.



I do a lot of collaborative storytelling. In fact I could just substitute it for other things like going skiing with my family, playing CS GO, going to work....and Roleplaying maybe?

Is there a reason for why we call it roleplaying games instead of collaborative storytelling? Is Roleplaying games a game about roleplaying a character or a game of collaborative storyteling?

Maybe next time I'll look in the shelves of my local gaming story I'll see D&D 5e Players handbook: Everything a player needs to create a character in the world's greatest collaborative storytelling game

[Max_Killjoy]

Max, with respect, you're gone long past the point where this particular style of argumentation is going to convince anyone who isn't already convinced. I'm gonna bow out for the moment, but I will just say that I, certainly, am not trying to invalidate your preferences, and as someone who has strong Sim inclinations myself I never felt that Ron was either.

In fact, I might just suggest that you go talk to him. I mean, be polite, obviously, but he's not that hard to contact on a variety of channels, and if you really feel this strongly that he's somehow done the hobby a disservice, perhaps you should convey your perspective directly, with some first-hand examples of play?

.

I know you're not doing it, and if it seems that I'm saying you are, I'm sorry -- but others are, and have been going back years.

[kyoryu]

Nope. It´s a basic statement on how to play a roleplaying game. Someone needs to describe the fictional content and someone else must interact with it and the result of the interaction will become part of the fictional content in turn. That's how it works and is the fundamentals of it, else you have no game.

I disagree.

If someone asks me "what's a roleplaying game?" I'll say "well, it's a game where the people playing the game pretend to be characters in an imaginary world, and describe what they do. Normally one player is responsible for figuring out how things turn out, and almost always we use dice to help figure out the results of actions."

I think that's a good description. It accurately describes the vast majority of roleplaying games, and hits on the things that are common.

If I say "oh, it's collaborative storytelling", I don't think I've done anything to help clear anything up at all, and have probably confused them more - I think, regardless of how technically accurate that is, it's going to create something in peoples' minds that's more similar to an improv group than anything. In addition, if people play less story-oriented games, I've created a situation where they're very likely to say "where's the story?"

[Jormengand]

Then you've missed part of the point entirely.

That broader definition of "storytelling" is part of what makes it unhelpful in the first place.

It's similar to the utter nonsense that calls brushing your teeth before going to bed or taking a shower in the morning as "a ritual" -- it might be pedantically, technically accurate, by a very broad meaning of "ritual", but that very broad meaning strips "ritual" of any specificity or utility as a word, and misrepresents what's going on with the actual act of showering or brushing teeth -- particularly if someone is doing it for purely functional reasons.

But "Story" to mean "A sequence of fictional or historical events" isn't meaningless. "Ritual" to mean "A series of actions taken at the same time each day regularly" isn't meaningless. You just don't like them because they're different from the meanings you're using.

Drop the persecution complex - no-one's saying that what you're doing is NDCS. No-one's trying to argue that what you're doing is NDCS. No-one's saying that you're doing something you're not. But what you're doing is BDCS, even if you think that BDCS is a stupid definition for storytelling. No-one's saying that you're recounting a narrative description of events that took place in the past. They're only saying that you're describing actions, and that that is what they would call "Storytelling." No-one is saying your way of having fun is wrong. They are only and solely using different words to describe the same thing.

[Tanarii]

Drop the persecution complex - no-one's saying that what you're doing is NDCS. No-one's trying to argue that what you're doing is NDCS. No-one's saying that you're doing something you're not. But what you're doing is BDCS, even if you think that BDCS is a stupid definition for storytelling. No-one's saying that you're recounting a narrative description of events that took place in the past. They're only saying that you're describing actions, and that that is what they would call "Storytelling." No-one is saying your way of having fun is wrong. They are only and solely using different words to describe the same thing.

Maybe I am by your definition of ‘story’, but that doesn’t change the fact that the phrase is misleading and not useful for describing the way I play RPGs.

[Rhedyn]

Word definitions are pointless to argue. You can reach an understanding about how someone is using a word. You can't convince them that their definition is wrong.

Now if I ever meet someone who uses the term "collaborative storytelling" to mean anything other than "I hate understanding rules and want to feel superior to other people via my own ignorance" then I might care be more sympathetic to the play style they mean with those words.

[Max_Killjoy]

But "Story" to mean "A sequence of fictional or historical events" isn't meaningless. "Ritual" to mean "A series of actions taken at the same time each day regularly" isn't meaningless. You just don't like them because they're different from the meanings you're using.

Drop the persecution complex - no-one's saying that what you're doing is NDCS. No-one's trying to argue that what you're doing is NDCS. No-one's saying that you're doing something you're not. But what you're doing is BDCS, even if you think that BDCS is a stupid definition for storytelling. No-one's saying that you're recounting a narrative description of events that took place in the past. They're only saying that you're describing actions, and that that is what they would call "Storytelling." No-one is saying your way of having fun is wrong. They are only and solely using different words to describe the same thing.

You seem to be insisting that only the person using a term gets a say in what it means, and that they need give no thought to what the term means to those reading or hearing the term, or its broader implications or any confusion it might cause.

That's a bit like claiming someone can call people "racists" (because they've decided that it means "person who drives", on the basis that racing a car involves driving it, so anyone who drives is doing what race-car drivers do, and that racist is to racing as horticulturalist is to horticulture), and that anyone who objects to being called a "racist" is the one in the wrong. After all, the person using the word means something completely harmless by it and for them there's no implication or insinuation of anything else, right?

If one gets to say that words mean whatever one wants when one uses them, and need to give any thought or concern to what the words mean to anyone else, then green ratchet austria totebag goofus garbunkle.


"Ritual" is a perfect parallel for what's going on with "collaborative storytelling".

"Ritual" strongly implies something done for symbolic or emotional reasons, even when it is devoid of objective efficacy. To say that someone is "engaged in a ritual" when they brush their teeth or take a shower is to say that they're doing so for symbolic or emotional reasons, rather than for practical effect, which is not a universally true assertion.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/ritual

Note the common thread of all but one of the listed meanings. Note that the origin of the word is in the same Latin root as a "religious rite".

And what's not indicated there is that the use of the word "ritual" to mean "any practice or pattern of behavior regularly performed in a set manner" comes largely out of a dubious academic assertion that humans do repeated things (like brush their teeth or shower or eat at the same time every day) for symbolic or emotional reasons, or reasons of tradition, rather than for practical reasons. (IDK, maybe that's true of other people, but if it didn't do any good or if I'd wake up with fresh breath and a healthy mouth every day without brushing, I wouldn't waste time on it... and I have zero use for ritual or ceremony of any kind.)

To say that someone's behavior is "ritual" when they're doing it for purely practical reasons is to imply something that is not true or useful about their reasons for doing it.


Similarly, the assertion that RPGs are inherently "collaborative storytelling" came specifically and deliberately out of an attempt to elevate one approach to gaming and denigrate other approaches. It causes confusion both externally with non-RPG activities and internally between wildly different reasons for and methods of playing RPGs and related similar games. You cannot escape those implications of the term when you use it -- the term will never leave that baggage behind, ever.


You're using a term for all RPG gaming that only says something true and useful about some RPG gaming. I do not care and will never care if the term can be considered technically applicable via pedantic analysis of all possible meanings of the individual words that make it up. Every time someone says "all RPGs are collective storytelling", I will object and I will explain why they are wrong.

[Max_Killjoy]

Word definitions are pointless to argue. You can reach an understanding about how someone is using a word. You can't convince them that their definition is wrong.

However, it is entirely fair to expect people to be aware of the implications and baggage of a word or term they're using, instead of insisting that only their chosen or personal usage matters.

Now if I ever meet someone who uses the term "collaborative storytelling" to mean anything other than "I hate understanding rules and want to feel superior to other people via my own ignorance" then I might care be more sympathetic to the play style they mean with those words.

There are plenty of gamers who aren't against learning the rules of whatever system they're using, but whose approach to gaming can truthfully, accurately, and fairly be described as "collaborative storytelling" with all the implications thereof. It's a perfectly valid approach -- it's just not a superior or universal approach.

What you're running into is people who are using "collaborative storytelling" incorrectly along another axis, rather than the one at the core of this thread, for a whole host of possible reasons. One possible issue is that the rules being used don't work well with their approach or expectations... it can take a lot of work to make D&D-like rules fit with a heavily story-focused / "narrative" approach. There's also the "stormwind fallacy" -- which can by extension be viewed as the false assertion that rules knowledge and roleplaying are mutually opposed.

[kitanas]

@ Max_Killjoy: There is a Begging The Question underlying your entire position. Is your definition the common one? If you are the one who is using a technical, pedantic definition, then a lot of your arguments about "collaborative storytelling" being misleading ect, collapse. I won't dispute that you have baggage concerning the term, but I have only heard of the forge through you. That's the only way I know it has baggage at all.