Why collaborative storytelling is a meaningless phrase

[Florian]

Let's try a different angle. I think a lot comes down to what expectations people have that playing and RPG should deliver, how that leads to different sources of "fun" and how that will give different meanings to the term "story".

When playing Pathfinder, I prefer to play in a pre-defined campaign that will ultimately lead to a complete story being told - "This is the story of how we defeated the Storm King and stopped the giant invasion". For this, I only need enough agency and the tools to participate with my character in a game that will generate this outcome (That's also why I don't have a big problem with the d20 rules being "broken", because I don't use any that deal with anything outside the task at hand).

When playing L5R, I am the one in control of what drama elements I want to have my character participate in, massively influencing what shape the "emergent story" will have and forcing the gm to react to my wishes. Here I can actively collaborate with my fellow players to set the tone and feel that the game will have - "My Scorpion Bushi will betray his clan and together with a Lion Bushi seek protection of the emerald magistracy". For this, I need two kinds of agency, the one I have during actual play, the other in the form of the tools I need to influence the "story" to be told.

In contrast, doing an old-school hex crawl sandbox will have "story" as a byproduct, mostly in the form of "history", so the linear string of events that happened. The goal is the interplay of setting own goal and discovery of the world, needing a high level of agency during the actual game, but next to nothing concerning tools besides being able to formulate goals.

[Tanarii]

Okay, okay, so this is just a massive argument about whether a word with two definitions only means one of them or only means the other of them, right?

And either way, it doesn't impact the fact that "Collaborative storytelling" is quite clearly a phrase which means "Storytelling which is collaborative" and therefore has a meaning?"

Right, glad we sorted that out. Linguistic descriptivism saves the day again!It only has meaning in so far as they're using storytelling to mean something, as opposed to "events". Lots of things cause events in RPGs. Storytelling can be one of them. So it's no accurate no helpful nor meaningful to define it as such.


Feh. The problem with most psychological theories is that they're more belief systems than science, and they presume a universality of their beliefs that's completely unjustified in the face of human variation.I got a good laugh out of this, because before I got in this thread again this morning, I was just thinking about the current Cult of Science, wherein the lay members take the pronouncements handed down from on high without really understanding. And said pronouncements often being either simplifications / lies to children, or straight out self perpetuating belief in BS. As typified by NdGT. Or for BS, parallel universes.


From the perspective of an observer "Playing an RPG" will result in the creation of an "Emergent Narrative" therefore "Collaborative Story-Telling," which; while only one facet of "Playing an RPG" is in fact inherent to the act of "Playing an RPG." Therefore it is entirely valid for someone to assert that "RPGs are about Collaborative Story-Telling" insofar as they place significant value on that facet of the activity.
See the entire rest of the thread. But in summary:
- placing value on how you lay an RPG doesn't make it universally true. That's a universal statement.
- not all playing an RPG is storytelling. That is a phrase often used in an extended version of its definition of "an account of events", instead broadened to "events happen in the game". This makes it meaningless, since lots of things make events happen in the game.
- not all RPG playing is emergent storytelling. Like the phrase "storytelling", this is a term often used outside its original definition, to mean "events happened in the game" (past tense). Likewise making it meaningless.

[Aliquid]

It only has meaning in so far as they're using storytelling to mean something, as opposed to "events". Lots of things cause events in RPGs. Storytelling can be one of them. So it's no accurate no helpful nor meaningful to define it as such.Why does it have to mean something opposed to a series of events? You ever hear of a synonym?

Besides, we can narrow it down a bit if you want. Lets look at a dictionary.

Merriam-Webster "an account of incidents or events"
Oxford "An account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment."
Cambridge "a description, either true or imagined, of a connected series of events"

And to further help, lets look at the definition of an "account"
- "A report or description of an event or experience"


So, the dictionary seems to imply that a story must be "told" to actually be a story. If we want to stick with the literal denotation of the word, then the answer is "No" to the question "if a series of events is never recorded or recounted, is it a story?"

That makes a difference with some of the philosophical musings on this thread, but it makes no difference in deciding if specifically playing an RPG is storytelling.

When you play an RPG you are 100% working with others to jointly create "a description, either true or imagined, of a connected series of events". When you play an RPG, the players and GM are jointly describing a connected series of events to each other. How can you possibly play an RPG and not do that?

[Blackjackg]

Anyone else notice how a discussion about the meanings of the term "collaborative storytelling" has devolved to arguments about whether postmodernism, psychology and "the cult of science" are BS?

It almost seems as though some folks are so hell-bent on arriving at their own predetermined conclusions and invalidating any other perspective that they feel the need to dismantle the whole of human knowledge to get there.

[Max_Killjoy]

Ok, as much as I think your arguments are completely misinterpreting what people are trying to say... I can totally agree with you here.

I enjoy worldbuilding more than actually playing a RPG. I like character development and NPC development better. I like building cities and cultures. I love drawing maps.

This is why I have been playing RPGs for the last 30 some odd years. This is why I have built more games than I have actually played... actually I also like deconstructing rules mechanics more than playing too... I have read all sorts of game systems that I haven't played. Just to see how they handle the mechanics of gameplaying.

So, the "story" isn't the draw for me with RPGs. But I do acknowledge that when I am actually playing a RPG, I am communicating with people about a series of events, and as such we are telling a story. That might not be why we are playing, and it might not be our purpose, but it is the product of our actions.

The adventuring PCs save the village from the invading goblins. - STORY

The stealthy PC climbs the fence, skirts past security and sneaks into the building through the basement window - STORY

etc

When we were playing the game, we weren't thinking "I should do X. That would make a good story". We were thinking "What would my character realistically do when in this scenario". Even so, a story was created as a by-product of playing the game. AND since we were talking around the table to each other, actively telling each other what our characters were doing. I can say that not only was a story created, but storytelling was taking place.



I think I've pulled back in the sense that I feel like I understand better that this is really just a complaint that people are abusing language which makes what they are saying technically wrong.

I still feel like you and Tanarii are just way overboard and unnecessarily offended by this. The people you're upset with are only technically wrong, but you're fine with the essential point they're trying to make.

On the point about making In-Character decisions: when making such decisions, you take into account Character motivations, which are based in no small part on their Back-Story and HiStory. You could play a character who has no functional backstory and neglect to take any of the character's past into account, but it will diminish the breadth and the scope of what this kind of playing can call, "Roleplay."



Let's try a different angle. I think a lot comes down to what expectations people have that playing and RPG should deliver, how that leads to different sources of "fun" and how that will give different meanings to the term "story".

When playing Pathfinder, I prefer to play in a pre-defined campaign that will ultimately lead to a complete story being told - "This is the story of how we defeated the Storm King and stopped the giant invasion". For this, I only need enough agency and the tools to participate with my character in a game that will generate this outcome (That's also why I don't have a big problem with the d20 rules being "broken", because I don't use any that deal with anything outside the task at hand).

When playing L5R, I am the one in control of what drama elements I want to have my character participate in, massively influencing what shape the "emergent story" will have and forcing the gm to react to my wishes. Here I can actively collaborate with my fellow players to set the tone and feel that the game will have - "My Scorpion Bushi will betray his clan and together with a Lion Bushi seek protection of the emerald magistracy". For this, I need two kinds of agency, the one I have during actual play, the other in the form of the tools I need to influence the "story" to be told.

In contrast, doing an old-school hex crawl sandbox will have "story" as a byproduct, mostly in the form of "history", so the linear string of events that happened. The goal is the interplay of setting own goal and discovery of the world, needing a high level of agency during the actual game, but next to nothing concerning tools besides being able to formulate goals.


Specifically in the context of RPGs, does defining "story" as "any sequence of events" or "any account of a sequence of events" really provide any utility whatsoever? Does seeking to claim all throught and communication as "storytelling" really do anything for us? What does it actually accomplish?

Does it help us analyze or discuss why people play RPGs, how people play RPGs, or what people focus on in the course of playing an RPG?

Does it help us understand what will make RPGs better or worse for players with different preferences?

No. It doesn't.

Instead, it serves to conflate very different gaming preferences into a lump, as part of a false dichotomy between "rules" and "story". It creates confusion. It helps foster the false narrative (heh) that character-focus and setting-focus are the "property" of story-structure-focus, without leaving straightfoward terms to differentiate between character-focus and story-focus (narrow sense of story as structural and intentional). It makes it hard to communicate by eliminating differentiation.

It's a "victory" for pedantry at best, and a victory for the Edwardian holdouts seeking to claim "all good roleplaying" as their own exclusive domain at worst.

If we're robbed of the narrow meaning of "story" (as structural, and intentional), and everything is lumped together, and it's all "story"... then how do we distinguish between:

1) the needs of those gamers who love the elements of character, and setting, and thrive on verisimilutude and immersion, but whose experiences are impacted very negatively by structural story elements and various rules or approaches that fosters them

2) the needs of those gamers who thrive on structural story elements and/or genre story elements to such an extent that they'll happily sacrifice close connection to a particular PC, immersion, verisimilitude, and/or other elements, to embrace what are sometimes called "narrative mechanics", encoding genre expecations in the rules, etc.

The history of gaming discussion is rife with instances of those two very different focuses being conflated in the debates over what RPGs "should be". See for example how often anyone who doesn't embrace "narrative rules" games, or rules-light games, or whatever someone's personal preference is, is told to "go back to D&D, then"... it's as if every "new" idea in gaming sets itself up as opposed to D&D, and you're either with them or against them. Or see how often someone who is very heavily in the (1) category above will be assumed to be in the (2) category simply because another person believes that there's no difference between character-driven and story-driven gaming.

When a gamer says they're "with" character-driven gaming, it doesn't necessarily mean that they're also "with" story-driven gaming. When they say that they're "not with" story-driven gaming, it doesn't necessarily mean that they're "with" heavily Gamist gaming.

And no, this isn't about identity, or labels, as such. It's about avoiding presumptions and clearly communicating ideas without writing page-long treatises to avoid all the baggage every time these things come up.


So really, honestly, I'm going to continue rejecting the "any account of events" usage of "story", especially in the context of gaming, because it makes things worse, not better, and it leads to untrue conclusions, and bad assumptions, and unclear communication.

[Max_Killjoy]

Anyone else notice how a discussion about the meanings of the term "collaborative storytelling" has devolved to arguments about whether postmodernism, psychology and "the cult of science" are BS?


I kinda cringed at the phrase "cult of science", but I think it refers to the people who blindly go about acting as if they believe "If Neil deGrasse Tyson said it, it must be true, he's so smart!", and thus ironically miss the point of empirical inquiry and the scientific approach in the first place.

Ever notice how long unfalsifiable or even falsified "schools" of psychology stick around and maintain groups of slavish adherents? Freud and Jung were doing nothing more than projecting their own internal issues onto the entirety of the human species, and yet there are still Freudian and Jungian psychologists offering "therapy" for good money and taken quite seriously. Skinner's approach is like insisting that only the ripples are real, and not the fish, simply because the surface of the pond is hard to see through (I went to a college with a deeply deeply behaviorist Psych department, and the contortions they'd go through to avoid any exploration of an internal mind underlying the observable behaviors were comical at times).

As for postmodernism, when the basic scientific method is being called a "Eurocentric patriarchal tool of oppression and exploitation, that ruthlessly and systematically quashes other equally valid ways of understanding that threaten its dominance", that should maybe tell us something about the philosophy behind that sort of nonsense proclamation.




It almost seems as though some folks are so hell-bent on arriving at their own predetermined conclusions and invalidating any other perspective that they feel the need to dismantle the whole of human knowledge to get there.


Yes... the observable evidence makes that appear to have been the approach taken by those who started with the belief that all gaming is "storytelling", and then worked backwards until they found a definition of "story" that made their belief pedantically "true".

[Aliquid]

Specifically in the context of RPGs, does defining "story" as "any sequence of events" or "any account of a sequence of events" really provide any utility whatsoever? Does seeking to claim all throught and communication as "storytelling" really do anything for us? What does it actually accomplish?It accomplishes communicating effectively by using a word as it is intended to be used... rather than giving it a new narrower definition to bolster an unnecessary argument.


Does it help us analyze or discuss why people play RPGs, how people play RPGs, or what people focus on in the course of playing an RPG? That is not the purpose of the word. The word "story" is under no obligation to help with that analysis.


Does it help us understand what will make RPGs better or worse for players with different preferences? If that is your end goal... if the whole purpose of this debate is to break gaming into different preferential styles... then use existing words with their existing meanings to describe these gaming styles, rather than confuse us all by distorting a word to mean something other than its intended use.

Your concern seems to be with the focus of the gameplay, or maybe the priority, or something like that.

Games that focus on making "storytelling" the priority are not your cup of tea.

[Segev]

To me, the conflation of "story-driven" and "character-driven" seems to arise from still having no solid definition of "story" as its own, independent thing. I would argue that the best stories tend to be describable as "character-driven stories." That is, between the environment and the characters, the story arises naturally as characters are themselves, pursuing their own goals individually, jointly, and in opposition or alliance with the other characters. Man v Man, Man v Nature, Man v Self, and Man v Monster all, essentially, have Man - i.e., a character - as an essential element.

The best I can do in constructing "story-driven" as a concept independent of "character-driven" is the notion of a sequence of events happening with actors performing actions to make it so, but which any "character" can be inserted into because the only characterization needed is "they could and would do this thing the plot needs done when it needs it done." I think that's a subset of "just-so" stories?

I suspect that my definition is wrong, though, because it inevitably seems to be the kind of storytelling that, when it occurs, most annoys fans. "Why did anybody do what I just saw them doing?" they may ask. Heck, Gundam seems to suffer greatly from this phenomenon. (Moon Princess and the Earth aristocracy in Turn A were...WEIRD...in how they interacted in order to make sure Moon Princess was where she needed to be for certain plot elements.)

[Tinkerer]

It accomplishes communicating effectively by using a word as it is intended to be used... rather than giving it a new narrower definition to bolster an unnecessary argument.

That is not the purpose of the word. The word "story" is under no obligation to help with that analysis.

If that is your end goal... if the whole purpose of this debate is to break gaming into different preferential styles... then use existing words with their existing meanings to describe these gaming styles, rather than confuse us all by distorting a word to mean something other than its intended use.


Quite. The part of this conversation which is confusing me is that I view things as going collaborative storytelling -> RPGs -> D&D where each component is a subsection of the previous one. Tanarii and Senior Killjoy seem to be going RPGs -> D&D -> collaborative storytelling utilizing a different definition of story which I am unfamiliar with.

You can't say that collaborative storytelling is a useless way to describe RPGs or D&D because it is too broad any more than you could say that red is a useless way to describe a cherry because there are too many things which are red.

[Max_Killjoy]

It accomplishes communicating effectively by using a word as it is intended to be used... rather than giving it a new narrower definition to bolster an unnecessary argument.


The uselessly broad definition ("any account of events") would appear to be the one that's bolstering an unnecessary argument.




That is not the purpose of the word. The word "story" is under no obligation to help with that analysis.


Then the supposed purity of the word is more important than clear communication and constructive dialogue?




If that is your end goal... if the whole purpose of this debate is to break gaming into different preferential styles... then use existing words with their existing meanings to describe these gaming styles, rather than confuse us all by distorting a word to mean something other than its intended use.


Not to break gaming into different preferential styles -- to avoid conflating already-different thought processes, approaches, etc, and to have useful terms (that don't require a page-long explanation every time they're used) for discussing different approaches and processes.




Your concern seems to be with the focus of the gameplay, or maybe the priority, or something like that.

Games that focus on making "storytelling" the priority are not your cup of tea.


If the position that all roleplaying is "storytelling" is true, then I only have a choice between what amounts a "leveled up" board game, or a "storytelling" game, and I can't have anything to do with character, setting, consistency, etc, without focusing on "storytelling". If it's true, then there's no other approach to gaming, just varying intersections of "rules" and "story".

"All gaming is storytelling" literally and directly dismisses as non-existent all approaches to gaming other than "gamist" and "story".

[Max_Killjoy]

Quite. The part of this conversation which is confusing me is that I view things as going collaborative storytelling -> RPGs -> D&D where each component is a subsection of the previous one. Tanarii and Senior Killjoy seem to be going RPGs -> D&D -> collaborative storytelling utilizing a different definition of story which I am unfamiliar with.

You can't say that collaborative storytelling is a useless way to describe RPGs or D&D because it is too broad any more than you could say that red is a useless way to describe a cherry because there are too many things which are red.

For me, this has nothing to do with D&D. I washed my hands of D&D/d20 over two decades ago.

[Tinkerer]

If the position that all roleplaying is "storytelling" is true, then I only have a choice between what amounts a "leveled up" board game, or a "storytelling" game, and I can't have anything to do with character, setting, consistency, etc, without focusing on "storytelling". If it's true, then there's no other approach to gaming, just varying intersections of "rules" and "story".

"All gaming is storytelling" literally and directly dismisses as non-existent all approaches to gaming other than "gamist" and "story".

Real quick question here. How did you create your character's personality? You spoke previously on how you put yourself into your character's mindset so how did you create that?

EDIT
For me, this has nothing to do with D&D. I washed my hands of D&D/d20 over two decades ago.

I was simply using that as an example. Feel free to replace with your system of choice.

[Max_Killjoy]

To me, the conflation of "story-driven" and "character-driven" seems to arise from still having no solid definition of "story" as its own, independent thing. I would argue that the best stories tend to be describable as "character-driven stories." That is, between the environment and the characters, the story arises naturally as characters are themselves, pursuing their own goals individually, jointly, and in opposition or alliance with the other characters. Man v Man, Man v Nature, Man v Self, and Man v Monster all, essentially, have Man - i.e., a character - as an essential element.

The best I can do in constructing "story-driven" as a concept independent of "character-driven" is the notion of a sequence of events happening with actors performing actions to make it so, but which any "character" can be inserted into because the only characterization needed is "they could and would do this thing the plot needs done when it needs it done." I think that's a subset of "just-so" stories?

I suspect that my definition is wrong, though, because it inevitably seems to be the kind of storytelling that, when it occurs, most annoys fans. "Why did anybody do what I just saw them doing?" they may ask. Heck, Gundam seems to suffer greatly from this phenomenon. (Moon Princess and the Earth aristocracy in Turn A were...WEIRD...in how they interacted in order to make sure Moon Princess was where she needed to be for certain plot elements.)


I tried to lay it out like this:

1) the needs of those gamers who love the elements of character, and setting, and thrive on verisimilitude and immersion, but whose experiences are impacted very negatively by structural story elements and various rules or approaches that foster those structural elements.

2) the needs of those gamers who thrive on structural story elements and/or genre story elements to such an extent that they'll happily sacrifice close connection to a particular PC, immersion, verisimilitude, and/or other elements, to instead embrace what are sometimes called "narrative mechanics", encoding genre expectations in the rules, etc.

It's the difference between looking at the character as a person-who-could-exist interacting with other people-who-could-exist in a world-that-could-exist... or looking at the character as fulfilling an archetype or narrative role and selecting the character one plays based on the sort of story one wants to tell.

There was an assertion earlier in this thread that the character one decides to play DOES reveal what sort of story one wants to tell -- not CAN, not MIGHT, but rather DOES.

It's that attitude that I'm fighting back against, the attitude that gaming IS storytelling, rather than CAN BE storytelling; the attitude that denies and dismisses even the possibility that some players DO NOT CARE what sort of story might emerge, don't make choices based on telling any sort of story, and whose choice of character has nothing to do with story.

And if we can't use "story" because it supposedly means something too broad to make the critical distinction here, and we can't use "narrative" both because of its baggage from The Forge and because of other uses in gaming... then exactly what word do we use to distinguish the intentional and structural and archetypal and genre elements of storytelling that some gamers have NO use for, from the character and setting elements that they thrive on?

[Max_Killjoy]

Real quick question here. How did you create your character's personality? You spoke previously on how you put yourself into your character's mindset so how did you create that?



* Interest in what sort of character (as person-who-could-exist) I want to explore and get inside the mind of.
* Sufficient compatibility with my own mental quirks that they're not impossible to play enjoyably.
* Appropriateness to the setting (could this person come from this place) and campaign (would this person get involved in these situations).
* Compatibility with group-based gameplay (don't make characters that are repeatedly a struggle to get involved).
* Minimum required competence (don't make characters who can't at least carry their own bags, metaphorically speaking).


I'm not looking at their narrative role, their archetype, what sort of story they "work" for, or anything of the sort.

[Segev]

Max_Killjoy, I'm still not understanding how you're defining "story" here. Your definitions focus on "the needs" of various kinds of players, rather than on what "story" is by your narrower, theoretically more useful definition. I'm really not arguing with you, as I don't disagree necessarily with what you've said, but I'm having a hard time discussing it intelligently while avoiding stepping into pedantic definitional arguments because I still don't get what you're defining "story" as.

Can you at the least give examples of what would constitute "story-driven" tales that are not "character-driven," possibly by citing extant famous works? Preferably generally well-regarded ones, so we avoid any scoffing that "story-driven" is inherently negative as a trait. Unless you mean it to be inherently negative, in which case I fear I misunderstand more of what you've been saying than I thought.

[Aliquid]

The uselessly broad definition ("any account of events") would appear to be the one that's bolstering an unnecessary argument.Well... it is useful for all of us, and it is useful for Oxford, and Cambridge... so the fact that you personally find it useless is your problem rather than ours.


Then the supposed purity of the word is more important than clear communication and constructive dialogue?Pshaw. It has nothing to do with purity. For me (and I'm assuming others), when I hear "story", something along the lines of "an account of a sequence of events" is what naturally comes to mind. As such, when I communicate with someone, that is what I mean when I say story.

When this debate came up, you (and others) seemed to have a different understanding of the meaning of "story". So I thought "maybe my understanding of the word is wrong", and I looked it up. When I saw that my understanding of the word matched that of many others on this board, and matched the dictionary... I didn't see any reason to change how I use the word.

It has nothing to do with "purity". I personally don't care if you use a different definition, as long as you make it clear what your definition is, so we can understand one another. But when you tell me that my definition is wrong, with nothing to back that up rather than your need to segregate a gaming style... then there is a problem.



Not to break gaming into different preferential styles -- to avoid conflating already-different thought processes, approaches, etc, and to have useful terms (that don't require a page-long explanation every time they're used) for discussing different approaches and processes. But your use of the word DOES need a page long definition. It has taken dozens of posts on this thread before we had any idea what you were even talking about in the first place. And if you look at the post above from Segev, we still don't really know what you mean. So if you think your use of the word adds clarity, then you are very mistaken.


If the position that all roleplaying is "storytelling" is true, then I only have a choice between what amounts a "leveled up" board game, or a "storytelling" game, and I can't have anything to do with character, setting, consistency, etc, without focusing on "storytelling". If it's true, then there's no other approach to gaming, just varying intersections of "rules" and "story".

"All gaming is storytelling" literally and directly dismisses as non-existent all approaches to gaming other than "gamist" and "story".That is an utterly ridiculous argument. Once again you are drawing absurd conclusions. Nobody has said that the focus has to be storytelling, and nobody said you can't focus on character, setting, consistency etc.

You can quite easily focus on other things and have "storytelling" be an inconsequential by-product of roleplaying.

If I were to say that "everyone communicates while playing an RPG with others", would you go into a rant and say:

"If the position that all roleplaying is 'communicating' is true, then I only have a choice between what amounts a 'solitaire' game, or a 'communicating' game, and I can't have anything to do with character, setting, consistency, etc, without focusing on 'communicating' "

[Tinkerer]

* Interest in what sort of character (as person-who-could-exist) I want to explore and get inside the mind of.
* Sufficient compatibility with my own mental quirks that they're not impossible to play enjoyably.
* Appropriateness to the setting (could this person come from this place) and campaign (would this person get involved in these situations).
* Compatibility with group-based gameplay (don't make characters that are repeatedly a struggle to get involved).
* Minimum required competence (don't make characters who can't at least carry their own bags, metaphorically speaking).


I'm not looking at their narrative role, their archetype, what sort of story they "work" for, or anything of the sort.

And what do you do with those attributes when you have them? Do you write a back... wait, apparently that is a dirty word. Do you write a character history?

[Max_Killjoy]

Max_Killjoy, I'm still not understanding how you're defining "story" here. Your definitions focus on "the needs" of various kinds of players, rather than on what "story" is by your narrower, theoretically more useful definition. I'm really not arguing with you, as I don't disagree necessarily with what you've said, but I'm having a hard time discussing it intelligently while avoiding stepping into pedantic definitional arguments because I still don't get what you're defining "story" as.


For the purposes of RPGs: structural elements such as arcs and curves and "try-fail cycles", conceptual elements such as themes and meaning, archetypes and narrative roles, genre expectations, etc. The sort of things that come with intentional storytelling as opposed to unintended but potential emergent story; things that separate an actual story from just a sequence of events.




Can you at the least give examples of what would constitute "story-driven" tales that are not "character-driven," possibly by citing extant famous works? Preferably generally well-regarded ones, so we avoid any scoffing that "story-driven" is inherently negative as a trait. Unless you mean it to be inherently negative, in which case I fear I misunderstand more of what you've been saying than I thought.


I don't think taking examples from authorial fiction would be very illustrative. This is one of those spots where an RPG, even if approached as "fiction", is not the same as authorial fiction, which actually is all storytelling. The distinctions between different sorts of authorial fiction -- tales -- are not the same as the distinctions between different approaches to RPG gaming.

[Max_Killjoy]

And what do you do with those attributes when you have them? Do you write a back... wait, apparently that is a dirty word. Do you write a character history?


There's nothing wrong with the word "backstory", it has plenty of utility. If someone really wants to call the character's life up to that point their "story", it's not worth arguing over or a horrible usage of the word.

It's the assertion that the character's decisions, actions, and interactions in an RPG context going forward are inherently "a story" that I reject in total.

[Max_Killjoy]

Well... it is useful for all of us, and it is useful for Oxford, and Cambridge... so the fact that you personally find it useless is your problem rather than ours.

Pshaw. It has nothing to do with purity. For me (and I'm assuming others), when I hear "story", something along the lines of "an account of a sequence of events" is what naturally comes to mind. As such, when I communicate with someone, that is what I mean when I say story.


Dictionaries have the potential pitfall of trying so hard to accommodate all usages that they broaden a word to slop. This is one such case.

If I tell my auto mechanic how my car was damaged, in straightforward factual terms -- "some idiot ran a red light and cut me off, I swerved to avoid him, then I hit the curb really hard" -- with no emotional content or intent other than to convey information, I'd never consider that a story, it's just a recounted set of facts with a chronological sequence. Even the idiot part isn't really a story or a fictional element... the guy ran a red light, he's an idiot, simple fact.




When this debate came up, you (and others) seemed to have a different understanding of the meaning of "story". So I thought "maybe my understanding of the word is wrong", and I looked it up. When I saw that my understanding of the word matched that of many others on this board, and matched the dictionary... I didn't see any reason to change how I use the word.

It has nothing to do with "purity". I personally don't care if you use a different definition, as long as you make it clear what your definition is, so we can understand one another. But when you tell me that my definition is wrong, with nothing to back that up rather than your need to segregate a gaming style... then there is a problem.

But your use of the word DOES need a page long definition. It has taken dozens of posts on this thread before we had any idea what you were even talking about in the first place. And if you look at the post above from Segev, we still don't really know what you mean. So if you think your use of the word adds clarity, then you are very mistaken.


Before this debate came up, I'd never had people seriously insist that all RPG gaming is literally storytelling, or that all communication is storytelling, or that all thinking is storytelling, or that in some sense all of existence is "a story".

The only people I've ever previously seen so determined to establish such a broad and all-encompassing meaning of "story" and "storytelling" and insist so steadfastly that all RPG gaming is "story" were people with a self-serving and fervent agenda to establish a line between their own specific style of gaming (what they called "narrative") and everything else, which was according to them badwrongfun, and might even cause brain damage...




That is an utterly ridiculous argument. Once again you are drawing absurd conclusions. Nobody has said that the focus has to be storytelling, and nobody said you can't focus on character, setting, consistency etc.

You can quite easily focus on other things and have "storytelling" be an inconsequential by-product of roleplaying.


So no one here has said that all RPG gaming is unavoidably and inevitably "storytelling"?

No one has insisted that avoiding "story" is impossible unless you're, what was it, only rolling dice and killing stuff in a purely mechanical set of setpieces?




If I were to say that "everyone communicates while playing an RPG with others", would you go into a rant and say:
"If the position that all roleplaying is 'communicating' is true, then I only have a choice between what amounts a 'solitaire' game, or a 'communicating' game, and I can't have anything to do with character, setting, consistency, etc, without focusing on 'communicating' "


No.

But thank you for once again demonstrating your willingness to resort to insulting little fallacies such as this false equivalency you've just attempted. It's hard to play a group game without any sort of communication, and the only way that communication is "storytelling" is if you fall back on the blithering nonsense of all communication being storytelling.


~~~~

Honestly, this thread makes me miss gaming less than I used to, if this is the sort of garbage I'd run into if I tried to find another group.

[kitanas]

There's nothing wrong with the word "backstory", it has plenty of utility. If someone really wants to call the character's life up to that point their "story", it's not worth arguing over or a horrible usage of the word.

It's the assertion that the character's decisions, actions, and interactions IN RPG going forward are inherently "a story" that I reject in total.

But why does the story stop? I I look at a character whom I played to level five, does his "backstory" not include what happened between when I started and now?

[Aliquid]

So no one here has said that all RPG gaming is unavoidably and inevitably "storytelling"?

No one has insisted that avoiding "story" is impossible unless you're, what was it, only rolling dice and killing stuff in a purely mechanical set of setpieces?Yes people have said that, no you can't draw your bizarre conclusions from those statements.



But thank you for once again demonstrating your willingness to resort to insulting little fallacies such as this false equivalency you've just attempted.Not a false equivalency at all. An extremely apt and accurate equivalency. Look at it for a while, and maybe it will sink in.


It's hard to play a group game without any sort of communication, and the only way that communication is "storytelling" is if you fall back on the blithering nonsense of all communication being storytelling.Nobody said all communication is storytelling. Another bizarre conclusion drawn from what was actually said.

[Segev]

For the purposes of RPGs: structural elements such as arcs and curves and "try-fail cycles", conceptual elements such as themes and meaning, archetypes and narrative roles, genre expectations, etc. The sort of things that come with intentional storytelling as opposed to unintended but potential emergent story; things that separate an actual story from just a sequence of events.

I question the utility of defining "story" in that fashion. It sounds like it's perilously close to defining "story" as "railroading," given the similarities in application. The only examples I can think of are, essentially, modules. The story is already there, just waiting for characters to pretend their actions in it are meaningful rather than pre-scripted, and that their actual characterizations are meaningful rather than window dressing to be discarded if it would disrupt "the story."

Since we're having page upon page of argument over whether this definition or one that's too broad should be used, what utility do you find this definition to have? What are you trying to get across or discuss that uses this definition and finds it more useful than the broader one you decry?

[Max_Killjoy]

Yes people have said that, no you can't draw your bizarre conclusions from those statements.


There's no "conclusion involved", they're saying it, right here on the page in this thread. They've said that one cannot play an RPG without storytelling... YOU'VE said that one cannot play an RPG without storytelling. Do I really need to go find posts where you've said exactly that?



If you are alive and breathing you are creating a story. You aren’t telling a story. Storytelling requires the telling part. A story can exist without the telling. And you can tell something that isn’t a story. “Storytelling” requires both parts.

With an rpg you are “telling” by communicating with your fellow players. And the thing you are “telling” is what characters are doing in a series of events. i.e. a story.



When we were playing the game, we weren't thinking "I should do X. That would make a good story". We were thinking "What would my character realistically do when in this scenario". Even so, a story was created as a by-product of playing the game. AND since we were talking around the table to each other, actively telling each other what our characters were doing. I can say that not only was a story created, but storytelling was taking place.



If you are alive, your life creates a story, no matter what you do or don’t do. The only way to avoid this is to not exist in the first place.

Heck. Your posts on this thread are telling me a story about who you are.



It is about people’s definition of the word. By their definition everyone’s life is a story. You might as well say “how dare you suggest that I exist”



So if I read a biography, I’m not reading a story?

Living your life isn’t “telling a story”. But it is a story waiting to be told.

The difference with the RPG and your life experiences is that with an RPG we are actively “telling” the entire time we play.

So, no those things don’t make a story in and of themselves. They become a story when you narrate them.



In your own words, right there, in this thread, not only are you claiming that we can't engage in playing an RPG without "doing story", you're claiming that we can't LIVE without "doing story".




Nobody said all communication is storytelling. Another bizarre conclusion drawn from what was actually said.


Oh. I must have imagined this:



And that would appear to be a claim that all communication is "giving an account" and therefore supposedly we can't even have a conversation without telling a story.



Yeah, pretty much. All communication that includes giving accounts of events. And that's not even counting all the stories we tell ourselves in our own minds every time we reflect on series of events that we've experienced.



I wonder if people are ever going to get tired of claiming "no one said that" and then having quotes of someone saying exactly what "no one said" posted.




Not a false equivalency at all. An extremely apt and accurate equivalency. Look at it for a while, and maybe it will sink in.


Wow... you're not just grasping for insulting nonsense, you actually believe it. That's very unfortunate for you.

[Cynthaer]

For the purposes of RPGs: structural elements such as arcs and curves and "try-fail cycles", conceptual elements such as themes and meaning, archetypes and narrative roles, genre expectations, etc. The sort of things that come with intentional storytelling as opposed to unintended but potential emergent story; things that separate an actual story from just a sequence of events.

I question the utility of defining "story" in that fashion. It sounds like it's perilously close to defining "story" as "railroading," given the similarities in application. The only examples I can think of are, essentially, modules. The story is already there, just waiting for characters to pretend their actions in it are meaningful rather than pre-scripted, and that their actual characterizations are meaningful rather than window dressing to be discarded if it would disrupt "the story."

As far as I can tell, Max's definition of "telling a story" is what most people would call "consciously trying to write good fiction using an undergrad textbook on literary analysis as a how-to guide".

I apologize if that sounds dismissive, but I see this definition of "storytelling" (in the context of RPGs) to be bizarrely specific and strangely applied.

Nearly every TTRPG has implicit character arcs due to increased power over time, and I can't imagine a group playing a TTRPG without having themes, archetypes, or genre expectations.

On the other hand, it's quite common for players to have characters without consciously planned character arcs, or curves, or narrative "try-fail cycles",* and I don't even know what "narrative roles" would mean in a TTRPG context.

Mostly this just seems very divorced from the practical reality of how people actually sit down and play these games.

[Aliquid]

There's no "conclusion involved", they're saying it, right here on the page in this thread. They've said that one cannot play an RPG without storytelling... YOU'VE said that one cannot play an RPG without storytelling. Do I really need to go find posts where you've said exactly that? Again, I'm not denying saying it. I'm just pointing out that your conclusions drawn from the fact that all roleplaying involves storytelling are bizarre.



Oh. I must have imagined this:You didn't imagine anything, those things were said. But those things don't mean "all communication is storytelling". You are accurately remembering what people said. You are inaccurately interpreting what the things that were said meant.



I wonder if people are ever going to get tired of claiming "no one said that" and then having quotes of someone saying exactly what "no one said" posted.I am getting a bit tired of you attempting to prove yourself by providing quotes that don't actually say what you claim they say.

or more specifically, I should say "...by providing quotes that don't actually mean what you claim they mean"


Wow... you're not just grasping for insulting nonsense, you actually believe it. That's very unfortunately for you.Not an insult at all, and not grasping at anything. Just an apt analogy of what's going on. Nothing unfortunate about being able to see that.

[kyoryu]

Mostly this just seems very divorced from the practical reality of how people actually sit down and play these games.

Except that some people very explicitly do this, and some games are fairly explicitly designed to do this. (Note that these games don't normally rhyme with "mungeons and blagons")

Perhaps you just haven't been exposed to those people, or that style of gaming?

[Max_Killjoy]

I question the utility of defining "story" in that fashion. It sounds like it's perilously close to defining "story" as "railroading," given the similarities in application. The only examples I can think of are, essentially, modules. The story is already there, just waiting for characters to pretend their actions in it are meaningful rather than pre-scripted, and that their actual characterizations are meaningful rather than window dressing to be discarded if it would disrupt "the story."


First, it's not railroading if the player does it to themself.

Second, it has nothing to do with being a prescripted story, or arc, or series of events. A player can say "I want my character to have an arc of a fall from grace and eventual redemption", and then either just through their in-character actions or via coordination with the GM make that story happen over the course of the campaign as events unfold. Nothing is set in stone, but there's a "narrative" journey and eventual destination that the player wants to go on.

And that example would be but one example of what I mean by "story focused". If anyone has a better term than "story focused" that also doesn't have the baggage and conflicting meanings of "narrative focused", then I'm all ears.


Meanwhile, a player who is "character focused" might simply take the events and situations as they evolve through cause & effect and complex interactions inside the game, or establish that their character has a goal and will work to reach it, but without the player ever engaging in any "narrative" journey around that goal. Story never enters into it.




Since we're having page upon page of argument over whether this definition or one that's too broad should be used, what utility do you find this definition to have? What are you trying to get across or discuss that uses this definition and finds it more useful than the broader one you decry?



As far as I can tell, Max's definition of "telling a story" is what most people would call "consciously trying to write good fiction using an undergrad textbook on literary analysis as a how-to guide".

I apologize if that sounds dismissive, but I see this definition of "storytelling" (in the context of RPGs) to be bizarrely specific and strangely applied.


Actually, it's based in part on listening to hours and hours of many very accomplished and talented writers talk at length and detail about what separates a story from a sequence of events, but it really has nothing to do with bad undergrad textbooks written by people who never wrote anything worth reading.

And "dismissive" is pretty much the tone of at least half the posts directed at me so far in this thread, so you're not alone.




Nearly every TTRPG has implicit character arcs due to increased power over time, and I can't imagine a group playing a TTRPG without having themes, archetypes, or genre expectations.


Just increasing power isn't really an inherent character arc for the PC as such, any more than a real person getting a college education and a better job is an inherent character arc for the real person.

Back when I actually had the opportunities to play, I did it without themes, archetypes, or genre expectations... all of which I've found to be a minefield of potential counter-enjoyment both in fiction and in gaming.




On the other hand, it's quite common for players to have characters without consciously planned character arcs, or curves, or narrative "try-fail cycles",* and I don't even know what "narrative roles" would mean in a TTRPG context.

Mostly this just seems very divorced from the practical reality of how people actually sit down and play these games.


What's divorced at least from how I play is the notion that storytelling is involved.

No characters, dramatic curves, or narrative cycles involved, either deliberate or unintentional. No intent to create a story or any sort of coherent narrative. No storytelling involved of any kind.


E: But as kyoryu points out, there are those out there who DO engage in playing RPGs in a way that's centered around intentional (not necessarily prescripted, but intentional) character arcs, "try-fail cycles", rising and falling tension, and other forms of fictional structure, and are willing to even share control of their characters if it makes for a more "satisfying story" or "exploration of theme".

[Max_Killjoy]

Again, I'm not denying saying it. I'm just pointing out that your conclusions drawn from the fact that all roleplaying involves storytelling are bizarre.


First, it's not fact, it's your opinion, that you're trying to pawn off as fact.

Second, there are no conclusions involved, you just said once again made the claim that all roleplaying is storytelling, right there, in the words of your post -- how is the claim that all roleplaying is storytelling not also a dismissal as impossible of any roleplaying that is not storytelling?




You didn't imagine anything, those things were said. But those things don't mean "all communication is storytelling". You are accurately remembering what people said. You are inaccurately interpreting what the things that were said meant.

I am getting a bit tired of you attempting to prove yourself by providing quotes that don't actually say what you claim they say.

or more specifically, I should say "...by providing quotes that don't actually mean what you claim they mean"


There's no conclusion, there's no interpretation, there's no "finding meaning". The words and their meaning are right there in the posts to be seen.




Not an insult at all, and not grasping at anything. Just an apt analogy of what's going on. Nothing unfortunate about being able to see that.


You swap out one word for another to make an absurd statement that looks superficially like something I said, claim it's equivalent or analogous to what I said, and then pretend that you're not just trying to be belittling and derisive?

Whatever.

[Max_Killjoy]

OK, very simplified example to try to get some light out of this heat...

As much as the show makes me roll my eyes and change the channel, imagine two gamers in a "power rangers" based campaign.

By my understanding of the terms, here's how the two go about things:

The "story-focused" gamer goes through the process that the characters in these stories go through of building up to the end of the "episode" when the big combined mech is finally unleashed, and then the big attack is finally unleashed, for the victory after much (at least intended) rising tension.

The "character-focused" gamer thinks "my character wants to beat this monster and save the city, therefore we're going to bring out the big combined mech and the big attack and end this crap right now before anyone gets hurt" and the "episode" is over in five minutes. Sure, you can come up with characters who fall into the dramatic buildup while acting in character, and come up with situations that demand the dramatic buildup, but eventually that turns into an ugly "well isn't that convenient" pileup.


Similar examples can be constructed from a lot of anime, too.


The "story-focused" gamer is more likely to want genre-emulation, to intentionally play things out so that the sort of story they're looking for will result.

The "character-focused" gamer is more likely to want their character to be genre-savvy, because their character is from a world where those genre elements are part of the fabric of reality and should be aware of them.

[Aliquid]

First, it's not fact, it's your opinion, that you're trying to pawn off as fact.When I use the literal denotation of the word, then it is a fact, not an opinion.


Second, there are no conclusions involved, you just said once again made the claim that all roleplaying is storytelling, right there, in the words of your post -- how is the claim that all roleplaying is storytelling not also a dismissal as impossible of any roleplaying that is not storytelling?Yup, it is impossible for roleplaying to not be storytelling. I'm not denying that.


There's no conclusion, there's no interpretation, there's no "finding meaning". The words and their meaning are right there in the posts to be seen.I don't know about that. There seems to be a considerably large amount of misunderstanding of meanings on this thread. Many instances where one person's interpretation of the meaning is different than the next person.


You swap out one word for another to make an absurd statement that looks superficially like something I said, claim it's equivalent or analogous to what I said, and then pretend that you're not just trying to be belittling and derisive?But it is analogous to what you said. Completely and totally analogous to what you said, and it draws attention to the flaw in logic of the original statement.





OK, very simplified example to try to get some light out of this heat...

As much as the show makes me roll my eyes and change the channel, imagine two gamers in a "power rangers" based campaign.

By my understanding of the terms, here's how the two go about things:

The "story-focused" gamer goes through the process that the characters in these stories go through of building up to the end of the "episode" when the big combined mech is finally unleashed, and then the big attack is finally unleashed, for the victory after much (at least intended) rising tension.

The "character-focused" gamer thinks "my character wants to beat this monster and save the city, therefore we're going to bring out the big combined mech and the big attack and end this crap right now before anyone gets hurt" and the "episode" is over in five minutes. Sure, you can come up with characters who fall into the dramatic buildup while acting in character, and come up with situations that demand the dramatic buildup, but eventually that turns into an ugly "well isn't that convenient" pileup.


Similar examples can be constructed from a lot of anime, too.


The "story-focused" gamer is more likely to want genre-emulation, to intentionally play things out so that the sort of story they're looking for will result.

The "character-focused" gamer is more likely to want their character to be genre-savvy, because their character is from a world where those genre elements are part of the fabric of reality and should be aware of them.This is a completely concise and clear explanation of your view, and I agree with everything you said.

With a "story-focused" game, a player will often deliberately do something counterproductive, just to keep the "drama" or "tension" at the right level. Another example would be a "horror" theme game, where the party decides to "split up"... just like in the movies. Any sane person knows that just leads to people dying. In a "story-focused" game, someone might say "ok, my character flaw is greed, so I need to think of a nice ironic way for greed to get me killed by this psycho". In a "character-focused" story, you would stick together, watch each other's backs at all times, and not walk into obvious traps.

[Tinkerer]

OK, very simplified example to try to get some light out of this heat...

As much as the show makes me roll my eyes and change the channel, imagine two gamers in a "power rangers" based campaign.

By my understanding of the terms, here's how the two go about things:

The "story-focused" gamer goes through the process that the characters in these stories go through of building up to the end of the "episode" when the big combined mech is finally unleashed, and then the big attack is finally unleashed, for the victory after much (at least intended) rising tension.

The "character-focused" gamer thinks "my character wants to beat this monster and save the city, therefore we're going to bring out the big combined mech and the big attack and end this crap right now before anyone gets hurt" and the "episode" is over in five minutes. Sure, you can come up with characters who fall into the dramatic buildup while acting in character, and come up with situations that demand the dramatic buildup, but eventually that turns into an ugly "well isn't that convenient" pileup.


Similar examples can be constructed from a lot of anime, too.


The "story-focused" gamer is more likely to want genre-emulation, to intentionally play things out so that the sort of story they're looking for will result.

The "character-focused" gamer is more likely to want their character to be genre-savvy, because their character is from a world where those genre elements are part of the fabric of reality and should be aware of them.

I really want to nitpick this for being an example of how a ranger would get their powers stripped from them (as established in the first episode). That would be in bad form however since you adequately explained your position.

The problem is you seem to be saying that the character focused gamer isn't generating a story. And you appear to using the defense that an accomplished writer said that people who don't do things their way aren't writing a "real" story and are simply describing a sequence of events. This is similar to many skilled chefs who would say that someone making Kraft Dinner isn't "really" cooking. Except making Kraft Dinner is cooking and it would be pretty foolish to try and argue otherwise.

[Max_Killjoy]

I really want to nitpick this for being an example of how a ranger would get their powers stripped from them (as established in the first episode). That would be in bad form however since you adequately explained your position.


I appreciate that.




The problem is you seem to be saying that the character focused gamer isn't generating a story. And you appear to using the defense that an accomplished writer said that people who don't do things their way aren't writing a "real" story and are simply describing a sequence of events. This is similar to many skilled chefs who would say that someone making Kraft Dinner isn't "really" cooking. Except making Kraft Dinner is cooking and it would be pretty foolish to try and argue otherwise.


To me at least, it's more like half a dozen award-winning and "best selling" chefs who make their livings cooking for people, plus quite a few of their guests on their weekly show, consistently saying that buying a list of items from a grocery store isn't cooking a meal.

[Blackjackg]

I kinda cringed at the phrase "cult of science", but I think it refers to the people who blindly go about acting as if they believe "If Neil deGrasse Tyson said it, it must be true, he's so smart!", and thus ironically miss the point of empirical inquiry and the scientific approach in the first place.

Ever notice how long unfalsifiable or even falsified "schools" of psychology stick around and maintain groups of slavish adherents? Freud and Jung were doing nothing more than projecting their own internal issues onto the entirety of the human species, and yet there are still Freudian and Jungian psychologists offering "therapy" for good money and taken quite seriously. Skinner's approach is like insisting that only the ripples are real, and not the fish, simply because the surface of the pond is hard to see through (I went to a college with a deeply deeply behaviorist Psych department, and the contortions they'd go through to avoid any exploration of an internal mind underlying the observable behaviors were comical at times).

As for postmodernism, when the basic scientific method is being called a "Eurocentric patriarchal tool of oppression and exploitation, that ruthlessly and systematically quashes other equally valid ways of understanding that threaten its dominance", that should maybe tell us something about the philosophy behind that sort of nonsense proclamation.

Believe it or not, I don't think it's necessary to debate the whole of modern epistemology in order to come to a reasoned definition of collaborative storytelling. I just find it remarkable that you do.


Yes... the observable evidence makes that appear to have been the approach taken by those who started with the belief that all gaming is "storytelling", and then worked backwards until they found a definition of "story" that made their belief pedantically "true".

Aha, turning my own criticism back against me. How entirely surprising and not at all expected.

Ok, so let me walk you through my process, forwards.

We start with a question. In this case, the question as I understand it is "Are tabletop RPGs necessarily examples of collaborative storytelling?"

The next step is defining the terms we are using. Thus far, no one seems to be debating the definition of "tabletop RPG" so I think we can take that one as read. The terms we seem to need to define are "collaborative" and "storytelling."

The easiest way to get accepted expert definitions is to use the dictionary. It's not the only way, but it's straightforward and generally pretty accurate. So here are the definitions I've found using this method.

collaborative: produced or conducted by two or more parties working together.

storytelling: the activity of telling or writing stories.

The definition of collaborative seems to be pretty solid, but there's a tricky word in the definition of storytelling: "stories." So let's take this a step further.

story: an account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment.

Which makes the expanded definition of storytelling into

storytelling: the activity of telling or writing accounts of imaginary or real people and events, for entertainment.

These are not specially selected definitions, they are literally the first answers that come up when you google definitions of those words. Try it for yourself, I expect you'll find the same.

Of course, as has been raised, common usage can differ from dictionary definition. The problem is, we don't have any reliable method for determining common usage. I can say it's one thing, you can say it's another, and we have no way of determining who's right (or even if it's either, neither or both of us). So our perceptions of common usage get treated like any other form of anecdotal evidence, and ignored.

Still with me? Having defined our terms, we can now approach the question "are tabletop RPGs necessarily examples of collaborative storytelling?"

Well, how does one play a tabletop RPG? You, as a player, tell me what your character does. I, as a DM, tell you what happens as a result of that. Sometimes we use dice or rulebooks to adjudicate the process of doing that, but that doesn't change the fact that it fits very neatly into the definitions we have created. For entertainment, we are telling accounts of imaginary people and events.

Is it collaborative? That part is a little tougher to nail down. In a tabletop RPG, sometimes the players seem to work against each other or against the DM; however, at the most basic level, the game does not function without at least two people each contributing their own parts of the story.

So by these definitions, which are derived directly from the definitions of experts on definition, tabletop RPGs are games of storytelling, and that storytelling is collaborative. I can now answer the question "Are tabletop RPGs necessarily examples of collaborative storytelling?" with a yes. Or at least with a "Yes, by a given valid definition."

And it is a meaningful definition, because it effectively differentiates games like tabletop RPGs where the central mechanism is description of people and events from those where it isn't, like chess, and basketball, and poker, and Monopoly, and Settlers of Catan.

This was (minus the googling) the process I went through before I first posted on this thread, and before that, the first time I strung the words "collaborative" and "storytelling" together.

When I shared my perspective and saw so much disagreement, that was when I looked up dictionary definitions, to make sure that I wasn't crazy. So I shared that too, to let folks know that my perspective jibed with authoritative definitions.

Still more argument, so I thought about it some more... you know, like you do when you're approaching a discussion in good faith. I realized, hey, even though they aren't the ones I use or the ones I find in the dictionary, there are valid definitions of "collaborative storytelling" that don't describe all tabletop RPGs. Just because I was right doesn't mean everyone else was wrong. I shared that little revelation at the top of page 6.

And yet the acrimony continued, because some folks simply would not accept that there is a valid definition that is different from theirs. So I did the next sensible thing, I looked for authoritative opinions on the subject. I checked out the introduction sections of some of my game books to see how the authors of the games themselves describe what the game is. I shared those discoveries somewhere on page 6 or 7, but I'll reprint them here for convenience's sake.



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."


Now here, I admit, I was a bit selective. Not every book I looked at said "collaborative storytelling" in terms that were quite so clear and pithy. But none of the books said anything that came close to contradicting the definitions I used, either. So I posted these quotes in support of the idea that even the creators of the most popular tabletop RPGs consider them storytelling by definition, and they were thoroughly ignored.

Because that's how you come to a rational answer to a question. You define your terms, you apply them, and when people disagree you consider their opinions and come up with a rational way of determining who is right. I went with researching authoritative definitions, acknowledging reasonable differences of opinion on ambiguous terms, and referring to the stated intentions of the authors.

If you can come up with contradictory definitions with greater authority, or find a place where the designer of a tabletop RPG explicitly states "Storytelling is not necessarily part of this game," cool. Or heck, even acknowledge that the definitions of the dictionary and the game authors are equally valid as the ones you made up and refuse to state clearly, that would be fine too.

[jojo]

Some thoughts that the previous few posts have shaken loose, in no particular order:


You swap out one word for another to make an absurd statement that looks superficially like something I said, claim it's equivalent or analogous to what I said, and then pretend that you're not just trying to be belittling and derisive?

Whatever.

Just so we're clear @Max_Killjoy, before you respond to anything I'm about to post: The above is an example of dismissiveness, based on "Common Usage" of the word Whatever and the "Context" in which it has been applied.

At the same time I'm genuinely curious, can you identify the polemic (aggressive argumentation) technique that resulted from your words being swapped around?


To me at least, it's more like half a dozen award-winning and "best selling" chefs who make their livings cooking for people, plus quite a few of their guests on their weekly show, consistently saying that buying a list of items from a grocery store isn't cooking a meal.

Your assertion, and by proxy that of the chefs in question, is partially correct in that: it can be True given certain conditions.

Concluding that possibility directly connotes validity is incorrect.


Believe it or not, I don't think it's necessary to debate the whole of modern epistemology in order to come to a reasoned definition of collaborative storytelling. I just find it remarkable that you do.

I agree with this comment.


When I shared my perspective and saw so much disagreement, that was when I looked up dictionary definitions, to make sure that I wasn't crazy. So I shared that too, to let folks know that my perspective jibed with authoritative definitions.

For your peace of mind, you're not crazy. Additionally, though there are some conflicts ongoing regarding specific details, I interpret a significant number of the more recent posts as agreeing with you in principle.



The "story-focused" gamer is more likely to want genre-emulation, to intentionally play things out so that the sort of story they're looking for will result.

The "character-focused" gamer is more likely to want their character to be genre-savvy, because their character is from a world where those genre elements are part of the fabric of reality and should be aware of them.

There are a lot of things wrong with this. Ultimately however you're making anecdotal arguments.

I think it's more productive to simply address the elephant in the room in that:

This discussion doesn't revolve around something empirically quantifiable, we're not talking about the number of protons in a hydrogen atom here.

As a result it's important to accept that multiple perspectives not only exist but can do so simultaneously and are of equal validity.

If five people sitting around a table playing DnD are approached by a sixth who asks:

#6: "What are you guys doing?"

And all five people simultaneously respond, Then:

Five different answers might be given. All five might be equally valid.

For Example:

#1: "We're playing dungeons and dragons."
#2: "We're questing to save a princess from this giant."
#3: "We're rolling dice."
#4: "We're hanging out together."
#5: "We're waiting for our pizza to be delivered."

If the group's PCs are in fact attempting to save a princess from a giant while the players roll dice to determine the outcome of an action on the table which all five people are sitting around AND a pizza has been ordered Then:

All five answers are equally valid.

The argument I keep seeing from OP, yourself and a few others seems to hinge on the idea that things have to be either this or that. As if collaborative story-telling can't co-exist alongside of tactical combat, role-playing social interactions and imaginary exploration all of which are being adjudicated by rolling dice against pre-set tables.

It can, it does and it will.

[Mutazoia]

To me at least, it's more like half a dozen award-winning and "best selling" chefs who make their livings cooking for people, plus quite a few of their guests on their weekly show, consistently saying that buying a list of items from a grocery store isn't cooking a meal.

Buying a list of items is, indeed, not cooking a meal. Once you get home, and combine those items in an oven/microwave/grill, etc THEN you are cooking a meal. Half a quote (or a misquote) is better than none?

[Pelle]

Yup, it is impossible for roleplaying to not be storytelling.


Just for clarity, do you mean "it is impossible for roleplaying to not be 'descriptions of events' ", or "it is impossible for roleplaying to not be 'intentionally setting up character arcs, try-fail cycles, dramatic curves, etc' " ?

I have the impression that you mean the former, and can agree with that. If the latter, I can understand why some people feel upset.



If anyone has a better term than "story focused" that also doesn't have the baggage and conflicting meanings of "narrative focused", then I'm all ears.


I am neither a native speaker, nor familiar with all the rpg lingo, but to me the following descriptions of approaches to playing rpgs make sense:

Boardgaming - using the mechanics to try meet a win condition. Typically Chess, Agricola, Through The Ages, etc.
Storygaming - trying to craft a 'good' story, setting up arcs and drama and so on. Story driven, making decisions for the characters in third person figuratively speaking. Typically Fiasco, GoblinQuest.
Roleplaying - making decisions as if the character, experiencing adventures in a fictional setting (I like Tanariis' definition). Character driven, first person decision making figuratively. Typically traditional RPGs (possibly), larp, and Max&co?

In a game like D&D, I can do one or more of the above.

To me calling RPGs collaborative storytelling to me sounds a little bit misleading, though. My impression is then a game about telling stories, even though technically correct as long as the fictional events will be described.
Calling RPGs storytelling to separate them from other boardgames, meaning "this is a game where we actually describe what is going on in the fiction (can be either through roleplaying or storygaming), instead of only referencing the mechanics" is acceptable to me, however. In that respect I think storytelling is a better umbrella term than RPG, since it covers both styles and distinguish it from board games, but I'm sure an even better term could be found.

[Max_Killjoy]

Believe it or not, I don't think it's necessary to debate the whole of modern epistemology in order to come to a reasoned definition of collaborative storytelling. I just find it remarkable that you do.


I'm bad about tangents, and those are my opinions of psychology and postmodernism, since them came up.

Both tangents originated with someone making one of their "oh yes you do and here's why" assertions about other people's thought processes.




And yet the acrimony continued, because some folks simply would not accept that there is a valid definition that is different from theirs.


Acrimony resulted because no matter how many times people told you (and others) that they personally are not doing story when playing an RPG, that this is not how they approach playing their character, that they are not thinking about story or planning out story or working toward any sort of story, etc... you insisted that they were wrong, and then doubled down by insisting that they can't figuratively can't even get out of bed in the morning without doing story. The consistent insistence by you (and some others) that you know their minds and thought processes better than they do, is what made things acrimonious.


As for definitions...

I'm not in California, in fact I'm far from it. If someone presents a definition of California that allows them to claim I'm in California, that definition is flawed.

I'm not a Martian. If someone presents a definition of Martian that allows them to them claim I'm a Martian, that definition is flawed.

When playing a character in an RPG, I'm not doing story. If someone presents a definition of story that allows them to claim that I am doing story...

[Darth Ultron]

The problem is you seem to be saying that the character focused gamer isn't generating a story. And you appear to using the defense that an accomplished writer said that people who don't do things their way aren't writing a "real" story and are simply describing a sequence of events. This is similar to many skilled chefs who would say that someone making Kraft Dinner isn't "really" cooking. Except making Kraft Dinner is cooking and it would be pretty foolish to try and argue otherwise.

The problem might be that the general, basic words cover doing nearly anything even vaguely related to whatever it is your talking about. If you make some Mac and Cheese you have cooked a meal, and if you make a seven course roast dinner you have cooked a meal.

Any two year old can tell you a story, but is the story they tell equal to say any story from Shakespeare?

So the focus needs to be a bit more on meaningful storytelling, not just someone that can string a couple words together.

[Max_Killjoy]

There are a lot of things wrong with this. Ultimately however you're making anecdotal arguments.


That wasn't an argument, it was an attempt to illustrate where I'm coming from with examples. I didn't even make absolute statements because it's not universally true, nothing about how people game or what they want out of gaming is universally true... which is part of why the "oh yes you are doing story" nonsense is so exasperating.




I think it's more productive to simply address the elephant in the room in that:

This discussion doesn't revolve around something empirically quantifiable, we're not talking about the number of protons in a hydrogen atom here.

As a result it's important to accept that multiple perspectives not only exist but can do so simultaneously and are of equal validity.


Which, again, is part of why "you're doing story no matter what, even if you don't think you are" is so wrong.




If five people sitting around a table playing DnD are approached by a sixth who asks:

#6: "What are you guys doing?"

And all five people simultaneously respond, Then:

Five different answers might be given. All five might be equally valid.

For Example:

#1: "We're playing dungeons and dragons."
#2: "We're questing to save a princess from this giant."
#3: "We're rolling dice."
#4: "We're hanging out together."
#5: "We're waiting for our pizza to be delivered."

If the group's PCs are in fact attempting to save a princess from a giant while the players roll dice to determine the outcome of an action on the table which all five people are sitting around AND a pizza has been ordered Then:

All five answers are equally valid.

The argument I keep seeing from OP, yourself and a few others seems to hinge on the idea that things have to be either this or that. As if collaborative story-telling can't co-exist alongside of tactical combat, role-playing social interactions and imaginary exploration all of which are being adjudicated by rolling dice against pre-set tables.

It can, it does and it will.


I'm honestly lost as to where I said that it can only be one thing at once.

I've been arguing against the idea that it "must be" one thing in particular no matter what (that thing being "storytelling"). I've even said more than once that it CAN be storytelling, but that doesn't mean it MUST BE storytelling.

[ImNotTrevor]

I'm not in California, in fact I'm far from it. If someone presents a definition of California that allows them to claim I'm in California, that definition is flawed.

I'm not a Martian. If someone presents a definition of Martian that allows them to them claim I'm a Martian, that definition is flawed.

When playing a character in an RPG, I'm not doing story. If someone presents a definition of story that allows them to claim that I am doing story...

You make a core mistake here. You assume that your indifference to a thing is tantamount to not doing it.

You're claiming that not caring about story means you aren't producing one as a byproduct of your actions. This is as absurd as the claim that because I don't care of any apples grow when I grow an apple tree, then therefore apples will never end up in my backyard and I just have a tree, no apples.

If that sounds absurd, good. You're understanding what you are saying.

Frankly, you should probably come around to:
"If I don't think I'm doing a thing, but definitionally I am doing that thing, I need to refine my claim to be more specific."

You've become so attached to a particular connotation of story that you can't separate the connotation you don't like from it's basic meaning.

Then again this'll go entirely ignored so whatever.

[Blackjackg]

Acrimony resulted because no matter how many times people told you (and others) that they personally are not doing story when playing an RPG, that this is not how they approach playing their character, that they are not thinking about story or planning out story or working toward any sort of story, etc... you insisted that they were wrong, and then doubled down by insisting that they can't figuratively can't even get out of bed in the morning without doing story. The consistent insistence by you (and some others) that you know their minds and thought processes better than they do, is what made things acrimonious.

Thanks for clearing that up. To my mind, this is another intellectually dishonest tactic: A person uses their own experience as a point of reference for describing their definitions. Then, when another person challenges their definition, the first person says some variant of "You are trying to invalidate my experience! I am insulted!" as some kind of conversational trump card.

You are allowed to define your experience any way you want to. No one can take that away from you. But when you include your experience as a point of reference in a conversation about definition, it is fair game for another person to say "the experience you described could also be defined in this way." I don't need to know the interior of your mind better than you do to say that there are multiple ways of defining the process that you yourself described.



As for definitions...

I'm not in California, in fact I'm far from it. If someone presents a definition of California that allows them to claim I'm in California, that definition is flawed.

I'm not a Martian. If someone presents a definition of Martian that allows them to them claim I'm a Martian, that definition is flawed.

When playing a character in an RPG, I'm not doing story. If someone presents a definition of story that allows them to claim that I am doing story...

See, these are examples of working backward from conclusion to definition (at least you have presented them as such, I can only guess at the process that went into them). You start with a certainty of self-description and derive your definition (or lack thereof) from that.

I don't know how you define Martian. The way I define it, I tend to agree with you, you probably aren't one. But for the sake of clarity, let's see what the dictionary has to say.

Martian: a hypothetical or fictional inhabitant of Mars.

Now let's see if that applies. Do you inhabit Mars? No? Excellent. We can come to the reasoned conclusion that you are not a Martian.

Although, maybe there are other definitions of Martian that we aren't thinking of. I seem to recall that some astrological types use the term to describe people who were born with Mars in their astrological sign. Or something like that? Anyway, let's say hypothetically some people use the term that way. By that definition, maybe you are a Martian (if you happen to have been born with Mars in your astrological sign). It does not become invalid simply because you don't use the word that way.

Likewise, when you start from the conclusion that you are not "doing story," and derive your definitions from that, you are working backwards. When you work backwards, rather than arriving at a reasonable and defensible conclusion, you arrive at an unreasonable and indefensible definition like "storytelling is defined as that which I'm not doing when I play RPGs."

[Tanarii]

Why does it have to mean something opposed to a series of events? You ever hear of a synonym?

Besides, we can narrow it down a bit if you want. Lets look at a dictionary.

Merriam-Webster "an account of incidents or events"
Oxford "An account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment."
Cambridge "a description, either true or imagined, of a connected series of events"

And to further help, lets look at the definition of an "account"
- "A report or description of an event or experience"


So, the dictionary seems to imply that a story must be "told" to actually be a story. If we want to stick with the literal denotation of the word, then the answer is "No" to the question "if a series of events is never recorded or recounted, is it a story?"All good and perfectly logical so far.


That makes a difference with some of the philosophical musings on this thread, but it makes no difference in deciding if specifically playing an RPG is storytelling.And ... Suddenly we hit the brick wall of illogic. It makes all the difference in the world if you change the definition to remove description or account, including for RPGs. It's not just some philosophical difference. It's the entire point: without the intent to create a description or account of events, there is no story.


When you play an RPG you are 100% working with others to jointly create "a description, either true or imagined, of a connected series of events". When you play an RPG, the players and GM are jointly describing a connected series of events to each other. How can you possibly play an RPG and not do that?
No, you are absolutely NOT required to work with others to jointly create "a description, either true or imagined, of a connected series of events" when playing an RPG. This is a completely & utterly false statement.

How can you possibly play an RPG and not do that? Easy: I make decisions for my character in the fantasy environment. This in no way describes a connected series of events. I tell the GM what I intend my character to attempt to do. End of story, pun intended. Provided we use the actual definition for story, which is that story is a description or account of events.

[Aliquid]

All good and perfectly logical so far.

And ... Suddenly we hit the brick wall of illogic. It makes all the difference in the world if you change the definition to remove description or account, including for RPGs. It's not just some philosophical difference. It's the entire point: without the intent to create a description or account of events, there is no story.Nowhere in in any of those definitions is the word "intent".


No, you are absolutely NOT required to work with others to jointly create "a description, either true or imagined, of a connected series of events" when playing an RPG. This is a completely & utterly false statement.You are describing what your characters are doing in the game.


How can you possibly play an RPG and not do that? Easy: I make decisions for my character in the fantasy environment. This in no way describes a connected series of events. I tell the GM what I intend my character to attempt to do. End of story, pun intended. Provided we use the actual definition for story, which is that story is a description or account of events.Making a decision for your character in a fantasy environment does describe a series of events. That is exactly what it does. "my character attacks the goblin". "my character sneaks into the warehouse". "my character sweet-talks his way past the guard"


Just for clarity, do you mean "it is impossible for roleplaying to not be 'descriptions of events' ", or "it is impossible for roleplaying to not be 'intentionally setting up character arcs, try-fail cycles, dramatic curves, etc' " ?

I have the impression that you mean the former, and can agree with that. If the latter, I can understand why some people feel upset.You are correct, the former.

[Pelle]

I tell the GM what I intend my character to attempt to do.

"I roll Diplomacy"?

:smallwink:

[Tanarii]

Nowhere in in any of those definitions is the word "intent".Intent matters.


You are describing what your characters are doing in the game.No, I assure you, I am not.

Why is it people keep trying to tell me what I'm doing? This seems to be a common problem among folks trying to prove that all playing an RPG is storytelling, at least in this thread.


Making a decision for your character in a fantasy environment does describe a series of events. That is exactly what it does. "my character attacks the goblin". "my character sneaks into the warehouse". "my character sweet-talks his way past the guard"No, I don't. I communicate what my character attempts to do. Not what she does. The attempted actions need to be resolved, at the minimum in the GMs mind, before they become an actual in-game event.

As a GM I commonly run into the problem where players use language as if they've already accomplished an action, similar to what you're using as an example, and thus mentally assume it automatically resolves instead of merely declaring their intent to attempt the action.


"I roll Diplomacy"?

:smallwink:hahahaha thanks that gave me a good laugh. :smallbiggrin:

[Blackjackg]

Tanarii, I would love to be a fly on the wall at one of your RPG sessions. A bunch of people sitting around a table not giving any description of what's happening in the game? Must be riveting.

[Tinkerer]

The problem might be that the general, basic words cover doing nearly anything even vaguely related to whatever it is your talking about. If you make some Mac and Cheese you have cooked a meal, and if you make a seven course roast dinner you have cooked a meal.

Any two year old can tell you a story, but is the story they tell equal to say any story from Shakespeare?

So the focus needs to be a bit more on meaningful storytelling, not just someone that can string a couple words together.

However in this case it doesn't need to focus on that since it is the umbrella term. RPG gaming is a type of collaborative storytelling much the same as soccer is a type of team sport. The fact that football and baseball and hockey are also types of team sport doesn't detract from the usefulness of the phrase team sport. If I were describing soccer to someone I would most likely begin with the phrase "Soccer is a type of team sport where...". There is a reason why it is at the beginning of so many books (as mentioned above), because it is the fundamental basis of communicating the concept of the action of role-playing.

[ImNotTrevor]

Intent matters.

No, I assure you, I am not.

Why is it people keep trying to tell me what I'm doing? This seems to be a common problem among folks trying to prove that all playing an RPG is storytelling, at least in this thread.

No, I don't. I communicate what my character attempts to do. Not what she does. The attempted actions need to be resolved, at the minimum in the GMs mind, before they become an actual in-game event.

As a GM I commonly run into the problem where players use language as if they've already accomplished an action, similar to what you're using as an example, and thus mentally assume it automatically resolves instead of merely declaring their intent to attempt the action.

hahahaha thanks that gave me a good laugh. :smallbiggrin:

Attempts: suddenly not events, apparently.

If I attempt to do a handstand, I am not doing anything. I exist only in a quantum state of fail and success for a few brief moments and then suddenly I either have succeeded or have not.

Also, apparently all of your characters are mute, meaning you never say "Bob says '_____.' "

And the collaborative suddenly means that unless it is 4 people declaring things to have happened with 0 back and forth, discussion, or dispute, it does not count as collaboration. Becausr everyone knows uncertainty, dispute, and discussion have never occured in any collaborative effort, ever.

Come on, dude.

[Knaight]

As for definitions...

I'm not in California, in fact I'm far from it. If someone presents a definition of California that allows them to claim I'm in California, that definition is flawed.

I'm not a Martian. If someone presents a definition of Martian that allows them to them claim I'm a Martian, that definition is flawed.

When playing a character in an RPG, I'm not doing story. If someone presents a definition of story that allows them to claim that I am doing story...

This argument is literally just that you're not wrong, and thus if anyone presents a definition that makes you wrong the definition must be wrong. It is then bolstered by two obvious examples where you're right, from which we're apparently just supposed to infer that you're right on the point of contention.

[Segev]

OK, very simplified example to try to get some light out of this heat...

As much as the show makes me roll my eyes and change the channel, imagine two gamers in a "power rangers" based campaign.

By my understanding of the terms, here's how the two go about things:

The "story-focused" gamer goes through the process that the characters in these stories go through of building up to the end of the "episode" when the big combined mech is finally unleashed, and then the big attack is finally unleashed, for the victory after much (at least intended) rising tension.

The "character-focused" gamer thinks "my character wants to beat this monster and save the city, therefore we're going to bring out the big combined mech and the big attack and end this crap right now before anyone gets hurt" and the "episode" is over in five minutes. Sure, you can come up with characters who fall into the dramatic buildup while acting in character, and come up with situations that demand the dramatic buildup, but eventually that turns into an ugly "well isn't that convenient" pileup.


Similar examples can be constructed from a lot of anime, too.


The "story-focused" gamer is more likely to want genre-emulation, to intentionally play things out so that the sort of story they're looking for will result.

The "character-focused" gamer is more likely to want their character to be genre-savvy, because their character is from a world where those genre elements are part of the fabric of reality and should be aware of them.Okay, that's a good way of summing up what you mean. Thanks!

It still seems, to me, to paint the "story-focused" guy in a bad light, as it suggests that he's going to force the plot regardless of how much sense it makes. You know, like Power Rangers episodes (and many other formulaic stories) do.

Incidentally, you may enjoy the Nostalgia Critic's review of Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie. I base this recommendation specifically on your quoted post above. When you understand the words "flour tortilla" in context of the above, you'll know why I make that recommendation. ;)

I would argue that even a "story-focused" person is going to, if he has quality in his story, have a character-driven story. "I want a fall and redemption arc" will mean that he designs a flawed character who can and will make a fall-worthy mistake, and then fight as hard as possible to redeem himself from it afterwards. He designs a character who WILL, in-character, do such things.

The character-focused player will instead set goals, and yet may well design a character who has flaws that he must overcome if he's to reach those goals.

In both cases, the end result can be termed "collaborative storytelling," because the story-focused player must rely on the GM to provide him the opportunity to both fall and be redeemed. Yes, he's designed the character to invite it, and he's going to take the chance when offered, but he still needs the GM to help out. The character-focused player absolutely will have a story emerge, and it will emerge from the interaction of his character with the world and challenges and other characters put forth by the GM and other players.

There is story that happens in both cases, whether the players focused on "making" it happen or not. And it comes from collaborative work.



I'm bad about tangents, and those are my opinions of psychology and postmodernism, since them came up.

Both tangents originated with someone making one of their "oh yes you do and here's why" assertions about other people's thought processes.




Acrimony resulted because no matter how many times people told you (and others) that they personally are not doing story when playing an RPG, that this is not how they approach playing their character, that they are not thinking about story or planning out story or working toward any sort of story, etc... you insisted that they were wrong, and then doubled down by insisting that they can't figuratively can't even get out of bed in the morning without doing story. The consistent insistence by you (and some others) that you know their minds and thought processes better than they do, is what made things acrimonious.


As for definitions...

I'm not in California, in fact I'm far from it. If someone presents a definition of California that allows them to claim I'm in California, that definition is flawed.

I'm not a Martian. If someone presents a definition of Martian that allows them to them claim I'm a Martian, that definition is flawed.

When playing a character in an RPG, I'm not doing story. If someone presents a definition of story that allows them to claim that I am doing story...

I think your analogies fall apart, here. It's like saying that playing sports is not exercise, because when you play sports, you're out there to have fun strategizing and cooperating with your team to win the game, and since you're not exercising, any definition that includes "sports" as a kind of exercise must be wrong.

You're not in California. But if the city you are in and the State of California and the State where your city is all agreed to pass appropriate laws, possibly with an act of Congress backing it up, the definition of "in California" would in fact change such that you really were in California.

The latter is far less likely than the former, of course, but the former is also much closer to the arguments of "even if you're not focused on it, you're doing storytelling as a part of the process." This is why people feel comfortable making such a case.

You're playing sports that involve high levels of physical activity. You are getting exercise. Trying to redefine "exercise" to only apply to those who are deliberately focused on getting exercise is not useful.

[Aliquid]

Intent matters.Not in determining if something is a story or not


No, I assure you, I am not.Ok, then you aren't playin a RPG


Why is it people keep trying to tell me what I'm doing? This seems to be a common problem among folks trying to prove that all playing an RPG is storytelling, at least in this thread.Because you are claiming to be doing something that is impossible. Either you are telling a story, or you are not actually playing a RPG.


No, I don't. I communicate what my character attempts to do. Not what she does. The attempted actions need to be resolved, at the minimum in the GMs mind, before they become an actual in-game event.So? Not quite sure how this make any difference at all. It is still determined in the game weather they succeed or not in their attempt, and an account of what happens next is given.

[Pelle]

No, I don't. I communicate what my character attempts to do. Not what she does. The attempted actions need to be resolved, at the minimum in the GMs mind, before they become an actual in-game event.

As a GM I commonly run into the problem where players use language as if they've already accomplished an action, similar to what you're using as an example, and thus mentally assume it automatically resolves instead of merely declaring their intent to attempt the action.


Sure, I understand what you mean. It's just that people put different meanings into words, like what constitutes a description of an event. If you say "I attempt to draw my sword" and the GM says "sure, you draw your sword", in my mind you have collaboratively described what is going on in the fiction. I accept that technically 'storytelling' can be used to cover this, though there are probably better more neutral words as well.

Using different definitions of words is legitimate. When other people use words differently, you don't have to assume that they have an evil secret agenda. Just ask them to clarify what they mean, and argue with what they meant instead of your own associations to the words. And cool, if it turns out they are indeed claiming you have intentions that are not true, call them out on that.



hahahaha thanks that gave me a good laugh. :smallbiggrin:

Good, ref. the What makes social skills different? thread :smallsmile:

[kitanas]

No, you are absolutely NOT required to work with others to jointly create "a description, either true or imagined, of a connected series of events" when playing an RPG. This is a completely & utterly false statement.

How can you possibly play an RPG and not do that? Easy: I make decisions for my character in the fantasy environment. This in no way describes a connected series of events. I tell the GM what I intend my character to attempt to do. End of story, pun intended. Provided we use the actual definition for story, which is that story is a description or account of events.

So, to be clear, the part of the statement you are disagreeing with is the description part? You never describe what your character is doing, or how they attempt something? No flavor text? No speaking "in-character"? Not judgemental, just curious.

[Max_Killjoy]

All good and perfectly logical so far.

And ... Suddenly we hit the brick wall of illogic. It makes all the difference in the world if you change the definition to remove description or account, including for RPGs. It's not just some philosophical difference. It's the entire point: without the intent to create a description or account of events, there is no story.


No, you are absolutely NOT required to work with others to jointly create "a description, either true or imagined, of a connected series of events" when playing an RPG. This is a completely & utterly false statement.

How can you possibly play an RPG and not do that? Easy: I make decisions for my character in the fantasy environment. This in no way describes a connected series of events. I tell the GM what I intend my character to attempt to do. End of story, pun intended. Provided we use the actual definition for story, which is that story is a description or account of events.


And of course the "But it's story!" folks are going to tell you that you can't convey your character's choices without "giving an account of it to the other players", because evidently they're more concerned about being technically "right" than anything else at this point.

Something that I think has also been partially lost in this whole rigamarole, is that we (or I at least) didn't start out talking about "what is story?", I started out talking about whether RPGs are inherently and unavoidably "storytelling". And this is why it seems like the full-court press about the definition of story as "any account of a series of events" or "any series of events" has been a bit of a shellgame by one side of this "discussion".




Why is it people keep trying to tell me what I'm doing? This seems to be a common problem among folks trying to prove that all playing an RPG is storytelling, at least in this thread.


1) Some of them, because they evidently care more about the pedantry than about communication or understanding, and they don't care if they have to call you a delusional idiot along the way.

2) Some of them, because it's very important to other positions not being talked about here that all RPGs are "storytelling" no matter what. (The elephant in the room that kyoryu has tried to point out.)

3) Some of them, because the toxic notion that "we only know the world through narratives" has been deeply ingrained in western intellectual discourse.

[Cynthaer]

Suddenly we hit the brick wall of illogic. It makes all the difference in the world if you change the definition to remove description or account, including for RPGs. It's not just some philosophical difference. It's the entire point: without the intent to create a description or account of events, there is no story.

[...]

No, you are absolutely NOT required to work with others to jointly create "a description, either true or imagined, of a connected series of events" when playing an RPG. This is a completely & utterly false statement.

How can you possibly play an RPG and not do that? Easy: I make decisions for my character in the fantasy environment. This in no way describes a connected series of events. I tell the GM what I intend my character to attempt to do. End of story, pun intended. Provided we use the actual definition for story, which is that story is a description or account of events.
The importance of "intent" and the distinction between "describing a connected series of events" and "making decisions for my character"—decisions which you must eventually describe to other people—is throwing me here.

Is it really your position that no story is ever created without someone explicitly sitting down with the conscious, primary intention of creating a story? That seems very strange to me.

Would you mind offering your view of some edge cases? These aren't "gotchas"; I'm legitimately curious whether you perceive these activities as "creating stories" or "storytelling", even if it's not the conscious purpose. If there is some other story-related terminology you'd use to describe any of these activities, that's fine too.

A small child announces she is going to tell you a story. She spends the next five minutes rambling off a series of seemingly unrelated sentences about characters who are never properly introduced or described, with no obvious narrative thread. It looks like she finds it very interesting.

I'd call this storytelling—at the very least, this is an attempt at storytelling. It might not technically meet the "connected series of events" requirement, but she's a little kid. They were probably connected in her head, and she's just failed to get those connections out in words.

I believe you would also call this storytelling, because she is intending to create a story?

A D&D group meets at the table. Players A and B act in-character, while C and D simply describe what their characters are doing. A and C internally regard the game as an act of "storytelling", while B and D very strongly feel they are not engaged in "storytelling"—although this distinction is invisible to an outside observer during gameplay. All players are making decisions based on game rules, dice rolls, and imagining "what their characters would do", and not based on "what would make a good story".

I'd say they're all, as a group, creating a story. Whatever their individual primary purposes for playing are, the byproduct of the activity is 5 people sitting around a table, collectively creating "an imagined description of a connected series of events". I regard surface-level distinctions like speaking in-character or using past vs present tense to be irrelevant.

I believe you would say B and D are not "creating a story", because it's not their conscious intent. Does the in-character distinction matter for you? Also, would you say even A and C are not "creating a story" because they are not making decisions primarily based on "what would make a good story"?

In the same D&D group, the DM decides to start taking session notes at the end of each session. A few months in, she starts writing them up as "after-action reports" on a forum. These posts are effectively just a straightforward recounting of everything that happened in-game, as described by the DM and players during the session.

Obviously I already felt they were creating a story to begin with, so there's nothing new here.

Do you feel the act of taking rough notes "creates" a story?

I suspect you would agree that by the time it's written up as an "after-action report" and presented to others, a story has definitely been created somewhere. Does it matter if the DM is consciously "writing a story", even if she is just recounting the exact things the players (including B and D) said?

The same D&D group as above is now in a play-by-post game. Now instead of describing their actions out loud, they communicate them through forum posts that create a written, chronological record of the game as they go, which can be read from the beginning at any time.

My analysis here is the same as above, since I don't think the format matters.

Does it change anything for you if there is an immediate, tangible product created whenever anybody describes their actions? Regardless of the players' intentions, would you not be able to pull up the game thread and see "an imagined description of a connected series of events"?

Finally, one other consideration. The D&D designers regard the game as, first and foremost, a "storytelling" activity. The entire first page of the basic rules (pdf) (http://media.wizards.com/2014/downloads/dnd/playerdndbasicrules_v0.2.pdf), starting with the very first line, is all about the story created by playing the game (all emphases mine):


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.

Do you think this design intent matters at all? Do you feel this is merely an example of people misusing the word "storytelling", and the D&D designers are simply wrong in thinking they have created a game about "storytelling"? Or do you agree with them that it is a "storytelling" game in general, but feel that you personally engage with it in a way that does not in fact create a story?

[Aliquid]

And of course the "But it's story!" folks are going to tell you that you can't convey your character's choices without "giving an account of it to the other players", because evidently they're more concerned about being technically "right" than anything else at this point.No, that's just how we see it. Naturally, there is no effort put into it. That's how we see the word "story". The only reason we are getting technical, is to back up the argument.


Something that I think has also been partially lost in this whole rigamarole, is that we (or I at least) didn't start out talking about "what is story?", I started out talking about whether RPGs are inherently and unavoidably "storytelling". And this is why it seems like the full-court press about the definition of story as "any account of a series of events" or "any series of events" has been a bit of a shellgame by one side of this "discussion".I prefer the idea that "any series of events" is a story, but I'm fine if people would prefer that it must be an account of a series of events before it becomes a story. Even so, I honestly don't think that makes any difference when it comes to playing an RPG, because when you play an RPG, you fit both of those definitions. When you communicate with the other players in the game, you are giving an account of your characters actions.

[Knaight]

And of course the "But it's story!" folks are going to tell you that you can't convey your character's choices without "giving an account of it to the other players", because evidently they're more concerned about being technically "right" than anything else at this point.

Meanwhile, here in reality, what's been going on is that we've been using the term "collaborative storytelling" to explain what RPGs are for years, we've been understanding the term, and then out of nowhere pops up this thread claiming that it's a meaningless term based on a set of truly specious arguments, and when we push back on that because we find it obviously wrong out comes set after set of new specious arguments, each more ridiculous than the last.

But we're the ones more concerned about being technically right than anyone else at this point. For sure.

[Cynthaer]

And of course the "But it's story!" folks are going to tell you that you can't convey your character's choices without "giving an account of it to the other players", because evidently they're more concerned about being technically "right" than anything else at this point.
I mean...is that really a technicality? Because that seems like the obvious question to me.

In any case, even if we accept the framing that only the GM "describes" what happens because they have the final say, the point remains that between the two of you a description of the event has been created, which would not have been created with either one of you alone.

Surely that could be referred to as "collaborative storytelling"?

[Max_Killjoy]

No, that's just how we see it. Naturally, there is no effort put into it. That's how we see the word "story". The only reason we are getting technical, is to back up the argument.


And thus where we reach the conclusion that the definition of "story" and being pedantically correct about it is more important to you than whether someone's actually engaged in storytelling when they play an RPG -- evidently to the point that you're willing to tell a long-time gamer that they're not playing RPGs if they're not storytelling.

I'm almost certain that Tanarii knows far better whether they're playing RPGs, and whether they're storytelling, than you do.




I prefer the idea that "any series of events" is a story, but I'm fine if people would prefer that it must be an account of a series of events before it becomes a story. Even so, I honestly don't think that makes any difference when it comes to playing an RPG, because when you play an RPG, you fit both of those definitions. When you communicate with the other players in the game, you are giving an account of your characters actions.


Which brings us back to here:

If any series of events is a story, then everything that ever happened anywhere at any time was "a story", anything that ever changed or moved or began or ended is "a story", and thus all of reality was, is, and will be "a story".

Congratulations, you've just reinvented another word for "universe", for "everything", etc.

But hey, that's cool, as long as you can say you were "more right" about how someone else plays elfgames than they were about their own experiences.

You'd have fit right in at The Forge.

[Max_Killjoy]

Meanwhile, here in reality, what's been going on is that we've been using the term "collaborative storytelling" to explain what RPGs are for years, we've been understanding the term, and then out of nowhere pops up this thread claiming that it's a meaningless term based on a set of truly specious arguments, and when we push back on that because we find it obviously wrong out comes set after set of new specious arguments, each more ridiculous than the last.

But we're the ones more concerned about being technically right than anyone else at this point. For sure.

The discussion has long since left that original post behind.

It's fine if you've used that term to describe what you do, and continue to use it. It's fine if that's actually what you do when you sit down and play your PC in an RPG. I've never said you can't. I'm not trying to tell you that how you game is wrong, or impossible, or doesn't count.

The problems are:

1) The assertion that there's only one way to approach / think about playing RPGs -- an assertion coming from the "story uber alles" side here.

2) The assertion that how other people play the game is wrong, or impossible, or doesn't count -- an assertion coming from the "story uber alles" side here.

3) The assertion that they know what's going on in another person's head better than that person does -- an assertion coming from the "story uber alles" side here.

[Blackjackg]

And of course the "But it's story!" folks are going to tell you that you can't convey your character's choices without "giving an account of it to the other players", because evidently they're more concerned about being technically "right" than anything else at this point.

Something that I think has also been partially lost in this whole rigamarole, is that we (or I at least) didn't start out talking about "what is story?", I started out talking about whether RPGs are inherently and unavoidably "storytelling". And this is why it seems like the full-court press about the definition of story as "any account of a series of events" or "any series of events" has been a bit of a shellgame by one side of this "discussion".

At this point, I'm inclined to believe you're just yanking our chains for poops and giggles, because I have a hard time understanding how someone who claims to be college-educated can have such a fundamental lack of understanding of logic and semantics. If we are going to agree on the answer to the question "Are RPGs inherently and unavoidably storytelling?" we need to agree on the definition of the terms. And if you're not trying to get us to agree with your answer, then why the heck are you still arguing about it?

This conversation started with a declarative statement: "Collaborative storytelling is a meaningless phrase," and one person's argument in defense of that statement. Some of us found flaw in that statement and argument, and presented counterarguments. Together, in spite of obstruction and transparent distraction tactics, those of us who have been earnestly contributing to this conversation have generated and defended at least two meaningful applications of the phrase "collaborative storytelling" to the subject of tabletop roleplaying games. I'll summarize them:

1. A category of games characterized by collaboratively creating a story.

and 2. An approach to roleplaying games that emphasizes equitable collaboration toward a well-crafted story.

These are not "technically true definitions to win the internet." They are meaningful, useful definitions that can be and have been used to better understand the nature of roleplaying games. And they aren't the only possible meaningful and useful definitions, either. You are welcome to have your own. But so far you have presented no evidence whatsoever that these uses are invalid or meaningless, you have argued purely from the stance of "But but but I don't do story." Which is, needless to say, actually irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

[Knaight]

And of course the "But it's story!" folks are going to tell you that you can't convey your character's choices without "giving an account of it to the other players", because evidently they're more concerned about being technically "right" than anything else at this point.

...

1) Some of them, because they evidently care more about the pedantry than about communication or understanding, and they don't care if they have to call you a delusional idiot along the way.

2) Some of them, because it's very important to other positions not being talked about here that all RPGs are "storytelling" no matter what. (The elephant in the room that kyoryu has tried to point out.)

3) Some of them, because the toxic notion that "we only know the world through narratives" has been deeply ingrained in western intellectual discourse.
Here you not only tell people what it is they're doing, you describe their motivations for doing so.


But hey, that's cool, as long as you can say you were "more right" about how someone else plays elfgames than they were about their own experiences.

You'd have fit right in at The Forge.

Here you get pissy about other people describing what someone else is doing. Unlike you they didn't speculate on motivations, but hey, apparently that oh so objectionable activity is just fine when you do it.

[Max_Killjoy]

Here you not only tell people what it is they're doing, you describe their motivations for doing so.


Do I have to go back and get quotes that show these things actually happening and actually being said by people AGAIN? I'm not guessing at what's going in in their heads, I'm listing off things that have happened right here in this thread. I even repeatedly used the word "evidently".

[Tanarii]

This argument is literally just that you're not wrong, and thus if anyone presents a definition that makes you wrong the definition must be wrong. It is then bolstered by two obvious examples where you're right, from which we're apparently just supposed to infer that you're right on the point of contention.Given there already exists a definition for story, and people are attempting to change it to include any activity within playing an RPG, the analogies were apt.


Ok, then you aren't playin a RPG

Because you are claiming to be doing something that is impossible. Either you are telling a story, or you are not actually playing a RPG.


And of course the "But it's story!" folks are going to tell you that you can't convey your character's choices without "giving an account of it to the other players", because evidently they're more concerned about being technically "right" than anything else at this point.Hey look at that Max_Killjoy, you called it. Unsurprising considering it had already happened multiple times in this thread.


Meanwhile, here in reality, what's been going on is that we've been using the term "collaborative storytelling" to explain what RPGs are for years, we've been understanding the term, and then out of nowhere pops up this thread claiming that it's a meaningless term based on a set of truly specious arguments, and when we push back on that because we find it obviously wrong out comes set after set of new specious arguments, each more ridiculous than the last.

But we're the ones more concerned about being technically right than anyone else at this point. For sure.Meanwhile, here in the electronic reality, many people have have been using the term "collaborative storytelling" to claim it's a universal activity that everyone playing RPGs, including me, engages in, by expanding the definition of "storytelling" beyond what it means. Then when I push back on it once again, as I have in many threads previously, and this time create a separate thread so it's not off topic, those people come crawling out of the internet woodwork to keep trying to prove their newly expanded and not particularly meaningful definition is true. And that despite me being very clear I'm not engaging in storytelling (using the existing definitions) in the process of playing my character and communicating what she's attempting to do, and the DM resolving those actions, thus causing in-game events to happen ... I'm wrong by their newly expanded definition. That I don't know what I'm doing.

Edit: By the way Knaight, what we're engaged in here is competing stories, or accounts of events. :smallwink:

[Tinkerer]

Given there already exists a definition for story, and people are attempting to change it to include any activity within playing an RPG, the analogies were apt.


What is it? Give us the definition and state your source. We have given you guys many definitions pulled from internationally recognized sources and you essentially say nah those are garbage. We are going to go with this vague wishy-washy statement which we can change to mean whatever we want.

EDIT: For the purposes of this conversation I am going with the Oxford Dictionary definition of "An account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment."

[Max_Killjoy]

At this point, I'm inclined to believe you're just yanking our chains for poops and giggles, because I have a hard time understanding how someone who claims to be college-educated can have such a fundamental lack of understanding of logic and semantics. If we are going to agree on the answer to the question "Are RPGs inherently and unavoidably storytelling?" we need to agree on the definition of the terms. And if you're not trying to get us to agree with your answer, then why the heck are you still arguing about it?

This conversation started with a declarative statement: "Collaborative storytelling is a meaningless phrase," and one person's argument in defense of that statement. Some of us found flaw in that statement and argument, and presented counterarguments. Together, in spite of obstruction and transparent distraction tactics, those of us who have been earnestly contributing to this conversation have generated and defended at least two meaningful applications of the phrase "collaborative storytelling" to the subject of tabletop roleplaying games. I'll summarize them:

1. A category of games characterized by collaboratively creating a story.

and 2. An approach to roleplaying games that emphasizes equitable collaboration toward a well-crafted story.

These are not "technically true definitions to win the internet." They are meaningful, useful definitions that can be and have been used to better understand the nature of roleplaying games. And they aren't the only possible meaningful and useful definitions, either. You are welcome to have your own. But so far you have presented no evidence whatsoever that these uses are invalid or meaningless, you have argued purely from the stance of "But but but I don't do story." Which is, needless to say, actually irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

Just sitting down and playing your PC does not INHERENTLY fall under either one of those applications of the phrase.

For the second application, the lack of universality to all gaming should be obvious, but several posts have also gone into why and how it's not universal.

For the first application, it's only universally true of all gaming if you reduce "creating a story" to "producing any recounting of a series of events", at which point it becomes technically true and yet tells us absolutely nothing.




Thanks for clearing that up. To my mind, this is another intellectually dishonest tactic: A person uses their own experience as a point of reference for describing their definitions. Then, when another person challenges their definition, the first person says some variant of "You are trying to invalidate my experience! I am insulted!" as some kind of conversational trump card.

You are allowed to define your experience any way you want to. No one can take that away from you. But when you include your experience as a point of reference in a conversation about definition, it is fair game for another person to say "the experience you described could also be defined in this way." I don't need to know the interior of your mind better than you do to say that there are multiple ways of defining the process that you yourself described.

See, these are examples of working backward from conclusion to definition (at least you have presented them as such, I can only guess at the process that went into them). You start with a certainty of self-description and derive your definition (or lack thereof) from that.

I don't know how you define Martian. The way I define it, I tend to agree with you, you probably aren't one. But for the sake of clarity, let's see what the dictionary has to say.

Martian: a hypothetical or fictional inhabitant of Mars.

Now let's see if that applies. Do you inhabit Mars? No? Excellent. We can come to the reasoned conclusion that you are not a Martian.

Although, maybe there are other definitions of Martian that we aren't thinking of. I seem to recall that some astrological types use the term to describe people who were born with Mars in their astrological sign. Or something like that? Anyway, let's say hypothetically some people use the term that way. By that definition, maybe you are a Martian (if you happen to have been born with Mars in your astrological sign). It does not become invalid simply because you don't use the word that way.

Likewise, when you start from the conclusion that you are not "doing story," and derive your definitions from that, you are working backwards. When you work backwards, rather than arriving at a reasonable and defensible conclusion, you arrive at an unreasonable and indefensible definition like "storytelling is defined as that which I'm not doing when I play RPGs."


See, what I thought I was doing was testing the premises and their derived conclusions against reality.

If a premise and/or process produces conclusions that clearly don't match reality, is the premise and/or process really valid?


Some players are not engaged in collaboratively creating a story when they play their characters. They don't care what story the other players get out of it, even if those other players might. They don't care what kind of story emerges. They're not doing anything to shape a story. They're only having their characters respond, act, speak, etc, as they think/feel those characters would.

To be clear, this is not to say that other players cannot should not engage in storytelling, collaborative or otherwise, or that their approach to gaming is inferior, or badwrongfun.

Any application of the term "collaborative storytelling" that asserts that all players are engaged in it, or that one cannot play an RPG without engaging in it, fails the test against reality.

[Tanarii]

What is it? Give us the definition and state your source. We have given you guys many definitions pulled from internationally recognized sources and you essentially say nah those are garbage. We are going to go with this vague wishy-washy statement which we can change to mean whatever we want.

EDIT: For the purposes of this conversation I am going with the Oxford Dictionary definition of "An account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment."
That's a good enough definition to be going on with. It can also be boiled down to "an account of events" and still works.

What's happening here is people trying to change that definition to: "events". Removing the "An account" part.

[Blackjackg]

What's happening here is people trying to change that definition to: "events". Removing the "An account" part.

That's not what's happening here. Two or three times, a few days ago, one person made statements which could be construed as that. Those statements were later clarified. Everyone else is using the definition that includes making an account.

[Max_Killjoy]

What is it? Give us the definition and state your source. We have given you guys many definitions pulled from internationally recognized sources and you essentially say nah those are garbage. We are going to go with this vague wishy-washy statement which we can change to mean whatever we want.

EDIT: For the purposes of this conversation I am going with the Oxford Dictionary definition of "An account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment."


See, that's the thing, some players aren't giving an account of events, they're only presenting what their character does and says. Because they're acting strictly through their character as if that character were an actual individual inside the "secondary reality", they have no more influence or say over the course of events than that individual would. It's a person-who-could-be-real, inside a world-that-could-be-real.

For someone to claim that this is "storytelling", it would appear that are also asserting that you, living your life right now, are actively engaged in "storytelling" by the very act of being a living thinking individual making decisions and doing stuff.

And going in the other direction, the moment it's asserted that we're "storytelling" it also seems to be an assertion that we're treating our characters as story elements and not as people-who-could-be-real, and thus an assertion that we cannot possibly be playing the game the way we think we're playing the game.

[Tinkerer]

That's a good enough definition to be going on with. It can also be boiled down to "an account of events" and still works.

What's happening here is people trying to change that definition to: "events". Removing the "An account" part.

Hmm, I think I'm starting to get closer to understanding your point of view. Not agreeing with but understanding. Quick question, are people who are acting in a play in a live theatre engaged in storytelling?

[Tinkerer]

For someone to claim that this is "storytelling", it would appear that are also asserting that you, living your life right now, are actively engaged in "storytelling" by the very act of being a living thinking individual making decisions and doing stuff.


If I were always actively narrating the things that I do to someone then yes, living my life would be storytelling. You need the telling part to engage in storytelling.

Edit: My apologies for the double post, I should have edited my previous response to include this one.

EDIT EDIT: Perhaps a better example would be if my SO came home and told me about their day I would definitely say that they told me a story.

[Max_Killjoy]

What's happening here is people trying to change that definition to: "events". Removing the "An account" part.



That's not what's happening here. Two or three times, a few days ago, one person made statements which could be construed as that. Those statements were later clarified. Everyone else is using the definition that includes making an account.


From 12:32pm EST today:



I prefer the idea that "any series of events" is a story

[Segev]

While I will argue that character-focused players are going to be engaged in storytelling, there is one aspect of RPGs that aren't storytelling unless somebody comes along to relate the story of playing the game later: the gameplay itself. If you play it as a game, with your character(s) being just (a) game piece(s), then collaborative storytelling probably isn't happening because there's no story. It's just a game. You're trying to make the moves to "win," by whatever definition of "win" you have for this game. (Usually, beat the designated foes, solve the presented puzzles, and get the loot and advancement points to make your character better at the next "level.")

[Blackjackg]

Just sitting down and playing your PC does not INHERENTLY fall under either one of those applications of the phrase.

For the second application, the lack of universality to all gaming should be obvious, but several posts have also gone into why and how it's not universal.

For the first application, it's only universally true of all gaming if you reduce "creating a story" to "producing any recounting of a series of events", at which point it becomes technically true and yet tells us absolutely nothing.

Damn, dude, right up until the end there we were so close to agreeing. Yes, the second definition is not universally applicable to all tabletop roleplaying games experiences. That lack of universality is indeed obvious. Not being argued.

And yes, the first application is only universally true of all [tabletop roleplaying] gaming if you [use the widely held-definition of] "creating a story" [that is] "producing any recounting of a series of events." Which is what we're doing. Because it's a reasonable, well-supported and meaningful definition. Where you get the impression that it tells us absolutely nothing is beyond me.



See, what I thought I was doing was testing the premises and their derived conclusions against reality.

If that's what you were doing, you failed to show your work. What you said was "If someone presents a definition of Martian that allows them to them claim I'm a Martian, that definition is flawed." There's no testing of premises explicit in this process. You started from your conclusion and worked back to your definition.



If a premise and/or process produces conclusions that clearly don't match reality, is the premise and/or process really valid?

Man, I am wracking my brains trying to think of some way to make it even clearer that we need definitions to assess whether a conclusion matches reality. It seems really obvious, and I'm not sure what part of that understanding you're missing.

Let's try this: If you tell me there are no elephants in the United States, I will say that your conclusion does not match reality. If you then tell me that when you say "there are no elephants," you mean there are no native wild populations, I will agree that, by that definition, your conclusion matches reality. We can argue about whether your definition is a fair definition, and we can cite evidence to determine whether that definition is valid, but we can't come to a conclusion and compare that conclusion to reality until we establish what the heck we're talking about. Definition of terms has to come before generating conclusions and comparing them to reality.



Some players are not engaged in collaboratively creating a story when they play their characters. They don't care what story the other players get out of it, even if those other players might. They don't care what kind of story emerges. They're not doing anything to shape a story. They're only having their characters respond, act, speak, etc, as they think/feel those characters would.

To be clear, this is not to say that other players cannot should not engage in storytelling, collaborative or otherwise, or that their approach to gaming is inferior, or badwrongfun.

You're conflating the first and second definitions. You're describing the second, non-universal definition and then arguing that it's not universal.

[Blackjackg]

From 12:32pm EST today:

I stand corrected. I disagree with Aliquid's stated opinion.

EDIT: Ah, I see that you cut out the part that came immediately after, in which he provided the more specific definition and argued that one doesn't have to accept his preferred definition because the specific definition applies as easily as the general. Smooth.

[Knaight]

See, that's the thing, some players aren't giving an account of events, they're only presenting what their character does and says.

What their character does and says are events, and narrating them is providing an account of an event. If there's continuity between more than one event, that becomes an account of events, plural. That's a form of storytelling by the "accounts of" definition. If more than one person is involved in making said account it gets collaborative.

[Max_Killjoy]

Damn, dude, right up until the end there we were so close to agreeing. Yes, the second definition is not universally applicable to all tabletop roleplaying games experiences. That lack of universality is indeed obvious. Not being argued.

And yes, the first application is only universally true of all [tabletop roleplaying] gaming if you [use the widely held-definition of] "creating a story" [that is] "producing any recounting of a series of events." Which is what we're doing. Because it's a reasonable, well-supported and meaningful definition. Where you get the impression that it tells us absolutely nothing is beyond me.


It tells us nothing because it doesn't serve to distinguish RPGs from other things that are not RPGs, and it doesn't distinguish between anything within RPGs, and it also serves to actively conflate different approaches to playing RPGs.

Plus, you might mean the first definition, but the hobby has more than a few people who mean the second definition or something far closer to it, and will actively use agreement that the first definition is a reasonable universal to push their agenda of asserting that the second definition is universal.

[Knaight]

It tells us nothing because it doesn't serve to distinguish RPGs from other things that are not RPGs, and it doesn't distinguish between anything within RPGs, and it also serves to actively conflate different approaches to playing RPGs.
If you leave "account of" in the description it distinguishes RPGs from board games, video games, etc just fine. It also only conflates different approaches to playing RPGs by pointing out existing similarities between them.


Plus, you might mean the first definition, but the hobby has more than a few people who mean the second definition or something far closer to it, and will actively use agreement that the first definition is a reasonable universal to push their agenda of asserting that the second definition is universal.
Similarly there's people who conflate the two arguments so that they can argue against the second argument and act like it discredits the first. I can think of two in this thread.

[Blackjackg]

It tells us nothing because it doesn't serve to distinguish RPGs from other things that are not RPGs, and it doesn't distinguish between anything within RPGs, and it also serves to actively conflate different approaches to playing RPGs.

It kind of does, though. There are lots of games that require no accounting of events, and the stories that arise from which can reasonably be considered incidental. I listed a few of them last night-- as I recall, I said something like chess, basketball, poker, Monopoly, and Settlers of Catan. I could go on-- Parcheesi, hide and seek, dominoes, patticake, Pictionary, horseshoes... in fact, most games in the history of civilization could reasonably be considered not to meet even the fairly broad criteria of the first definition. Tabletop RPGs, along with theatrical improv games and other forms of systematized "pretend" are the only games I've been able to come up with that obviously, universally do.

Now, there are whole marginal categories of games that might or might not fall into the definition, like story-based board games (e.g., Arkham Horror). I don't really know if those games should or should not be counted as inherently collaborative storytelling. Frankly, that would be a much more interesting discussion than the one we've been having.


Plus, you might mean the first definition, but the hobby has more than a few people who mean the second definition or something far closer to it, and will actively use agreement that the first definition is a reasonable universal to push their agenda of asserting that the second definition is universal.

If that is the case, then those people are wrong. That has nothing to do with this conversation.

[Tanarii]

Similarly there's people who conflate the two arguments so that they can argue against the second argument and act like it discredits the first. I can think of two in this thread.Okay, lets be clear here then.

When you say "collaborative storytelling", are you including
1) Those that are playing their character in the fictional universe as if it's a "real person", by making decisions about what they attempt to do? And DMs like me, that primarily focus on resolving those attempts and communicate the results, thus creating in-game events? ie those that establish what occurs / happens in terms of in-game events?

2) Those that mean players and DMs who create an account of events, descriptions of what has already been established to occurred / have happened in terms of in-game events?

I initially ranted in the other thread because I'm pushing back against people who try to include #1 under the idea of "an account", because that's not what it is. When you objected, that inspired me to take it to another not-off-topic thread. That's the entire purpose of this thread. If we can establish that you are not intending #1 to be included in the phrase "collaborative storytelling", then as the person that initially objected to my statement, I'm happy to agree that anyone using it to mean #2 is using the term meaningfully, and declare /thread.

[Cynthaer]

Plus, you might mean the first definition, but the hobby has more than a few people who mean the second definition or something far closer to it, and will actively use agreement that the first definition is a reasonable universal to push their agenda of asserting that the second definition is universal.

Frankly, from my perspective you are disproportionately concerned about slippery slopes. In particular:

You are worried that if you don't fight the assertion that TTRPGs are, broadly speaking, an act of storytelling that is collaborative, then people will be emboldened to claim that all TTRPGs must be played with the intention of crafting a very specific sort of novel-like story—instead of "playing the character" and letting events unfold as they may.

You also seem very worried that if we allow a definition of "story" that is broad enough to encompass all TTRPGs—games that near-universally describe themselves as storytelling games—we are capitulating to the toxic influence of a philosophical movement that threatens western society.

For issue (1), there is simply nobody in this thread doing that, or even gesturing toward it. Some people have proposed broader definitions of "story" that drop the "account" or "description" clause, but nobody here has said that you personally are, or should be, playing the game specifically to create a structured 3-act story with character arcs and narrative causality, etc. In fact, I'd say everybody in this thread almost certainly agrees that no player should be compelled to play that way.

I see no reason to engage with a bad-faith argument being put forth by people who are not present in this discussion.

For issue (2), seriously? This discussion isn't a Trojan horse for, nor a consequence of, postmodernism.

You don't need to subscribe to a specific ideology or use a postmodernist lens to look at a group of people sitting at a table, opening a book that starts with "this is a storytelling game", describing a bunch of imaginary characters' actions and consequences to each other, and then conclude that they're pretty clearly creating a story together.

[Blackjackg]

Okay, lets be clear here then.

When you say "collaborative storytelling", are you including
1) Those that are playing their character in the fictional universe as if it's a "real person", by making decisions about what they attempt to do? And DMs like me, that primarily focus on resolving those attempts and communicate the results, thus creating in-game events? ie those that establish what occurs / happens in terms of in-game events?

2) Those that mean players and DMs who create an account of events, descriptions of what has already been established to occurred / have happened in terms of in-game events?

I initially ranted in the other thread because I'm pushing back against people who try to include #1 under the idea of "an account", because that's not what it is. When you objected, that inspired me to take it to another not-off-topic thread. That's the entire purpose of this thread. If we can establish that you are not intending #1 to be included in the phrase "collaborative storytelling", then as the person that initially objected to my statement, I'm happy to agree that anyone using it to mean #2 is using the term meaningfully, and declare /thread.

Anyone know if Tanarii is Ignoring me, or just ignoring me? Doesn't matter, really, I'm just curious.

I think what Knaight and I and several others in this thread are saying is that #1 can be included inherently, necessarily and definitively in at least one defensible and well-established definition of the phrase "collaborative storytelling." Correct me if I'm wrong, Knaight.

[Tinkerer]

Okay, lets be clear here then.

When you say "collaborative storytelling", are you including
1) Those that are playing their character in the fictional universe as if it's a "real person", by making decisions about what they attempt to do? And DMs like me, that primarily focus on resolving those attempts and communicate the results, thus creating in-game events? ie those that establish what occurs / happens in terms of in-game events?

2) Those that mean players and DMs who create an account of events, descriptions of what has already been established to occurred / have happened in terms of in-game events?

I initially ranted in the other thread because I'm pushing back against people who try to include #1 under the idea of "an account", because that's not what it is. When you objected, that inspired me to take it to another not-off-topic thread. That's the entire purpose of this thread. If we can establish that you are not intending #1 to be included in the phrase "collaborative storytelling", then as the person that initially objected to my statement, I'm happy to agree that anyone using it to mean #2 is using the term meaningfully, and declare /thread.

Just because the term means both doesn't mean that the term lacks meaning. It is an umbrella term which encompasses both definitions. Just because both styles are under the same term doesn't mean that the term is meaningless. A car and a motorcycle are both vehicles and clearly two different things. That doesn't mean the word vehicle is meaningless, just meaningless if you are trying to use it to describe the difference between a car and a motorcycle.

Speaking of definitions let's take a look at account.

Account: a report or description of an event or experience.

You describe your attempt to perform an action and the GM describes the result. It seems pretty open and shut to me.

[Knaight]

When you say "collaborative storytelling", are you including
1) Those that are playing their character in the fictional universe as if it's a "real person", by making decisions about what they attempt to do? And DMs like me, that primarily focus on resolving those attempts and communicate the results, thus creating in-game events? ie those that establish what occurs / happens in terms of in-game events?

Provided that they're communicating this to the other players/GMs by describing what their characters do (including attempts)/what happens, yes. This is how I GM (for the most part), and I'd absolutely consider it a form of collaborative storytelling. So would most of the people in this thread, which is enough to suggest a widely shared definition, which is what it takes for a phrase to have meaning.

Your two categories presented are basically two thirds of Kyoru's game play types. Your type 1 is his type I, your type 2 is his type III, and I'd put both under the heading of collaborative storytelling. What wouldn't fit is his type II, the sequence described by a varying long repetition of "Player X moves their piece according to the rules".


I think what Knaight and I and several others in this thread are saying is that #1 can be included inherently, necessarily and definitively in at least one defensible and well-established definition of the phrase "collaborative storytelling." Correct me if I'm wrong, Knaight.
Nope. We're on the same page on this one.

[Tanarii]

Just because the term means both doesn't mean that the term lacks meaning. It is an umbrella term which encompasses both definitions. Just because both styles are under the same term doesn't mean that the term is meaningless. A car and a motorcycle are both vehicles and clearly two different things. That doesn't mean the word vehicle is meaningless, just meaningless if you are trying to use it to describe the difference between a car and a motorcycle.But what's happening here is some people saying "but your motorcycle is actually a car". For example:


Speaking of definitions let's take a look at account.

Account: a report or description of an event or experience.

You describe your attempt to perform an action and the GM describes the result. It seems pretty open and shut to me.No. I establish an attempted, and the GM tells me the results. This establishes the event happens. That is not an account, it's events happening.

You are attempting to define a motorcycle as a car.

[Knaight]

No. I establish an attempted, and the GM tells me the results. This establishes the event happens. That is not an account, it's events happening.

In the fictional setting, it isn't an account. In real life, where there's some amount of people sitting around a table* what just happened is that one person described a fictional character doing something, and then another person just described what that fictional character doing something caused. In real life, what we just saw was two people provide two linked descriptions of a sequence of fictional events. Generally these two descriptions are part of a much longer sequence of descriptions, which one might describe as an account.

You're describing a picture of a motorcycle as a motorcycle. On its own there's no issue with that (if someone points at a picture of a motorcycle and asks what that is someone saying "a picture" is almost certainly being profoundly unhelpful), but you're also claiming that it isn't a picture. Worse, you're claiming that picture is a meaningless word, because it doesn't tell you anything about what's in the picture.

*Or behind screens, or standing around a counter, or sitting on the floor, or lying down on nearby couches or whatever.

[Aliquid]

Which brings us back to here:

If any series of events is a story, then everything that ever happened anywhere at any time was "a story", anything that ever changed or moved or began or ended is "a story", and thus all of reality was, is, and will be "a story".

Congratulations, you've just reinvented another word for "universe", for "everything", etc.

But hey, that's cool, as long as you can say you were "more right" about how someone else plays elfgames than they were about their own experiences.

You'd have fit right in at The Forge.Ok... so I give two definitions and then concede that I am perfectly willing to use the second meaning for the sake of this debate... and you go on and on about how silly the first definition is. How is that constructive at all? I already conceded that I'm not going to use it anymore.




That's a good enough definition to be going on with. It can also be boiled down to "an account of events" and still works.

What's happening here is people trying to change that definition to: "events". Removing the "An account" part.
See, that's the thing, some players aren't giving an account of events, they're only presenting what their character does and says.
Good grief. Now do we have to get into a debate on what the term "an account" means?

If you don't think you are giving "an account" of something when communicating during an RPG session, then... I don't even know what you think that word means.

[Tinkerer]

You're describing a picture of a motorcycle as a motorcycle. On its own there's no issue with that (if someone points at a picture of a motorcycle and asks what that is someone saying "a picture" is almost certainly being profoundly unhelpful), but you're also claiming that it isn't a picture. Worse, you're claiming that picture is a meaningless word, because it doesn't tell you anything about what's in the picture.

I'm so sorry but please pardon my brief sidetrack here, I truly cannot resist the reference.

https://d-infinity.net/sites/default/files/styles/story/public/Gygax00.png?itok=StGQLdvS
This Is Not a Gamer

[Cazero]

Good grief. Now do we have to get into a debate on what the term "an account" means?

If you don't think you are giving "an account" of something when communicating during an RPG session, then... I don't even know what you think that word means.
An account require some distanciation from the event. Otherwise it's just the event.
Sportive commentators are only storytellers for the people not watching the match. For the people who are, they're commentators.

[Cynthaer]

I think what Knaight and I and several others in this thread are saying is that #1 can be included inherently, necessarily and definitively in at least one defensible and well-established definition of the phrase "collaborative storytelling." Correct me if I'm wrong, Knaight.

That is my position. As far as I can tell, the claim that describing a character's actions is somehow not storytelling only makes sense if we are taking the perspective of the fictional character, for whom this is not a "description" of things they are doing but simply "things I am doing".

The problem is that we are not fictional characters, and therefore must give an account of our character's thoughts and actions in order for them to become part of the shared fictional world for everyone else.

In other words, the act of internally imagining and deciding what one's character might do is, arguably, not storytelling in the sense of "TTRPGs are collaborative storytelling games".* That's fine.

But the act of describing that to the people around you as part of a larger collective story is absolutely "collaborative storytelling" under the definition we are discussing, and the definition TTRPGs use to describe themselves as "storytelling games".

* Of course, it very much is storytelling in certain psychological and philosophical senses. I think we can set these contexts to the side as distractions at this point.

[Cynthaer]

An account require some distanciation from the event. Otherwise it's just the event.

Sportive commentators are only storytellers for the people not watching the match. For the people who are, they're commentators.

So what if they're "commentating" a fictional sports match in real time? A match that only "exists" in that they are imagining it and describing it to each other?

By this definition, since nobody is "watching the match" (or experiencing the game world), that makes them clearly storytellers, no?

To put it another way: Does the Welcome to Nightvale podcast "tell a story"? Or is it merely a fictional radio show, factually describing events as they happen, in a way that is somehow not a story?


No. I establish an attempted, and the GM tells me the results. This establishes the event happens. That is not an account, it's events happening.

You are attempting to define a motorcycle as a car.

Assuming you aren't "attempting" something that violates the game rules, the attempt still happens.

When you describe your character swinging a sword, the sword remains swung in the story whether it hits or not.

When you describe your character begging the queen for assistance, their words remain said in the story whether they are convincing or not.

When you describe your character chasing after the mysterious figure who slipped around the corner, they still run to the corner in the story whether the figure has disappeared or not.

I can see how it feels like failure means "nothing happens" in a mechanical sense—you tried to make X happen, you failed, X did not happen. But that failure is still part of the story. It might not be an interesting part of a particularly good story, depending on what you/your group does with it, but it's a part nonetheless.

[Cazero]

So what if they're "commentating" a fictional sports match in real time? A match that only "exists" in that they are imagining it and describing it to each other?

By this definition, since nobody is "watching the match" (or experiencing the game world), that makes them clearly storytellers, no?
The players are litteraly making it from nothing. You can't have a more involved interaction than that. The story having no physical existence is only making that point stronger : the definition of events is the experience.

To put it another way: Does the Welcome to Nightvale podcast "tell a story"? Or is it merely a fictional radio show, factually describing events as they happen, in a way that is somehow not a story?
There is a huge additional distanciation in that example unless you remove the audience from the equation. And for some reason I doubt people make podcast just to listen to themselves talk.

[Max_Killjoy]

In the fictional setting, it isn't an account. In real life, where there's some amount of people sitting around a table* what just happened is that one person described a fictional character doing something, and then another person just described what that fictional character doing something caused. In real life, what we just saw was two people provide two linked descriptions of a sequence of fictional events. Generally these two descriptions are part of a much longer sequence of descriptions, which one might describe as an account.


That's part of the point, actually.

When playing, is the player treating the character as a person-who-could-be-real and from a close/tight POV, or are they treating the character as a story element from an authorial POV?

For those who do the former, the "all RPGs are storytelling" position, especially as expressed by some in this thread, comes across very much as "You can't do that, and if you think you are doing that, then you're wrong".

[Tinkerer]

That's part of the point, actually.

When playing, is the player treating the character as a person-who-could-be-real and from a close/tight POV, or are they treating the character as a story element from an authorial POV?

For those who do the former, the "all RPGs are storytelling" position, especially as expressed by some in this thread, comes across very much as "You can't do that, and if you think you are doing that, then you're wrong".

You very much can do that, indeed the majority of the time that is how people play. The people in the "all RPGs are storytelling" position are saying that by doing that you are still telling a story. Which is to say that you are still providing an account of the character's (sometimes only attempted) actions.

I don't treat the character as a story element from an authorial POV instead treating the character as an individual with their own thoughts, desires, and feeling however saying that means I'm not engaged in the storytelling process completely ignores what those words mean.

[Knaight]

That's part of the point, actually.

When playing, is the player treating the character as a person-who-could-be-real and from a close/tight POV, or are they treating the character as a story element from an authorial POV?

For those who do the former, the "all RPGs are storytelling" position, especially as expressed by some in this thread, comes across very much as "You can't do that, and if you think you are doing that, then you're wrong".

The character is a fictional element being played by a real player. There's no way around that, and that's all it takes to qualify by the definition that's generally being used here. A close/tight POV (actor stance in Forge jargon) doesn't change that, and neither does a deliberately distant POV (author stance in Forge jargon).

Also as someone who would class all RPGs as storytelling (with the possible exception of something that is literally just a series of subsystem interactions where the character is just a stat block) I'd consider that close POV to be pretty much the default, especially for players.

[Max_Killjoy]

You very much can do that. The people in the "all RPGs are storytelling" position are saying that by doing that you are still telling a story. Which is to say that you are still providing an account of the character's (sometimes only attempted) actions.


First, I'd still question if "creating story as a byproduct" really is storytelling.

Second, "you can still do that" is entirely missing the point... some players have no interest in telling a story, and making the game "story no matter what" lessens their engagement and enjoyment.




I don't treat the character as a story element from an authorial POV instead treating the character as an individual with their own thoughts, desires, and feeling however saying that means I'm not engaged in the storytelling process completely ignores what those words mean.


Again, I think "storytelling" is something more deliberate and involved than just being the verb-form of the broad "story is any account of events" formed by tacking "telling" on the end of story.




The character is a fictional element being played by a real player. There's no way around that, and that's all it takes to qualify by the definition that's generally being used here. A close/tight POV (actor stance in Forge jargon) doesn't change that, and neither does a deliberately distant POV (author stance in Forge jargon).


And what about those players whose enjoyment of the game takes significant negative impact when thinking about the characters as fictional elements, let alone when letting "intentional story" concerns into the equation?

[Segev]

Okay, lets be clear here then.

When you say "collaborative storytelling", are you including
1) Those that are playing their character in the fictional universe as if it's a "real person", by making decisions about what they attempt to do? And DMs like me, that primarily focus on resolving those attempts and communicate the results, thus creating in-game events? ie those that establish what occurs / happens in terms of in-game events?

2) Those that mean players and DMs who create an account of events, descriptions of what has already been established to occurred / have happened in terms of in-game events?

I initially ranted in the other thread because I'm pushing back against people who try to include #1 under the idea of "an account", because that's not what it is. When you objected, that inspired me to take it to another not-off-topic thread. That's the entire purpose of this thread. If we can establish that you are not intending #1 to be included in the phrase "collaborative storytelling", then as the person that initially objected to my statement, I'm happy to agree that anyone using it to mean #2 is using the term meaningfully, and declare /thread.I would simply say that, in treating them like actual characters, and treating the setting like an actual setting, and having the two generate emergent events in their interaction, you are telling a story. Collaboratively.

I'm not entirely sure (2) is...really part of the RPG itself. It sounds like something to be done afterwards, transcribing it into a sharable work. I could be wrong, though. But (1) is pretty much what I think people mean when discussing RPGs as "collaborative storytelling." It's not that you're setting out deliberately to "tell a story," but there is a story that's emerging from these events.

It is, in essence, character-driven storytelling. The story emerges from the characters being themselves in the setting provided by the GM.


That's part of the point, actually.

When playing, is the player treating the character as a person-who-could-be-real and from a close/tight POV, or are they treating the character as a story element from an authorial POV?

For those who do the former, the "all RPGs are storytelling" position, especially as expressed by some in this thread, comes across very much as "You can't do that, and if you think you are doing that, then you're wrong".
I will say that you are storytelling, collaboratively, when you "do that." But I won't say "you can't do that." You absolutely can. It just happens to be telling a story.

You and Tanarii are convincing me that "collaborative storytelling" is a good term for about 2/3 of RPG activities. The only part that seems to stand outside it is the gameplay portion. The style of play that ignores RP in favor of characters-as-game-pieces in a dungeon-delving/combat simulator would avoid collaborative storytelling, but the moment anybody tries to get into their characters, there's some effort - intentional or otherwise - towards collaboration on telling a tale.

So I think it is, to rebut the OP's thesis, a useful term. No, not everything done in an RPG is collaborative storytelling, but a LOT of it is, especially in the modern paradigm that focuses on characters as characters, rather than as mere semi-disposable game pieces.

[Knaight]

Second, "you can still do that" is entirely missing the point... some players have no interest in telling a story, and making the game "story no matter what" lessens their engagement and enjoyment.

The game hasn't changed. Everyone involved in it is still doing exactly the same thing. It's merely being classified differently under a different (and in this case more standard) classification system. If that somehow affects your enjoyment of the game that's on you.

I'm reminded of my dad's hatred for all things casserole here. They were just the worst, as far as he was concerned. He loved lasagna, but if you ever point out that lasagna was a casserole it would somehow ruin it for him, despite it being exactly the same as it ever was.

The difference was that he realized he was being irrational, instead of systematically redefining the word casserole to exclude lasagna while making ridiculous arguments about how definitions work in general.

[Cynthaer]

When playing, is the player treating the character as a person-who-could-be-real and from a close/tight POV, or are they treating the character as a story element from an authorial POV?

For those who do the former, the "all RPGs are storytelling" position, especially as expressed by some in this thread, comes across very much as "You can't do that, and if you think you are doing that, then you're wrong".

Here's the thing. I think you are flat-out wrong about how most people play TTRPGs. Consider:


You very much can do that, indeed the majority of the time that is how people play. [...]

I don't treat the character as a story element from an authorial POV instead treating the character as an individual with their own thoughts, desires, and feeling however saying that means I'm not engaged in the storytelling process completely ignores what those words mean.


The character is a fictional element being played by a real player. [...] A close/tight POV (actor stance in Forge jargon) doesn't change that, and neither does a deliberately distant POV (author stance in Forge jargon).

[...] I'd consider that close POV to be pretty much the default, especially for players.

I will third this sentiment. I treat my characters more as fully-realized persons with internal desires than as pawns to be moved about for story purposes.

Moreover, we could go around the entire thread taking a poll, and I'd bet money that 95-100% of the people who have posted so far would agree: Most TTRPG players are more interested in inhabiting a character and discovering their impact on the story than they are in twisting the characters to fit the story.

You claim that our argument is coming across poorly to that type of player, but we are also that type of player! So how could we possibly be claiming that "you can't do that"?


First, I'd still question if "creating story as a byproduct" really is storytelling.

Second, "you can still do that" is entirely missing the point... some players have no interest in telling a story, and making the game "story no matter what" lessens their engagement and enjoyment.

Now I feel you are acting in bad faith. Show me one place in this entire thread where someone has told you to play the game a different way, or said that you personally need to change what you enjoy about the game. It has not happened, nor has it been implied.

Moreover, saying "story no matter what" implies that we are demanding you prioritize the story over something else (presumably characterization or whatever else you are enjoying). This only makes sense using Blackjackg's second definition of "collaborative storytelling" from a few pages ago: "2. An approach to roleplaying games that emphasizes equitable collaboration toward a well-crafted story."

But you know perfectly well that nobody here is arguing this. We are speaking of the first definition: "1. A category of games characterized by collaboratively creating a story." We have asked you to change precisely nothing about how and why you play TTRPGs.

So let me be very clear.

Whatever aspects of TTRPGs you enjoy are valid. You do not need to change your preferences.
However you like to play TTRPGs is valid. You do not need to change your playstyle. (Assuming it's not hurting your gaming group.)
The actions and statements of your characters are a part the overall story being created by your gaming group.
You still do not need to care about this story, as a story.

[Tanarii]

In the fictional setting, it isn't an account. In real life, where there's some amount of people sitting around a table* what just happened is that one person described a fictional character doing something, and then another person just described what that fictional character doing something caused. In real life, what we just saw was two people provide two linked descriptions of a sequence of fictional events. Generally these two descriptions are part of a much longer sequence of descriptions, which one might describe as an account.


Good grief. Now do we have to get into a debate on what the term "an account" means?

If you don't think you are giving "an account" of something when communicating during an RPG session, then... I don't even know what you think that word means.
I see. So now all communication is classified as "telling a story" or relaying "an account"? :smallconfused:

This is exactly what I mean by expanding definitions to the point of where they are meaningless and useless. You've managed to not only do it with the word "story", but now also with "an account". Kudos for consistency, I guess. :smalltongue:

[Tinkerer]

I see. So now all communication is classified as "telling a story" or relaying "an account"? :smallconfused:

This is exactly what I mean by expanding definitions to the point of where they are meaningless and useless. You've managed to not only do it with the word "story", but now also with "an account". Kudos for consistency, I guess. :smalltongue:

Would you kindly give us your definition of account? I haven't heard of this more specific definition of it.

[Aliquid]

I see. So now all communication is classified as "telling a story" or relaying "an account"? :smallconfused:

This is exactly what I mean by expanding definitions to the point of where they are meaningless and useless. You've managed to not only do it with the word "story", but now also with "an account". Kudos for consistency, I guess. :smalltongue:No, Tanarii, no... no no no. Nobody is saying that "all communication is telling a story", nor is anyone saying that all communication is "relaying an account". Nobody is saying that or even suggesting that. When you describe the definitions we use, YOU are the one expanding the definition.

I'm starting to feel that I'm going to have to give a definition of every single word being used... and even then I don't know if it would stop these bizarre conclusions from being drawn.

[Cynthaer]

And what about those players whose enjoyment of the game takes significant negative impact when thinking about the characters as fictional elements, let alone when letting "intentional story" concerns into the equation?


The game hasn't changed. Everyone involved in it is still doing exactly the same thing. It's merely being classified differently under a different (and in this case more standard) classification system. If that somehow affects your enjoyment of the game that's on you.

I'm reminded of my dad's hatred for all things casserole here. They were just the worst, as far as he was concerned. He loved lasagna, but if you ever point out that lasagna was a casserole it would somehow ruin it for him, despite it being exactly the same as it ever was.

The difference was that he realized he was being irrational, instead of systematically redefining the word casserole to exclude lasagna while making ridiculous arguments about how definitions work in general.

Okay, hold up.

Max_Killjoy. Buddy. Has this entire argument seriously just been because remembering it's make-believe just, like, takes you out of the moment?

Because most of us probably feel the same way! Getting really sucked into a game is fun! It's like watching a good movie—sometimes you just want to get drawn into what's on the screen, not think about it as a movie created by humans for money.

Granted, it can also be fun to create a story together while thinking of it as a story (see Fate, for instance), but there's a reason D&D and most popular TTRPGs have mechanics where you try something and then discover what happens (e.g., D&D skill checks) instead of explicitly narrative mechanics where you use resources to decide what happens (e.g., Fate's fate points).

What I'm not seeing is what this discussion has to do with any of that.

If you like to forget that it's fiction while you're playing, make sure you're playing with a group who like to play in-character and aren't constantly cracking real-world jokes.

If you don't like to think about it as fiction while you're not playing, then why in god's name are you posting here of all places? You could walk away and never open this thread again, and there's not a damn thing any of us could do to ever make you think about TTRPGs as stories, short of stalking you.

But just like watching the Avengers for fun doesn't make it not a movie, the fact that you don't enjoy thinking about a game as a story doesn't make it not a story.

And I don't think it's reasonable to ask that an entire industry worth of storytelling game designers and players stop calling it "storytelling" just because you don't like thinking about it that way.

[Knaight]

I see. So now all communication is classified as "telling a story" or relaying "an account"? :smallconfused:

There's huge quantities of communication that don't fit in either of those categories by our allegedly overbroad definitions. We're talking about a very narrow slice of communication here, specifically a series of descriptions of fictional events, where each description is linked to prior descriptions in a fictional chronology, produced by more than one person. That mouthful of a sentence is a pretty broad description of essentially every roleplaying game, and that, specifically, is what is being called collaborative storytelling.

Tons of communication doesn't fit that pattern.

[Tinkerer]

There's huge quantities of communication that don't fit in either of those categories by our allegedly overbroad definitions. We're talking about a very narrow slice of communication here, specifically a series of descriptions of fictional events, where each description is linked to prior descriptions in a fictional chronology, produced by more than one person. That mouthful of a sentence is a pretty broad description of essentially every roleplaying game, and that, specifically, is what is being called collaborative storytelling.

Tons of communication doesn't fit that pattern.

Well now an account also include describing events that occur in real life. A sports announcer is providing an account of the events which are happening on the game field for instance.

[Cynthaer]

I see. So now all communication is classified as "telling a story" or relaying "an account"? :smallconfused:

This is exactly what I mean by expanding definitions to the point of where they are meaningless and useless. You've managed to not only do it with the word "story", but now also with "an account". Kudos for consistency, I guess. :smalltongue:
I feel like you are being deliberately obtuse.

Both people you quoted are clearly talking about the communication that happens as part of playing a TTRPG. Players describing their characters' words and actions. GMs describing the events of the world around them.

If it will help make you stop strawmanning, I will clarify that there are certain things players communicate while playing that are not part of the story. For instance, all of the out-of-character discussions, such as questions about rules, updates on what's in someone's inventory, tactical planning, and so on.

Nobody is expanding the definition of "account". We are referring to the core gameplay element where players describe their characters' words and actions to each other.

[Knaight]

Well now an account also include describing events that occur in real life. A sports announcer is providing an account of the events which are happening on the game field for instance.

The specific set of things being talked about is by no means a comprehensive list of what either accounts are or storytelling is. The sports announcer example is much closer to the edge of the definitions than an RPG.

[Tinkerer]

The specific set of things being talked about is by no means a comprehensive list of what either accounts are or storytelling is. The sports announcer example is much closer to the edge of the definitions than an RPG.

Ah, my mistake I misread your statement. I was simply mentioning that account is a very broad word which does indeed cover many forms of communication. This conversation had one interesting side effect though, it definitely made me think about the tenses which we use while gaming. I think I may have to open a thread on that. Maybe tomorrow, my eyes hurt.

Account: a report or description of an event or experience.

[Cynthaer]

There's huge quantities of communication that don't fit in either of those categories by our allegedly overbroad definitions. We're talking about a very narrow slice of communication here, specifically a series of descriptions of fictional events, where each description is linked to prior descriptions in a fictional chronology, produced by more than one person. That mouthful of a sentence is a pretty broad description of essentially every roleplaying game, and that, specifically, is what is being called collaborative storytelling.

Tons of communication doesn't fit that pattern.


Well now an account also include describing events that occur in real life. A sports announcer is providing an account of the events which are happening on the game field for instance.

Before this goes too far off the rails, I believe Knaight is not saying that is the only thing that could be called "storytelling".

They're just saying that in this discussion, that communication pattern is the only thing we're explicitly classifying as "collaborative storytelling".

(Personally, I would say that the entire reason we have sports commentators is to translate mere "events" into "stories", but I wouldn't call two commentators talking "collaborative storytelling" in the same way that a TTRPG is.

In a philosophical sense, sure, but the whole point is we don't have to get philosophical to conclude that TTRPGs are collaborative storytelling games.)

[Tinkerer]

Before this goes too far off the rails, I believe Knaight is not saying that is the only thing that could be called "storytelling".

snip

Yeah, I figured it out. I would definitely like Tanarii to provide their definition of the word account though because I must say I am honestly baffled by what they could mean.

[Aliquid]

If it will help make you stop strawmanning, I will clarify that there are certain things players communicate while playing that are not part of the story. For instance, all of the out-of-character discussions, such as questions about rules, updates on what's in someone's inventory, tactical planning, and so on.Very clever, proactively stopping the strawman.

Yes, plenty of communication that takes place during an RPG is not storytelling.

[Max_Killjoy]

(Personally, I would say that the entire reason we have sports commentators is to translate mere "events" into "stories",


And you know what... I hate when they do that. It's awful. Journalists do it more and more, too, and it makes the articles so hard to wade through.

Don't try to tell me a narrative, just give me the facts.

[Max_Killjoy]

Okay, hold up.

Max_Killjoy. Buddy. Has this entire argument seriously just been because remembering it's make-believe just, like, takes you out of the moment?

Because most of us probably feel the same way! Getting really sucked into a game is fun! It's like watching a good movie—sometimes you just want to get drawn into what's on the screen, not think about it as a movie created by humans for money.

Granted, it can also be fun to create a story together while thinking of it as a story (see Fate, for instance), but there's a reason D&D and most popular TTRPGs have mechanics where you try something and then discover what happens (e.g., D&D skill checks) instead of explicitly narrative mechanics where you use resources to decide what happens (e.g., Fate's fate points).

What I'm not seeing is what this discussion has to do with any of that.


It's less that it bothers me to think of it as "make believe", and more that it literally and directly bothers me to think of it as "story".




But just like watching the Avengers for fun doesn't make it not a movie, the fact that you don't enjoy thinking about a game as a story doesn't make it not a story.

And I don't think it's reasonable to ask that an entire industry worth of storytelling game designers and players stop calling it "storytelling" just because you don't like thinking about it that way.


An actual storytelling game is another thing entirely, and often leaves the space in the Venn diagram that could really be called an RPG.

But this guy explains it far better than I can in a reasonable-length post (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/6517/roleplaying-games/roleplaying-games-vs-storytelling-games). See also here. (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/17231/roleplaying-games/dissociated-mechanics-a-brief-primer)

And that's also part of why some of us cringe when an RPG is called a "storytelling game".

[Tinkerer]

It's less that it bothers me to think of it as "make believe", and more that it literally and directly bothers me to think of it as "story".

An actual storytelling game is another thing entirely, and often leaves the space in the Venn diagram that could really be called an RPG.

But this guy explains it far better than I can in a reasonable-length post (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/6517/roleplaying-games/roleplaying-games-vs-storytelling-games). See also here. (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/17231/roleplaying-games/dissociated-mechanics-a-brief-primer)

And that's also part of why some of us cringe when an RPG is called a "storytelling game".

Many people cringe when RPGs are referred to as "make believe" but that doesn't change the fact that they are make believe. While you are passing out links could you kindly provide a few to the authors who say that you require the specific things you mentioned to create a story?

EDIT: And yes a "storytelling game" is now actually a specific term for a particular type of game. I would personally still put them as a sub-genre of role-playing game but a fair number of people do not.

[Max_Killjoy]

Many people cringe when RPGs are referred to as "make believe" but that doesn't change the fact that they are make believe. While you are passing out links could you kindly provide a few to the authors who say that you require the specific things you mentioned to create a story?

EDIT: And yes a "storytelling game" is now actually a specific term for a particular type of game. I would personally still put them as a sub-genre of role-playing game but a fair number of people do not.

On the flip side, I'd say that even if RPGs are all inherently "collaborative storytelling", that doesn't tell us that much, because there are other things that aren't RPGs that are "collaborative storytelling", from the way movies and television shows are produced, to those "storytelling games", to many examples of children playing... hell, even "MadLibs" could be seen as "collaborative storytelling".


For the links... you'd have to listen to a lot of podcasts, as in about 150 hours and counting.

[Tanarii]

Would you kindly give us your definition of account? I haven't heard of this more specific definition of it.

Yeah, I figured it out. I would definitely like Tanarii to provide their definition of the word account though because I must say I am honestly baffled by what they could mean.An account of something is a post-facto description of it.

In fact, this captures it pretty closely IMO:

Account: a report or description of an event or experience.
When I'm a player describing what they want to do, or a DM resolving them, we are establishing in-game events. Not providing an account of them. Unless that's the player & DM intent, in which case good for them.


There's huge quantities of communication that don't fit in either of those categories by our allegedly overbroad definitions. We're talking about a very narrow slice of communication here, specifically a series of descriptions of fictional events, where each description is linked to prior descriptions in a fictional chronology, produced by more than one person. That mouthful of a sentence is a pretty broad description of essentially every roleplaying game, and that, specifically, is what is being called collaborative storytelling.

Tons of communication doesn't fit that pattern.Communicating resolutions establishes events.


The specific set of things being talked about is by no means a comprehensive list of what either accounts are or storytelling is. The sports announcer example is much closer to the edge of the definitions than an RPG.Actually, a sports announcer is giving an account of events. Much more so than if I giving intended actions and DMs who resolves them, thereby establishing events.

[Blackjackg]

An account of something is a post-facto description of it.

Ah, you see that "post-facto" you stuck in there? You added that. That's not in the definition you liken it to below, or in any of the definitions of a "account," "story," or "storytelling" that most of us have been using. The way we, and the dictionary, define account, it can be an account of events that have occurred, events that are occurring, events that we predict will occur or, relevantly, events that have never occurred and will never occur because they're fictional.

Now, again, you can have your own definition that includes it being post-facto. Heck, even I can see justifications for doing so. But don't expect us to alter all of our definitions just because you did.

Oh, right, they're ignoring me. Could someone point that out to them, please? Edit: It suddenly struck me that there's no way my impish, jocular tone was coming through here. Apologies.

[Cynthaer]

It's less that it bothers me to think of it as "make believe", and more that it literally and directly bothers me to think of it as "story".

That's cool and all, but my point still stands: If you don't like thinking about it as a "story"—which is an entirely valid way to feel!—then your best bet is probably to play with people who feel the same way, or will at least respect your wishes.

Personally, if I was in a group with someone who specifically felt uncomfortable discussing the game as a story, I would happily hold any such discussions until that player was not present (assuming they ever happened at all). And I would strongly encourage anybody else to do the same.

You'll never see me argue against your own preferences or what makes you personally uncomfortable.


An actual storytelling game is another thing entirely, and often leaves the space in the Venn diagram that could really be called an RPG.

But this guy explains it far better than I can in a reasonable-length post (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/6517/roleplaying-games/roleplaying-games-vs-storytelling-games). See also here. (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/17231/roleplaying-games/dissociated-mechanics-a-brief-primer)

And that's also part of why some of us cringe when an RPG is called a "storytelling game".

I wish you'd posted that link ages ago, because at least I understand what the hell you're talking about now.

Honestly, I don't have time to go through that guy's entire proposed taxonomy of tabletop games, so I'll just say this: Those are interesting posts with some good ideas.

There are definitely some contexts where his personal definitions of "storytelling games" vs "role-playing games" are useful, particularly if someone is trying to understand/explain why they or someone else is enjoying/not enjoying a certain sort of game.

It makes sense to try and distinguish different games by how players interact with the story, but it goes much too far to say that games he categorizes as "role-playing games" do not involve storytelling and games he categorizes as "storytelling games" do not involve role-playing. Most games in this space involve some amount of both. Categories do not have to be rigidly defined and perfectly bounded to be useful.

In any case, his personal definitions of gaming subgenres are not the same context as when Wizards of the Coast says "The Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game is about storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery", or when the rest of us say that playing D&D creates a story. We are not required to use that specific jargon.

When we describe TTRPGs as "storytelling games", we do so in contrast to other games that are not storytelling games—namely video games and board games, which are the other types of games that the average person is familiar with.

Now, you may feign confusion because we haven't perfectly defined "storytelling" in a way that includes every single TTRPG and excludes every single thing that is not a TTRPG, but honestly? That's your problem.

When someone new to TTRPGs asks what the "point" of D&D is if you can't "win" at it, the phrase "collaborative storytelling" makes it click for them damn near 99% of the time. They get it. If it doesn't make any sense to you, you're in an extreme minority.


An account of something is a post-facto description of it.

Yo, where did "post-facto" come from? You can absolutely give an account of something as it's happening.

And even if we accepted that as true, there is no "post-facto" to these imaginary events because they never actually happened.

Consider this: In a play-by-post game, one player writes all of their character's actions in present tense. Another writes their character's actions in past tense. Are you seriously arguing that only the second player is giving an account of their character's actions, because they prefer to write "she swung her sword" instead of "she swings her sword"?

[jojo]

Intent matters.

Intent CAN matter. Others have pointed this out already but like @Max_Killjoy you continue to conflate circumstantial validity with universal validity. The end result is that you're trying to convince us to accept that subjective and objective are the same thing.

Example 1:

"The isotope Hydrogen 7 has been synthesized in a laboratory, therefore: The isotope Hydrogen 7 occurs naturally."

Example 2:

"This Hydrogen Atom has 3 Neutrons, therefore: Hydrogen Atoms are comprised of a Proton, an Electron and 3 Neutrons."

Both examples are circumstantially valid. In the first case both because a semantic argument could be made in support and because logic dictates that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absences.
In the second case because a semantic argument could be made in support and because given certain circumstances the statement is factually correct.

If I instead said something like:

Example 1a:

"The isotope hydrogen 7 has been synthesized in a laboratory, therefore: the isotope hydrogen 7 must also occur naturally."

or

Example 2a:

"This Hydrogen Atom has 3 Neutrons, therefore: All Hydrogen Atoms have a proton, an electron and 3 Neutrons."

I would be wrong. In both cases I've conditionally modified my statement in such a way as to assert that a circumstantially valid statement or observation is actually an objective fact.

This could be escalated in a number of increasingly absurd ways. For instance, I could assert that:

Example 3:

"This Atom has 3 Neutrons, therefore: not only must this atom have 3 protons it must have 3 electrons and therefore be a Lithium Atom!"

Example 4:

"All Atoms have a number of Electrons, this Atom has no Electrons, therefore: This is not an Atom; it is a previously undiscovered unit of matter!"

Returning to the central issue here. Intent can matter a great deal. It should be assumed that each individual considers their intent meaningful. But to an outside observer Intent doesn't always matter. The result of this is arguments proceeding from individual intent are bad arguments.

This is what's happening here.


But what's happening here is some people saying "but your motorcycle is actually a car". For example:

No. I establish an attempted, and the GM tells me the results. This establishes the event happens. That is not an account, it's events happening.

You are attempting to define a motorcycle as a car.

Incorrect.

What is occurring here, is that you are attempting to define other people's cars as not being motorcycles in response to those people providing you with a definition of vehicles.
Occasionally the discussion becomes confused by people mentioning trains.


And what about those players whose enjoyment of the game takes significant negative impact when thinking about the characters as fictional elements, let alone when letting "intentional story" concerns into the equation?

By which you mean yourself?

Don't make your problems other people's problems. When in Rome. Read the Room. You do you. Live and let live.

All of the above are reasonable responses when confronted with a player or group of players who are detracting from your enjoyment of the game.
What is not reasonable is attempting to redefine, by exclusion, the entirety of human knowledge to rationalize your irritation.


And you know what... I hate when they do that. It's awful. Journalists do it more and more, too, and it makes the articles so hard to wade through.

Don't try to tell me a narrative, just give me the facts.

Oh. So many things make sense now. Try googling "Hunt the Good Stuff." Or videos of cats.

[Max_Killjoy]

That's cool and all, but my point still stands: If you don't like thinking about it as a "story"—which is an entirely valid way to feel!—then your best bet is probably to play with people who feel the same way, or will at least respect your wishes.


I did, for many years actually.

And this "storytelling" fixation never came up, except in White Wolf's pretentious sneering rants about how anyone who wasn't munching angstburgers was playing their games wrong and should go back to D&D.




When someone new to TTRPGs asks what the "point" of D&D is if you can't "win" at it, the phrase "collaborative storytelling" makes it click for them damn near 99% of the time. They get it. If it doesn't make any sense to you, you're in an extreme minority.


If someone had told me 30+ years ago when I was just getting into RPGs, "They're about collaborative storytelling", I'd probably have said "Oh", and walked away, because I wouldn't have pictured what goes on at the gaming table, I would have pictured a "story circle" or a group of people trying to write a novel using dice and reference books... or some sort of actual collaborative storytelling.

[Max_Killjoy]

By which you mean yourself?

Don't make your problems other people's problems. When in Rome. Read the Room. You do you. Live and let live.

All of the above are reasonable responses when confronted with a player or group of players who are detracting from your enjoyment of the game.
What is not reasonable is attempting to redefine, by exclusion, the entirety of human knowledge to rationalize your irritation.


Except it's not just me, and as the terms have actually been used specific to RPGs for quite a while now, I'm not redefining anything.

Part of the problem here is that some are insisting that they can reconstruct the terms from the root by dragging in the broad definitions of the individual words make them up, while steadfastly clinging to feigned or deliberate ignorance of the usages these terms have picked up over the years specific to RPG discussions.

When you tell someone "you're engaged in storytelling when you play an RPG", you're not making a neutral statement, no matter how much you want it to be one. It's like announcing you're having a tea party meeting, and then calling people "delusional idiots" (see this thread for examples of that happening) for not realizing that you're actually meeting to have tea and biscuits, no politics involved. Or naming one of the continents in your new setting "Thule" and then acting shocked (SHOCKED, I SAY!) when someone wonders if there are... certain leanings in your work, perhaps.

Someone else tried to explain this, and so far has been steadfastly ignored, I don't think I've seen a single person reply to one of his posts on this thread.

[Pelle]

Max, do you have a good suggestion for a neutral umbrella term that will include 'roleplaying games', 'storytelling games' and games that are both, but not include board games? That would be useful to me at least.

So far, lots of people seem to be content using 'collaborative storytelling' for this. You seem to be offended by this, and as I agree that it feels a little misleading I would be happy to find something better.

[Darth Ultron]

And you know what... I hate when they do that. It's awful. Journalists do it more and more, too, and it makes the articles so hard to wade through.

Don't try to tell me a narrative, just give me the facts.

Oh, I hate this too. I see an interesting line..and what to know the details, but not the 11 minute drawn out multi media presentation about the story...just the details. Just X. I have to scroll through so much just to get to that X. I wish it could be more ''here is X, oh and if you'd like more see below..."



So I wonder what ''Story'' everyone is talking about....assuming there is a ''story''. I see only three:

1.The Game's Story
2.The DM's Story
3.The Players Story

So, 3. seems like the most obvious one everyone will agree on: Each player wants to tall the personal story of their character

2. Will get a lot of hostility as many think the DM should not ever tell a story or do anything but react to the players.

1.Well, this sounds like whatever one is talking about...some group hug storytelling amazing thing for the players(with the DM only reacting, of course)

So to break them down....

3.The Players Story is not much. They have a character and can act out what the character does....but that is it. There really is not much of a story, as really all the player can do is react to the game/setting/DM. The player only has control of the character, so they can't ''tell a story'', they can only ''tell the actions of a single character". The player themselves are not making a story...just a small story fragment that is part of another bigger story.

1. and 2. do get a bit mixed...the DM's story and the Game story are really the same thing. The DM is making the setting and everything in it...including a back ground story.

And before the hostility rises too much, keep in mind that the DM's Game Story is a bit open...like a Mad Lib. So the Story has a start, middle and end....but a lot of the details are left open. So yes the players can effect things, in the frame work of the Story, but they are not making a new story and don't have full control: they are just effecting an already made story, with blank details they can fill in.

So the DM and players are making a story together...but it is not an equal split. It's much more 95% DM and 5% Players. Of course people see the numbers and go crazy as they think everything must be 50/50 at all times....but reality is not like that. The DM, will total control over the game and game world, can tell or not tell any story they want: they can do anything. The player can only effect the game and game world through their character, AND only do what the DM, even lightly allows.

If the player wants to say ''have a gnome that tells jokes'' they have to, in the game world, have that character approach an npc and tell a joke. And to do that they have to ask the DM where any and all npcs are, and then tell the DM that they will walk over to them. Then the player can have the character tell a joke and the DM will tell the player what the reaction is. The DM, on the other hand, can have a gnome tell a joke to a huge crowd of NPC and have any sort of reaction the DM wants. The DM controls it all. If the DM wants the joke to fail, then the npc crowd groans and throws tomato's, for example.

Now RPGs have rules.....but not for everything...so if the game has a ''Laughter Rule'' then it's possible for ''the rules'' to say what happens when the players gnome tells a joke. BUT even then RPG rules are WAY vague enough so the DM can STILL do whatever they want, and still follow the rules 100%. And when the DM is storytelling....the rules don't apply. The DM can just say ''the gnome tells a joke and everyone laughs'' WITHOUT rolling a Laughter Check for all the NPCs.....the DM could, but they don't have too. But a player can't do that, they have to roll and ask the DM what happens.

So is any of this close to the ''Story'' everyone is talking about?

[Tinkerer]

On the flip side, I'd say that even if RPGs are all inherently "collaborative storytelling", that doesn't tell us that much, because there are other things that aren't RPGs that are "collaborative storytelling", from the way movies and television shows are produced, to those "storytelling games", to many examples of children playing... hell, even "MadLibs" could be seen as "collaborative storytelling".


For the links... you'd have to listen to a lot of podcasts, as in about 150 hours and counting.

Indeed it doesn't tell us much. Because RPGs are a more specific subset of collaborative storytelling. It's a general umbrella term as I've mentioned at least 3 times before. That is what umbrella terms do. Going back to the team sports analogy again it doesn't tell you if you are referring to football or baseball or hockey or soccer. And that is okay, the term isn't supposed to tell you what you are playing. That doesn't mean that the term team sports is useless or meaningless.

Or if you would prefer another example the word mammal doesn't specify if you are talking about a dolphin or a dog or a human. That doesn't mean the word mammal is useless or meaningless.

And that's okay on the links. Go ahead and provide them. I usually listen to podcasts at an accelerated rate anyway unless they are really well produced.

EDIT:
Part of the problem here is that some are insisting that they can reconstruct the terms from the root by dragging in the broad definitions of the individual words make them up, while steadfastly clinging to feigned or deliberate ignorance of the usages these terms have picked up over the years specific to RPG discussions.
Citation required. As I mentioned earlier "storytelling game" does have an established meaning now however to the best of my knowledge "collaborative storytelling" itself is still a neutral term.

[Max_Killjoy]

Indeed it doesn't tell us much. Because RPGs are a more specific subset of collaborative storytelling. It's a general umbrella term as I've mentioned at least 3 times before. That is what umbrella terms do. Going back to the team sports analogy again it doesn't tell you if you are referring to football or baseball or hockey or soccer. And that is okay, the term isn't supposed to tell you what you are playing. That doesn't mean that the term team sports is useless or meaningless.

Or if you would prefer another example the word mammal doesn't specify if you are talking about a dolphin or a dog or a human. That doesn't mean the word mammal is useless or meaningless.

And that's okay on the links. Go ahead and provide them. I usually listen to podcasts at an accelerated rate anyway unless they are really well produced.

I'm still trying to find the pertinent discussions again in all these episodes, but here's the link to the first season archive (they just ended season 12).

http://www.writingexcuses.com/category/season/season-01/




Max, do you have a good suggestion for a neutral umbrella term that will include 'roleplaying games', 'storytelling games' and games that are both, but not include board games? That would be useful to me at least.

So far, lots of people seem to be content using 'collaborative storytelling' for this. You seem to be offended by this, and as I agree that it feels a little misleading I would be happy to find something better.


I would love to have that term myself.

Personally I struggle with terms (because they almost always end up with implications one didn't intend) and with definitions (because they almost always end up "netting" things that one didn't intend them to net, or excluding things one didn't intend to exclude).

[Tinkerer]

I'm still trying to find the pertinent discussions again in all these episodes, but here's the link to the first season archive (they just ended season 12).

http://www.writingexcuses.com/category/season/season-01/


Oh don't do that that unless you really feel like it. I didn't mean to be a bother, just curious as your statement flew in the face of what I've heard from accomplished writers over the years (unfortunately I have serious issues with names so I can't equally provide a citation). I'll check that out over the next few weeks.

[Blackjackg]

If someone had told me 30+ years ago when I was just getting into RPGs, "They're about collaborative storytelling", I'd probably have said "Oh", and walked away, because I wouldn't have pictured what goes on at the gaming table, I would have pictured a "story circle" or a group of people trying to write a novel using dice and reference books... or some sort of actual collaborative storytelling.

And you also recognize that your personal negative reaction to a particular descriptor doesn't invalidate it, right?


When someone new to TTRPGs asks what the "point" of D&D is if you can't "win" at it, the phrase "collaborative storytelling" makes it click for them damn near 99% of the time. They get it. If it doesn't make any sense to you, you're in an extreme minority.

That's always been my experience. On this note, for those of us who are caught up to the conversation, I have an additional wrinkle to consider. This was something that I brought up in my original definition of collaborative storytelling that I later dropped because it sort of blurred the lines between the definitions of collaborative storytelling as a genre of game and as a style of play. It has to do with objectives, and may help to further distinguish between tabletop RPGs and some other games that use similar mechanisms of storytelling.

Here I distinguish between the purpose of a game and the objective of a game. The purpose as I define it (and if folks really want to get pedantic, they can argue these definitions, but they're conceptual placeholders in my argument so there doesn't seem to be much point) is the reason we play the game: to have fun; to demonstrate skill or intelligence; to develop skill or intelligence; to kill time; etc. etc. The objective is the mechanic that tells you when the game is over and who, if anyone, has won. Everyone's purpose in playing a game is very individual, but the objective of most games is built into the rules: the objective of chess is to checkmate your opponent; the objective of Monopoly is to be the last player who isn't bankrupt; the objective of most sports and many modern board games is either to be the first to X points, or to score the most points in X time.

As we have defined collaborative storytelling (first definition, for those keeping track: a style of games characterized by collectively creating an account of events), we have been describing the primary mechanism of the game: how it is played. Some folks will (doubtless) argue that it's not how they play the game, but we can set that aside for the moment. Using our definition, people telling each other what their characters do and being told what happens in the world as a result is the main mechanism of tabletop RPGs and the primary reason that they can be called collaborative storytelling games.

While that definition can generally distinguish them from lots of other games, there are some games that are a little bit trickier to differentiate. The first that come to my mind are story-centered board games like Arkham Horror and Tales of the Arabian Nights, in which players control characters (albeit not ones they create and without the necessity of developing a unique personality for that character) and make decisions on their behalf. Some video games could arguably fall into this broad definition as well.

I'm suggesting that --perhaps--, we could have a more robust and meaningful definition of collaborative storytelling as a genre of game if we include a consideration of objective in the definition. Tabletop RPGs, unlike most mass-marketed games, don't have an objective built into the rules. Certainly, individual groups running individual games can create their own objectives (e.g., "Your goal is to slay the ogre king. If you succeed, you will have finished this adventure. If you all die, you have failed.) and that's a totally valid way to play, but it's equally valid to run a game with no objective (e.g., "Here is a world. It ain't gonna explore itself.").

In the absence of a built-in objective, one might be able to argue that the mechanism takes the place of the objective. Here's an analogy: When you take your car out to the beach, the beach is your objective and driving is your mechanism. You could say "I'm driving to the beach," and that would be entirely correct; or you could just say "I'm going to the beach" with no mention of driving, and that would be accurate too. When, however, you're taking your car out without any objective, you're more likely to just say "I'm going out for a drive."

So, what about that? What if the phrase "collaborative storytelling" as a genre didn't only refer to the mechanism of play, but also the lack of an objective outside of experiencing that mechanism? That certainly jibes with the way I use the phrase, but as I said it starts to blur that line between a broad descriptor that necessarily includes all tabletop RPGs and a narrower descriptor of a style of play (i.e., it opens up the door for people to say "When I play D&D, it's not a storytelling game, it's an ogre king-killing game.").

Something to chew on.

[Cynthaer]

I did, for many years actually.

And this "storytelling" fixation never came up, except in White Wolf's pretentious sneering rants about how anyone who wasn't munching angstburgers was playing their games wrong and should go back to D&D.

So...you're saying that discussions of games as storytelling never came up when you were playing games with people who, like you, didn't like discussing games as storytelling?

Is that particularly surprising to you?


If someone had told me 30+ years ago when I was just getting into RPGs, "They're about collaborative storytelling", I'd probably have said "Oh", and walked away, because I wouldn't have pictured what goes on at the gaming table, I would have pictured a "story circle" or a group of people trying to write a novel using dice and reference books... or some sort of actual collaborative storytelling.

And if you communicated to that person what you thought they were describing, they would have the chance to clarify that it's not like "writing a novel" so much as "having an adventure", and you could continue to discuss it until you understood each other.

Not every wording is going to completely and perfectly work for every single person. That's what conversations are for. And I'm sorry that this phrase carries a lot of baggage for you personally, but again, in practice it demonstrably conveys an accurate, high-level sense of what TTRPGs are like for most people.


Here I distinguish between the purpose of a game and the objective of a game. The purpose as I define it (and if folks really want to get pedantic, they can argue these definitions, but they're conceptual placeholders in my argument so there doesn't seem to be much point) is the reason we play the game: to have fun; to demonstrate skill or intelligence; to develop skill or intelligence; to kill time; etc. etc. The objective is the mechanic that tells you when the game is over and who, if anyone, has won. Everyone's purpose in playing a game is very individual, but the objective of most games is built into the rules: the objective of chess is to checkmate your opponent; the objective of Monopoly is to be the last player who isn't bankrupt; the objective of most sports and many modern board games is either to be the first to X points, or to score the most points in X time.

As we have defined collaborative storytelling (first definition, for those keeping track: a style of games characterized by collectively creating an account of events), we have been describing the primary mechanism of the game: how it is played. Some folks will (doubtless) argue that it's not how they play the game, but we can set that aside for the moment. Using our definition, people telling each other what their characters do and being told what happens in the world as a result is the main mechanism of tabletop RPGs and the primary reason that they can be called collaborative storytelling games.

[...]

I'm suggesting that --perhaps--, we could have a more robust and meaningful definition of collaborative storytelling as a genre of game if we include a consideration of objective in the definition. Tabletop RPGs, unlike most mass-marketed games, don't have an objective built into the rules. Certainly, individual groups running individual games can create their own objectives (e.g., "Your goal is to slay the ogre king. If you succeed, you will have finished this adventure. If you all die, you have failed.) and that's a totally valid way to play, but it's equally valid to run a game with no objective (e.g., "Here is a world. It ain't gonna explore itself.").

[...]

So, what about that? What if the phrase "collaborative storytelling" as a genre didn't only refer to the mechanism of play, but also the lack of an objective outside of experiencing that mechanism? That certainly jibes with the way I use the phrase, but as I said it starts to blur that line between a broad descriptor that necessarily includes all tabletop RPGs and a narrower descriptor of a style of play (i.e., it opens up the door for people to say "When I play D&D, it's not a storytelling game, it's an ogre king-killing game.").

This distinction between mechanics and objectives is actually a crucial point. The one change I'd make is to focus less on the objective of the game and more on the motivation of the player.

Magic: the Gathering has three famous "player psychographics" (https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/vorthos-and-mel-2015-08-31), which describe "why" people play. They're not mutually exclusive—almost every player has a mix of all three—but together they cover the major reasons people have fun with the game:


Why does Tammy or Timmy want to play Magic? They are eager to experience something. They seek an emotional and/or adrenaline rush. One way that some Timmies and Tammies experience this is with big creatures or spells. It can be exhilarating to cast a giant thing and watch it have a huge impact on the game. For other Timmies and Tammies, this rush comes from social interactions. It can be great fun interacting with your friends as you play. Yet other Timmies and Tammies like high-variance cards, because there's ongoing surprise. [...]

Johnny and Jenny are the same. They want to use the game as a means to express something about themselves. For some, that is creative deck building. For others it's combos. For yet others, it is finding uses for cards in ways no one expects. [...]

Spikes want to prove themselves. The game is a means of demonstrating what they are capable of. That might come from having the highest win percentage, or having the most people play the deck they tuned, or constantly bypassing accomplishments they set for themselves.

The key here is that all of these players are playing the same game with the same rules (let's assume Standard for simplicity). They're all facing each other with 60-card decks, 20 life points, playing 1 land per turn, casting creatures and spells, and trying to win the game. Yet a Tammy may play a Jenny, and each player might particular joy in a different aspect of the game even while they're doing the same things from a mechanical standpoint.

(Let's not get bogged down in how broad or specific M:tG's psychographics are, please. They're broad because that's what's useful for the designers, but we can be as specific as we like for our own discussion.)

I believe more popular (not to say better) TTRPGs like D&D are good at pulling this same trick: Designing the game so that people with different motivations can play together while enjoying different aspects of the game.

This is precisely why people in this thread are saying that storytelling is an inherent part of the game, but each player is free to not care about it.

Consider the following players in a D&D 5e group:

A is excited to contribute to a group storytelling effort. Every word spoken, every spell cast, every sword swung is a part of the story, and the result is a unique narrative that nobody could have come up with on their own.

B is also excited about storytelling, but is particularly interested in her own character. Her character has some odd vocal tics and funny obsessions that are amusing to act out—but the best part will come later on in the campaign, when she and the DM will reveal to the whole party the dark secret that casts all of her previous actions in a different light. It will blow their minds.

C hates thinking of the game as a "story". He just wants to embody his character and experience the action moment-to-moment as that character.

D is here for some BIG NUMBERS. Just tell him what character build rolls the most d12s per session and get out of his way.

E knows the system inside and out. She's not the DM, but she's a walking PHB. She spends much of her time in-session reminding less experienced players about bonuses and abilities they've forgotten they have, tracking things so the DM doesn't need to, and generally keeping the game running smoothly.

All of these players are primarily enjoying different parts of the game, but they can all play at the same table in harmony.

Now, there are other people who would not fit in—F likes optimizing a billion numbers, and should go play 3.PF or something similarly crunchy, while G wants something more explicitly about writing a story, and should go play Fate or similar. That's fine.

The point isn't that everybody likes 5e; it's that many mainstream TTRPGs can satisfy multiple types of player motivations at the same time, even while the group as a whole is using one set of mechanics to achieve one in-game objective.

EDIT: I'll note that we're not the first people to think of this. It's the basic idea behind GNS theory (http://rpgmuseum.wikia.com/wiki/GNS_Theory), in which Max_Killjoy is a consummate Simulationist, and fears the rest of us are staunch Narrativists pushing an agenda (we're not), and behind WotC's market research conclusions (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html) from 1999, which would classify Max_Killjoy as a "Character Actor" who fears we are trying to make them become a "Storyteller" (we're not).

Like any social classification system, none of these are definitive or universal. Some of these might be useful when targeting an audience for your game, or when trying to understand a conflict between players, or when deciding what game system your group should play, etc.

It's just like how "it's about storytelling" is a rough but useful way to distinguish TTRPGs from video games for newcomers, but it's also still useful to distinguish "role-playing games" from "storytelling games" once you're familiar with the hobby. There's no ultimate objective taxonomy, just terms that are either useful in practice or not.

[kyoryu]

It seems to me that there's a number of people that don't see a difference between my Type 1 and Type 3 interactions.



Now, there are other people who would not fit in—F likes optimizing a billion numbers, and should go play 3.PF or something similarly crunchy, while G wants something more explicitly about writing a story, and should go play Fate or similar. That's fine.

I'd dispute this. Fate creates more "story-like" games, but is still mostly fairly traditional in approach. You really want "storytelling", go for Fiasco, or PTA, or Penny For My Thoughts, or something like that.


The point isn't that everybody likes 5e; it's that many mainstream TTRPGs can satisfy multiple types of player motivations at the same time, even while the group as a whole is using one set of mechanics to achieve one in-game objective.

Yes, which is the thing that RE never understood.


Max_Killjoy is a consummate Simulationist, and fears the rest of us are staunch Narrativists pushing an agenda (we're not)

With all respect, the issue is that to the outside observer, the behavior of many people in this thread is exactly identical to "staunch Narrativists pushing an agenda." As in, we've seen the exact same arguments from people that were pushing an agenda. And it's actaully fairly common.


It's just like how "it's about storytelling" is a rough but useful way to distinguish TTRPGs from video games for newcomers, but it's also still useful to distinguish "role-playing games" from "storytelling games" once you're familiar with the hobby. There's no ultimate objective taxonomy, just terms that are either useful in practice or not.

The problem here is the fact that you're using it as a way to distinguish video games from TTRPGs for people that don't need the distinction, which leads to a presumption of the second. The second issue is that using the same term for both leads to an assumption that the "storytelling" side of the second split is Good and Correct.

The third issue is that for me, at least, when I think of "collaborative storytelling" in a vacuum, I don't really think of anything like a TTRPG. I think of things more like a writer's circle. So I don't know how useful that phrase really is even to outsiders.

It's just got a lot of baggage, that's going to bring up a lot of reactions in a lot of gamers. Combined with the three issues above, I don't think it's a particularly useful phrase (except perhaps for certain varieties of storygames), regardless of whether or not it's technically correct by some definitions.

[Tinkerer]

I'd dispute this. Fate creates more "story-like" games, but is still mostly fairly traditional in approach. You really want "storytelling", go for Fiasco, or PTA, or Penny For My Thoughts, or something like that.

Indeed, a major distinction which separates RPGs from storytelling games is the lack of a randomization element.


With all respect, the issue is that to the outside observer, the behavior of many people in this thread is exactly identical to "staunch Narrativists pushing an agenda." As in, we've seen the exact same arguments from people that were pushing an agenda. And it's actaully fairly common.

And the behavior of a handful of people in this thread seems to be pushing the agenda of Tanarii's definition of story. Namely that of
My definition of story in RPGs is "using narrative resolution instead of causal resolution".

A definition which seems quite far from what I've heard any person outside this thread define the term as. It is this definition which I take particular umbrage with as it seems pulled from nowhere and extremely counter-intuitive.


The problem here is the fact that you're using it as a way to distinguish video games from TTRPGs for people that don't need the distinction, which leads to a presumption of the second. The second issue is that using the same term for both leads to an assumption that the "storytelling" side of the second split is Good and Correct.

The third issue is that for me, at least, when I think of "collaborative storytelling" in a vacuum, I don't really think of anything like a TTRPG. I think of things more like a writer's circle. So I don't know how useful that phrase really is even to outsiders.

It's just got a lot of baggage, that's going to bring up a lot of reactions in a lot of gamers. Combined with the three issues above, I don't think it's a particularly useful phrase (except perhaps for certain varieties of storygames), regardless of whether or not it's technically correct by some definitions.

My apologies I can't quite figure out what you mean by your second issue.

In regards to your third issue however I do agree that it encompasses many things and RPGs are not necessarily the first thing which springs to mind. The phrase is not meant to be used alone though. If I see something outside of my window and I wanted to describe it I wouldn't say "It's orange." This statement while true is pretty useless however it is not meaningless. The first thing which springs to mind when I say orange is an orange which the item definitely is not. I would probably say "It's an orange mid 90's pickup truck."

Similarly if I were to describe RPGs I definitely agree that saying "they are collaborative storytelling" doesn't really get much of the point across. I would instead say "they are a form of collaborative storytelling with two groups. The players, who control specific characters that they create, and the Game Master (or GM for short), who controls the rest of the world and creates the scenarios the characters are exposed to. When the players wish to do something more advanced than basic actions they usually roll dice based on the character sheet that they created to try and accomplish the task." Sorry about the lousy description I had to hammer this out in a rush, if I don't make it back have a good weekend all!

[kyoryu]

My apologies I can't quite figure out what you mean by your second issue.

Basically you're setting the expectation that RPGs are "about" storytelling, which when we get to the secondary (in terms of time) split (between storygames and other games), the default expectation is that "storygames" are the right answer.


In regards to your third issue however I do agree that it encompasses many things and RPGs are not necessarily the first thing which springs to mind. The phrase is not meant to be used alone though. If I see something outside of my window and I wanted to describe it I wouldn't say "It's orange." This statement while true is pretty useless however it is not meaningless. The first thing which springs to mind when I say orange is an orange which the item definitely is not. I would probably say "It's an orange mid 90's pickup truck."

My point is that it adds little, if any information, and the expectations that it creates are not well-grounded in reality. It confuses more than it clarifies.


Similarly if I were to describe RPGs I definitely agree that saying "they are collaborative storytelling" doesn't really get much of the point across. I would instead say "they are a form of collaborative storytelling with two groups. The players, who control specific characters that they create, and the Game Master (or GM for short), who controls the rest of the world and creates the scenarios the characters are exposed to. When the players wish to do something more advanced than basic actions they usually roll dice based on the character sheet that they created to try and accomplish the task." Sorry about the lousy description I had to hammer this out in a rush, if I don't make it back have a good weekend all!

This is an excellent example. My point is that the clarity of your explanation is not diminished *one iota* by removing the term "collaborative storytelling" and replacing it with just about any other term (such as, perhaps, game).

[Max_Killjoy]

The problem here is the fact that you're using it as a way to distinguish video games from TTRPGs for people that don't need the distinction, which leads to a presumption of the second. The second issue is that using the same term for both leads to an assumption that the "storytelling" side of the second split is Good and Correct.


Indeed. The "logic" was something like...

If

A -- "Collaborative storytelling" is posited to be what distinguishes a TTRPG from a CRPG and is generally definitive of what makes a TTRPG a TTRPG.

and

B-- More "collaborative storytelling" is also posited to be what separates one kind of TTRPG from another kind of TTRPG.

then

C -- TTRPGs with more "collaborative storytelling" are also "more RPG" and thus "better" than those with less "collaborative storytelling".


And the term "collaborative storytelling" is thus covertly shifted from descriptive to prescriptive, and every time someone who is using it descriptively says "RPGs are about collaborative storytelling", the prescriptive meaning also sneaks in.

(Setting aside the fact that for many players, RPGs are not about collaborative storytelling even using the purely descriptive meaning, and also setting aside that to say something is "about" something is somewhat inherently prescriptive to begin with.)

[Aliquid]

In regards to your third issue however I do agree that it encompasses many things and RPGs are not necessarily the first thing which springs to mind. The phrase is not meant to be used alone though. If I see something outside of my window and I wanted to describe it I wouldn't say "It's orange." This statement while true is pretty useless however it is not meaningless. The first thing which springs to mind when I say orange is an orange which the item definitely is not. I would probably say "It's an orange mid 90's pickup truck."

Similarly if I were to describe RPGs I definitely agree that saying "they are collaborative storytelling" doesn't really get much of the point across. I would instead say "they are a form of collaborative storytelling with two groups. The players, who control specific characters that they create, and the Game Master (or GM for short), who controls the rest of the world and creates the scenarios the characters are exposed to. When the players wish to do something more advanced than basic actions they usually roll dice based on the character sheet that they created to try and accomplish the task." Sorry about the lousy description I had to hammer this out in a rush, if I don't make it back have a good weekend all!Good point. I would be curious if any of the people who have a problem with the phrase "collaborative storytelling" could think of a way to describe a TTRPG with two words. If someone actually asked me to describe a TTRPG in two words, I would say "it's complicated"... and leave it at that. If I could answer with a short paragraph, I might use the term collaborative storytelling as part of that paragraph, but I would certainly use the word "story" at some point or another.

[Max_Killjoy]

Good point. I would be curious if any of the people who have a problem with the phrase "collaborative storytelling" could think of a way to describe a TTRPG with two words. If someone actually asked me to describe a TTRPG in two words, I would say "it's complicated"... and leave it at that. If I could answer with a short paragraph, I might use the term collaborative storytelling as part of that paragraph, but I would certainly use the word "story" at some point or another.

If someone asked me to describe TTRPGs in two words... my two words would be "You can't".

But snark is a personal failing of mine.

[Cynthaer]

I'd dispute this. Fate creates more "story-like" games, but is still mostly fairly traditional in approach. You really want "storytelling", go for Fiasco, or PTA, or Penny For My Thoughts, or something like that.

Sure. The exact game doesn't really matter. The point is that most games can scratch more than one type of itch, but not all.


With all respect, the issue is that to the outside observer, the behavior of many people in this thread is exactly identical to "staunch Narrativists pushing an agenda." As in, we've seen the exact same arguments from people that were pushing an agenda. And it's actaully fairly common.

Okay. Let's try to resolve this, then.

- I agree that there are people who try to demand others change the way they play.
- I agree that some of those people argue a "narrativist" approach—in which decisions are made first and foremost for their effect on the story—is objectively superior.
- I agree that these people use the existence of a story in TTRPGs to assert that the story must be the primary concern of every player.

The only part I disagree with is that anyone's behavior here has been "exactly identical" to the agenda-pushers.

We have argued that playing TTRPGs inherently creates a story, but it does not follow that the narrative flow of that story must be every player's primary concern. This is a bad-faith argument on the part of those arguing people should play the game their way.

This is why I emphasize that boundaries are fuzzy, and both games and people contain multitudes.

D&D is a role-playing game, but a player doesn't need to care about the role-playing.

D&D is a game about storytelling, but a player doesn't need to care about telling a story.

D&D is a game of rolling dice, but a player doesn't need to care about rolling dice.

D&D is a game about having adventures, but a player doesn't need to care about having an adventure.

If it makes a difference, I personally am much closer to a "simulationist" than a "narrativist" in terms of what I like about the game. I see no contradiction between this and describing D&D as a "game about storytelling", because without the story, I wouldn't be "simulating" much of anything!


The problem here is the fact that you're using it as a way to distinguish video games from TTRPGs for people that don't need the distinction, which leads to a presumption of the second.

So, let's talk about context.

Recall the OP of the thread: The initial argument was that "collaborative storytelling" is a meaningless phrase. Why? Because people use it to refer to all TTRPGs, instead of only "storytelling games" with narrative-based mechanics, so it doesn't tell you what kind of TTRPG you are playing.

In this context, it makes sense to respond that it does have meaning when you are distinguishing TTRPGs from (say) video games.

The existence of the gaming jargon phrase "storytelling games" doesn't invalidate the meaning in the first context. English is filled with words that have popular layperson meanings in addition to technical meanings for certain contexts.

Words like "force", "power", and "energy" mean different things in physics and casual speech. A tomato is a fruit in a botanical context, but a vegetable in a culinary context. In biology, a "bug" is an insect of order Hemiptera, but in common speech it's any insect.

Similarly, in the context of all games and hobbies, answering "so what's the point" with "it's basically collaborative storytelling" is a perfectly good answer. At the same time, in the context of TTRPGs in general, it makes perfect sense to say, "this is a storytelling game, not a role-playing game" as a more specific distinction.

I see no conflict here.


The second issue is that using the same term for both leads to an assumption that the "storytelling" side of the second split is Good and Correct.

Does it, though?

Because I'm looking at the front page of this subforum right now, and nearly every single thread is explicitly or implicitly about "role-playing games" rather than "storytelling games". (The rest are generic ideas/art/setting questions.) In the vast majority of discussions, people use D&D 3.5e, PF, and D&D 5e as reference points, with Fate and other role-playing games also showing up fairly often. Whenever a specific storytelling game is mentioned, it's almost always presented as something most people wouldn't be familiar with.

And yet just about everybody around here seems to agree that all TTRPGs are, in a broad sense, about storytelling. If saying TTRPGs are about storytelling actually created a bias towards storytelling games over role-playing games, surely they would have at least some presence on this board?


The third issue is that for me, at least, when I think of "collaborative storytelling" in a vacuum, I don't really think of anything like a TTRPG. I think of things more like a writer's circle. So I don't know how useful that phrase really is even to outsiders.

Personally, I don't see this as a problem.

The biggest reason is that I don't think we're using "collaborative storytelling" in a vacuum. I agree that this is a useless exchange:


Me: "Hey, ever play Dungeons and Dragons?"

Them: "Nope. What is it?"

Me: "Collaborative storytelling."

Them: "..."

However, I've had variations on the following exchange a number of times over the years:


Me: "Hey, ever play Dungeons and Dragons?"

Them: "Nope. What is it?"

Me: "It's a fantasy tabletop role-playing game. Basically a group of people each play as one character, and one 'dungeon master' controls the enemies, describes the game world, that kind of thing. Think swords and sorcery, elves and dwarves. Lots of rolling dice to hit monsters and do other things."

Them: "Ah. So is it like a board game, or what?"

Me: "Not exactly—think more open-ended. In a board game, you can only do what the rules say you can do. In D&D, you could theoretically decide to do anything, within reason. You've got a human DM telling you what the result is, so it's not a problem."

Them: "So if you could do anything, how do you win? Like, what's the goal? Why are people playing it?"

Me: "Think of it as an exercise in collaborative storytelling. You don't really 'win the game'; it's more about having your character pursue their goals and seeing how the story unfolds from their actions. Of course, every group is different, and some people just like running through a dungeon killing goblins. The point is, your DM and your group generally decide what the specific goal is."

Them: "Cool, I get it."

For me, the question of how useful the phrase is in practice is really the only thing that matters. I've had success using it to explain things to newcomers, and most people on this board seem to be using the same general definition with only 2-3 people as an exception.

Plus, I haven't seen anybody fail to recognize that there is a difference between games that have narrative mechanics ("storytelling games") and games that do not have narrative mechanics ("role-playing games") as a result of this phrase existing.

In sum, it seems quite useful to me.

[Segev]

Serious question, stepping back for a moment: What point or points are those still arguing in this thread trying to prove or disprove? What is the thesis and antithesis being discussed? And for what purpose?

Pretend for a moment you convinced everybody in the thread to agree with you. What would that agreement look like? What would their agreement allow us to move on to as discussion points, or what resolutions would it allow is to come to?

I'm getting the feeling this has become argument for argument's sake, or worse, argument over whether we're "allowed" to have opinions about the nature of RPGs.

[Max_Killjoy]

Serious question, stepping back for a moment: What point or points are those still arguing in this thread trying to prove or disprove? What is the thesis and antithesis being discussed? And for what purpose?

Pretend for a moment you convinced everybody in the thread to agree with you. What would that agreement look like? What would their agreement allow us to move on to as discussion points, or what resolutions would it allow is to come to?

I'm getting the feeling this has become argument for argument's sake, or worse, argument over whether we're "allowed" to have opinions about the nature of RPGs.


It would look something like:

That the fact that story can emerge from playing an RPG, is not enough to make RPGs or playing an RPG inherently about storytelling.

That the fact that playing an RPG can be collaborative storytelling, does not make playing an RPG inherently about collaborative storytelling.

That some players' preference for collaborative storytelling in their RPGs, does not inherently make what other players are doing collaborative storytelling.

[Segev]

It would look something like:

That the fact that story can emerge from playing an RPG, is not enough to make RPGs or playing an RPG inherently about storytelling.

That the fact that playing an RPG can be collaborative storytelling, does not make playing an RPG inherently about collaborative storytelling.

That some players' preference for collaborative storytelling in their RPGs, does not inherently make what other players are doing collaborative storytelling.

Okay. So, for you, this argument is about getting across an idea that not all RPG players are doing it for the purpose of collaborative storytelling, and that you, personally, don't want the term applied to your playing of it. Is that accurate?

If so, why do you dislike that last point so much? What does it matter if they say you're engaging in "collaborative storytelling," but you disagree? Does it impact what you do in a game to have others call it that?

[Knaight]

It would look something like:

That the fact that story can emerge from playing an RPG, is not enough to make RPGs or playing an RPG inherently about storytelling.

That the fact that playing an RPG can be collaborative storytelling, does not make playing an RPG inherently about collaborative storytelling.

That some players' preference for collaborative storytelling in their RPGs, does not inherently make what other players are doing collaborative storytelling.

The first two of those are widely agreed on. "Contains X" is not remotely the same thing as "Is about X". The third is also widely agreed on - preferences have jack all to do with anything here.

[Cynthaer]

It would look something like:

That the fact that story can emerge from playing an RPG, is not enough to make RPGs or playing an RPG inherently about storytelling.

That the fact that playing an RPG can be collaborative storytelling, does not make playing an RPG inherently about collaborative storytelling.

That some players' preference for collaborative storytelling in their RPGs, does not inherently make what other players are doing collaborative storytelling.


The first two of those are widely agreed on. "Contains X" is not remotely the same thing as "Is about X". The third is also widely agreed on - preferences have jack all to do with anything here.

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

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

Because every game designer is telling me so:


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

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

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

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

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


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

[...]

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

[...]

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

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

[Blackjackg]

This distinction between mechanics and objectives is actually a crucial point. The one change I'd make is to focus less on the objective of the game and more on the motivation of the player.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Aliquid]

Serious question, stepping back for a moment: What point or points are those still arguing in this thread trying to prove or disprove? What is the thesis and antithesis being discussed? And for what purpose?

Pretend for a moment you convinced everybody in the thread to agree with you. What would that agreement look like? What would their agreement allow us to move on to as discussion points, or what resolutions would it allow is to come to?

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

[Blackjackg]

Indeed. The "logic" was something like...

If

A -- "Collaborative storytelling" is posited to be what distinguishes a TTRPG from a CRPG and is generally definitive of what makes a TTRPG a TTRPG.

and

B-- More "collaborative storytelling" is also posited to be what separates one kind of TTRPG from another kind of TTRPG.

then

C -- TTRPGs with more "collaborative storytelling" are also "more RPG" and thus "better" than those with less "collaborative storytelling".


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

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

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

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


(Setting aside the fact that for many players, RPGs are not about collaborative storytelling even using the purely descriptive meaning, and also setting aside that to say something is "about" something is somewhat inherently prescriptive to begin with.)

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

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

[Max_Killjoy]

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


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

[Blackjackg]

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

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

[Max_Killjoy]

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


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

The "you" was general, not specific.

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

[Blackjackg]

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

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

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

[Max_Killjoy]

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

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

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


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

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

However, I am curious as to which definition of "about (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/about)" you're using there, vs which one you think I'm using, that it would supposedly make a difference.

[Aliquid]

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

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

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

[Max_Killjoy]

Well that's how logical arguments work...


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

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




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


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




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


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

[Aliquid]

I did say that. Multiple times across the thread. So have a couple of other people.yes but it took pages upon pages of debate before you said that. It would have been much less confusing for the rest of us if you started out that way and stuck with that argument rather than repeatedly saying our definition was flawed.

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

[Mutazoia]

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

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

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

[Max_Killjoy]

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


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

Like here -- http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?545883-Why-collaborative-storytelling-is-a-meaningless-phrase&p=22711884&highlight=storytell#post22711884 -- on page 5 of 14, five days ago now.

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




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


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

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

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

[Knaight]

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

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

[Segev]

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

The "you" was general, not specific.

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

Is playing basketball "about" exercise? No.

Is playing basketball exercise? Yes.

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

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

[Blackjackg]

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

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

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

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


However, I am curious as to which definition of "about (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/about)" you're using there, vs which one you think I'm using, that it would supposedly make a difference.

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

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

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

[Aliquid]

Is playing basketball "about" exercise? No.

Is playing basketball exercise? Yes.

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

Whether "exercising" is your intent or not, you are doing so if you legitimately play basketball. It isn't making basketball "about exercise" to state this fact.Furthermore, there are some people who might play basketball specifically for the exercise, and for them is is "about exercise", but just because they do it for that reason, doesn't suddenly imply that everyone else is doing it for that reason too.

[Max_Killjoy]

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

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

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


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

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




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

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

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


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

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

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

[kyoryu]

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

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


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

Like here -- http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?545883-Why-collaborative-storytelling-is-a-meaningless-phrase&p=22711884&highlight=storytell#post22711884 -- on page 5 of 14, five days ago now.

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

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

[Max_Killjoy]

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



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

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


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

[Aliquid]

I've personally said that in at least half of the posts I've made on this thread.Looking back, you have tried to draw attention to the baggage and why people cringe at the phrase.

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

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

[Blackjackg]

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


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

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

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


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

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

[Aliquid]

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

Two theoretical debate scenarios

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

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

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

Then I will notice the baggage issue and discuss it.


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

[Tanarii]

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

[Tinkerer]

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

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

[Max_Killjoy]

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


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

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

[Knaight]

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

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

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

[Max_Killjoy]

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

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


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

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

[Knaight]

Or someone with an agenda edited the page?

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

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

[Max_Killjoy]

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

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

The more obscure the Wikipedia page, the MORE likely it is to be subject to those sorts of issues, because no one else is looking on a regular basis.

It's not conspiratorial, it's a known issue with publicly editable wiki-style pages.

[Knaight]

The more obscure the Wikipedia page, the MORE likely it is to be subject to those sorts of issues, because no one else is looking on a regular basis.

Collaborative fiction isn't obscure. Books written by multiple authors show up all the time, which pulls this back in the realm of some tiny subgroup vandalizing a much more widely viewed page.

[Max_Killjoy]

Collaborative fiction isn't obscure. Books written by multiple authors show up all the time, which pulls this back in the realm of some tiny subgroup vandalizing a much more widely viewed page.

Ironically, one of the most extensive sources of how unauthoritative Wikipedia is, for this and other reasons, is an article on Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia

Citing a single line in that article is about as definitive on the subject as Tanarii citing the other search in the first place.

And the other irony here is that the rush isn't see conspiracies, but rather the rush to be smugly dismissive ends up with someone jumping on a bit of snark in a forum post as if it were proof of the person making it being some sort of conspiracy nut. :smalltongue: Oh dang, I must have misplaced my tinfoil hat.


As noted, the article is a bit of a mess, either way... the sentence right before the one you quoted says (emphasis added) "Other forms of collaborative fiction have evolved from the practices of tabletop and role-playing video game gamers and related 'fandom' activities. Role-playing games such as Dungeons and Dragons are often seen as a process to generate narratives though each characters interactions." And that's another reason I wonder just what sort of authoring and editing process the article as been through. In the two sentences, it seems to contradict whether RPGs are, or are often seen as, collaborative fiction, and then it meanders off into rules restricting anti-social players.

E: the page history isn't exactly illuminating either way, with the last edit for that section I spotted in the list dated a year and a half ago, roughly https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collaborative_fiction&action=history

[Max_Killjoy]

And on the flip side, if we are going to take Wikipedia as authoritative, rather than as informative as to where to begin our digging on a subject, then perhaps consider why "storytelling" might just involve more than a handful of gamers sitting down to each play their own character (aside from the GM, which as I've said is a different discussion) to qualify as storytelling, based on the following -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storytelling .


E: But I've spent enough time discussing a specific subject with a group of experts who've largely given up editing wikipedia pages related to their field because no matter how many times they correct the articles, someone comes along and changes them back "because everyone knows", to have faith in wikipedia as authoritative on any subject.


In this case, armor and armor combat in WW2, with myths about the supremacy of the Tiger and the inferiority of the Sherman being practically unkillable no matter how much research and sourcing one might post to back up their edits.

[Tinkerer]

Huh, actually something caught my eye a little while ago there. Might I enquire if the term "collaborative fiction" is in any way preferable to "collaborative storytelling"?

As I mentioned my largest disagreement here is from Tanarii's curious definition of story in RPGs as


My definition of story in RPGs is "using narrative resolution instead of causal resolution".

A definition which Max_Killjoy has stated on other occasions and which seems to imply that a story can only use narrative resolution, that it would be impossible to have a causal resolution story in RPGs.

[Max_Killjoy]

Huh, actually something caught my eye a little while ago there. Might I enquire if the term "collaborative fiction" is in any way preferable to "collaborative storytelling"?

As I mentioned my largest disagreement here is from Tanarii's curious definition of story in RPGs as



A definition which Max_Killjoy has stated on other occasions and which seems to imply that a story can only use narrative resolution, that it would be impossible to have a causal resolution story in RPGs.

For me it's more about intent and structure, and whether they're present. Story that may emerge is not the same as deliberate storytelling.

Narrative resolution/rules can bake intent and structure into the actual mechanics of some games, but that doesn't mean that storytelling can't occur without them, or that storytelling can't occur with causal resolution. So the question of how the rules work is not on exactly the same axis as "storytelling or not".

Another issue is the collaborative part... if one player is trying to tell a story, and is definitely not trying to tell a story, are they collaborating?

I've actually had this sort of thing happen to me, where another player became increasingly frustrated with me over multiple sessions until (as I later learned) the GM finally pulled him aside and asked why he was so frustrated. It turned out that I wasn't cooperating with the story he wanted to tell about his character... a story I had no idea he was telling, let alone that I was supposed to be doing certain things. My suggestion to the GM was that if the other player expected or even needed other characters to behave and respond in certain ways, it would be better to put NPCs into those roles.


E: regarding your question of whether "fiction" would be better than "storytelling", that depends on how one takes the word "fiction". If one takes it narrowly, then no, it makes no difference. However, while I can't find it now, there have been some discussions here about using "the fiction" as a broader umbrella term to mean "the invented and imagined elements of the game, such as the setting and characters and events", and used that way, yes, one could say "collaborative fiction" and not immediately imply a deliberate act of crafting actual stories.

[Darth Ultron]

For me it's more about intent and structure, and whether they're present. Story that may emerge is not the same as deliberate storytelling.


This was my point many pages ago. You can have a bunch of people sit in a group and say stuff, but that does not mean they are storytelling.

More so with the typical RPG, with a DM and Players: Each Player can only tell the story of their single character...so that is not exactly a ''collaboration''.

[Florian]

This was my point many pages ago. You can have a bunch of people sit in a group and say stuff, but that does not mean they are storytelling.

More so with the typical RPG, with a DM and Players: Each Player can only tell the story of their single character...so that is not exactly a ''collaboration''.

*Sigh*

DU, you steadfastly cling to the model that there're character and then there's the world. This is known as Sim World as doesn't have to be true.

[Max_Killjoy]

*Sigh*

DU, you steadfastly cling to the model that there're character and then there's the world. This is known as Sim World as doesn't have to be true.


Let's not confuse DU's self-reported "it's my world and my story and you're just here for the train ride" DMing style with anything resembling or called "sim", "simulationist", or "simulationism".

[kyoryu]

Let's not confuse DU's self-reported "it's my world and my story and you're just here for the train ride" DMing style with anything resembling or called "sim", "simulationist", or "simulationism".

Indeed. Based on self-description, his style of running games does not appear to be representative of any common style that I'm aware of.

[Darth Ultron]

DU, you steadfastly cling to the model that there're character and then there's the world. This is known as Sim World as doesn't have to be true.

Not sure what your talking about?

[Knaight]

Indeed. Based on self-description, his style of running games does not appear to be representative of any common style that I'm aware of.

Really? Because I can think of one, just not one anyone else is likely to admit to.

[Darth Ultron]

Indeed. Based on self-description, his style of running games does not appear to be representative of any common style that I'm aware of.

Well, I represent the Classic Common Style that I see nearly every gamer I have ever met use: DM makes the Story and Adventure....and the Players play along.

It's true there is the Other Way: The Everyone Group game, where everyone is a player and everyone takes a turn taking control saying what happens. Though it does seem that this type of game is popular with people that have a very different world view me, so much that we can't even associate (Like this is the type of person that will walk out of the game, refused to game with me and never speak to me again, ever if I show up to the game wearing my Make America Great Again hat.)

And somewhere just below that is the very popular Second Life game, where the Casual DM makes up some random stuff..but never has any sort of coherent lineal plan or ideas, then just waits to react to whatever the players do. This is really popular with DM's that ''don't have the time''.

The Other Way is sure really made for game systems that have that built into the rules. So it really only works with that sort of game. You can Second Life any game, but then not much happens in that sort of game. To have any sort of story and adventure....it does seem like everyone does come back to the Classic Way.

So...

[Tanarii]

Yeah... because if we are going by Wikipedia the phrase collaborative storytelling doesn't show up as a definition within Role-Playing Game, indeed in the same paragraph distinctly placing the Role-Playing Game as a sub-categorization of storytelling game. :smalltongue:You've got that back to front.
The most popular modern storytelling games originated as a subgenre of role-playing games
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storytelling_game


Collaborative fiction has a Wikipedia entry. Storytelling game has a Wikipedia entry. Collaborative story doesn't have one.Not to put a fine point on it, but this completely ignores how google works. As far as they are concerned, "collaborative storytelling" and "storytelling game" are ... uh, not quite synonymous, but the second closest match. The closest being actually collaboration while storytelling.

However, I fully admit it was an appeal to popularity. But that's the secondary point of this thread: a small group of people are choosing to misuse and misapply the original meaning of "collaborative storytelling" in a way the majority to do not, by applying to to ALL roleplaying.

The primary point being that doing that in a way to apply it to all roleplaying makes the phrase lose the ability to meaningfully describe an distinguish between different kinds of roleplaying: playing a character as a person, playing a character with an eye to the emergent story, and actively playing the narrative. Only 2 of which can reasonably meet the definition of "story". (This is not to say that a player can't be doing more than one.)

[Max_Killjoy]

The primary point being that doing that in a way to apply it to all roleplaying makes the phrase lose the ability to meaningfully describe an distinguish between different kinds of roleplaying: playing a character as a person, playing a character with an eye to the emergent story, and actively playing the narrative. Only 2 of which can reasonably meet the definition of "story". (This is not to say that a player can't be doing more than one.)


Part of the disagreement, I think, comes down to whether someone see the "why" and "how" of actually playing the game is the important distinction (as you're laying out in the paragraph I'm quoting), or if a broad and "close enough" description of RPGs is the important thing. When it comes to this terminology issue I'm very firmly in the former camp -- the term doesn't describe how or why I play the games.

Add in all the tons of baggage and the high risks of conflation, and the term just doesn't work for me at all, and I would (obviously) strongly object to having what I'm doing as a player in an RPG session called "collaborative storytelling".

[Tanarii]

Part of the disagreement, I think, comes down to whether someone see the "why" and "how" of actually playing the game is the important distinction (as you're laying out in the paragraph I'm quoting), or if a broad and "close enough" description of RPGs is the important thing. When it comes to this terminology issue I'm very firmly in the former camp -- the term doesn't describe how or why I play the games.I'll be honest, I'm emotionally invested in my objection to the label exactly because I know why and how I'm playing the game, and it has nothing to do with story. In fact, it's anti-Predetermined-Narrative/Plot, in the same way Free Will is anti-Fate. That's why I object to it so strongly, even though it's specifically the "predetermined" that pushes my buttons.

Also:

Ironically, one of the most extensive sources of how unauthoritative Wikipedia is, for this and other reasons, is an article on Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia

Citing a single line in that article is about as definitive on the subject as Tanarii citing the other search in the first place.
It wasn't my intent to make an Appeal to Authority, but in retrospect, that's certainly what it was, as well as an (intentional) Appeal to Popularity.

I hate it when people I generally agree with on topic help keep me honest, it's harder to get all emotionally invested in telling them they're clearly wrong when they're clearly right hahaha :smallbiggrin:

[Tinkerer]

You've got that back to front.
The most popular modern storytelling games originated as a subgenre of role-playing games
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storytelling_game


Pretty sure I don't. Quote from the "Role-playing game" article "Such role-playing games extend an older tradition of storytelling games where a small party of friends collaborate to create a story." Additionally as was brought up "Both authors and major publishers of tabletop role-playing games consider them to be a form of interactive and collaborative storytelling."

This is why the definition of the word story factored in so heavily earlier. Because I think that we are approaching this from the same place but with the definition of that one word being different.


I'll be honest, I'm emotionally invested in my objection to the label exactly because I know why and how I'm playing the game, and it has nothing to do with story. In fact, it's anti-Predetermined-Narrative/Plot, in the same way Free Will is anti-Fate. That's why I object to it so strongly, even though it's specifically the "predetermined" that pushes my buttons.

This is a subject which I am in strong agreement with you on if you were to remove the term story from the argument. Aside from you using that one word in what seems to me to be a bizarre manner the rest seems fairly sound. Heck even Storytelling Games are almost always anti-predetermined-narrative/plot. That is the whole point of having multiple authors in a linearly progressing story, you don't get to control everything.

In short I don't get why you interpret story as predetermined-narrative.

[Tanarii]

In short I don't get why you interpret story as predetermined-narrative.I don't. That's just the one that particularly pushes my buttons.

But playing my character as a person interacting with their fictional environment and events resulting has nothing to do with story. In the same way that living my life and events resulting has nothing to do with story.

Events are not an account of events.

Edit: ie narrative is the first thing that leaps to mind when I think of story. But I acknowledge that you can also choose play a character with an eye to the emergent / resulting story. But that's different from me choosing to play them as if making choices for them as a person.

[enderlord99]

I consider "story" to mean "sequence of events being described (either after occurring* or a after not-occurring*) but I understand many will disagree with me.

*The latter being called "fiction" and the former "non-fiction."

[Tinkerer]

I don't. That's just the one that particularly pushes my buttons.

But playing my character as a person interacting with their fictional environment and events resulting has nothing to do with story. In the same way that living my life and events resulting has nothing to do with story.

Events are not an account of events.

Edit: ie narrative is the first thing that leaps to mind when I think of story. But I acknowledge that you can also choose play a character with an eye to the emergent / resulting story. But that's different from me choosing to play them as if making choices for them as a person.

However these events are not occurring. All that is occurring in the real world is your account of these fictional events as the game is played. Hence these are not events but rather a fictional account of events. If we were discussing LARPs you would have a much stronger stance here but for tabletop gaming you along with the GM are providing an account of the events in your character's life.

One of the things in this conversation which is frustrating people is the insistence that people saying that it is a form of storytelling means that they are referring to people who keep an eye to the emergent story. That is not the case. Nobody is saying that you are doing that.

[Lord Raziere]

This is a subject which I am in strong agreement with you on if you were to remove the term story from the argument. Aside from you using that one word in what seems to me to be a bizarre manner the rest seems fairly sound. Heck even Storytelling Games are almost always anti-predetermined-narrative/plot. That is the whole point of having multiple authors in a linearly progressing story, you don't get to control everything.

In short I don't get why you interpret story as predetermined-narrative.

Yeah, if I wanted everything pre-determined, I have writing fan-fic for that. while I like writing on my own, it gets kind of difficult at times because there is no one to respond to and thus fill the gaps between moments that you want. thus pre-determined narrative is often figuring out how to make sure one moment connects to another in a logical or at least plausible manner, and figuring out why other things don't happen so that the narrative doesn't trail off in places that isn't to your plans.

like say I want to write a person who doesn't like war in a war story. since the person doesn't like war, they will try to avoid it. but since its a war story, they have to get involved to get to the moments where the person who doesn't like war can react to the war and thus examine war and its horrors upon someone's mind and what they can do about it. so how do I connect Point A: anti-war person in their home to Point B: anti-war person in war reacting to horrors of war? its the same for writing backstories really, you have to connect the dots to make sure the backstory connects to the start of the game.

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

[Knaight]

But playing my character as a person interacting with their fictional environment and events resulting has nothing to do with story. In the same way that living my life and events resulting has nothing to do with story.

Events are not an account of events.

Your character isn't real. This critical difference between your character as a person and you has been pointed out and ignored many times, but your character isn't real. They exist initially only in your head, and for existence outside of that - which is required in an RPG - you have to communicate what they do to other people at the table. Those other people at the table are also communicating what happens with the elements of the setting you control.

In the fiction, there are events. The fiction itself though, that construct made of your PC, the other players PCs, the GM's NPCs, and the non-character aspects of the GM's settings? In the real world, the fiction is something you build, and absolutely an account of events. What we're calling storytelling is the crafting of that fiction.

It might well be an incidental thing you did, but it's still something done. Matters like whether it was what you were intending to do or focusing on are irrelevant. I'm not intending to or focusing on producing a bunch of dirty dishes or a bit of egg and flour on the counter when I make quiche. I'm focusing on making quiche, and those are a downright unwanted side effect. Yet I still make a bit of a mess in the kitchen.


Edit: ie narrative is the first thing that leaps to mind when I think of story. But I acknowledge that you can also choose play a character with an eye to the emergent / resulting story. But that's different from me choosing to play them as if making choices for them as a person.
Nobody is saying these are the same, and as I said earlier your style of playing them as if making choices for them as a person is the rpg default. Consider the vitriol aimed at metagaming, which playing with an eye to the story absolutely is. It's not seen as a valid tool for other styles of play but as a terrible thing nobody should do.

You and Max are both tilting at windmills here. You play RPGs in the dominant fashion, everyone else here either primarily plays it in the same fashion or respects that fashion of playing, and some tiny communities with minimal influence (some WoD fans, The Forge) which occasionally use community specific jargon are being cast as dominant forces within the hobby dictating terms, against which your style of play is some tiny resistance movement that plays the game right in the face of the corruption of the industry. It's ridiculous.

[Tanarii]

As I said before, now several of you are trying to argue that communication at the player level is all that's require to turn "events occur" into "account of events". This is not the case.

Telling what my character tries to do, and the GM describing the result, establishes an event. It does not provide an "account of events". In that, it's identical to me trying to do something IRL, and something happening. Yes, it's not really happening. But it's the equivalent thing to an event happening the fictional environment.

[Max_Killjoy]

This is a subject which I am in strong agreement with you on if you were to remove the term story from the argument. Aside from you using that one word in what seems to me to be a bizarre manner the rest seems fairly sound. Heck even Storytelling Games are almost always anti-predetermined-narrative/plot. That is the whole point of having multiple authors in a linearly progressing story, you don't get to control everything.

In short I don't get why you interpret story as predetermined-narrative.


And to get further down the rabbit hole, here is where we can parse "narrative" or "predetermined narrative".

If we take "narrative" to mean the specific plot (which I've seen), then we're looking at a narrower objection to stories that are laid out and played out.

If we take "narrative" to mean something broader (which I've seen), then we're looking at an objection to preplanning for deliberate conceptual elements (arcs, archetypes, etc) even with zero specific plot.

Very roughly, is it using "narrative" as a noun or an adjective?


Personally, my objection to the "collaborate storytelling" term lies in motive and means, and isn't dependent on whether there's a specific predetermined plot in mind. When I play a character, there's no intent to tell or create a story, and the tools and structures of storytelling aren't used.

[Tinkerer]

As I said before, now several of you are trying to argue that communication at the player level is all that's require to turn "events occur" into "account of events". This is not the case.

Telling what my character tries to do, and the GM describing the result, establishes an event. It does not provide an "account of events". In that, it's identical to me trying to do something IRL, and something happening. Yes, it's not really happening. But it's the equivalent thing to an event happening the fictional environment.

An account is simply "a report or description of an event or experience." Exactly what we are looking at here. The word has it's roots in accounting for Pete's sake, it's literally just a description of events. Hence why it often comes up in court proceedings. Of the multitude of words we have for someone describing events it is one of the driest and most literal terms.

[Knaight]

In that, it's identical to me trying to do something IRL, and something happening. Yes, it's not really happening. But it's the equivalent thing to an event happening the fictional environment.

Which is why the account doesn't exist in the fictional environment. The account only exists in the real environment.

[enderlord99]

This (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WatsonianVersusDoylist) will be my second, and last, contribution to this thread.

[Max_Killjoy]

Your character isn't real. This critical difference between your character as a person and you has been pointed out and ignored many times, but your character isn't real. They exist initially only in your head, and for existence outside of that - which is required in an RPG - you have to communicate what they do to other people at the table. Those other people at the table are also communicating what happens with the elements of the setting you control.


"The character isn't real" is tangential at best to the critical issues involved in whether actually storytelling is going on. It's been ignored because it's utterly inconsequential, a red herring.

The necessity of maintaining a shared "secondary reality" and mental gamespace between those involved in the game, does not in and of itself make for "storytelling". Communication must occur or there is no game. Presenting that as being an automatic act of storytelling is nothing less than an assertion that all communication is supposedly storytelling. AND it comes across as a "gotcha", a cheap rhetorical trick, whereby those who are decidedly NOT engaged in storytelling are told "well you can't play without communicating, so you're doing story no matter what".




In the fiction, there are events. The fiction itself though, that construct made of your PC, the other players PCs, the GM's NPCs, and the non-character aspects of the GM's settings? In the real world, the fiction is something you build, and absolutely an account of events. What we're calling storytelling is the crafting of that fiction.

It might well be an incidental thing you did, but it's still something done. Matters like whether it was what you were intending to do or focusing on are irrelevant. I'm not intending to or focusing on producing a bunch of dirty dishes or a bit of egg and flour on the counter when I make quiche. I'm focusing on making quiche, and those are a downright unwanted side effect. Yet I still make a bit of a mess in the kitchen.


None of that makes playing a character in an RPG into an inherent act of collaborative storytelling -- which would require two or more players intentionally cooperating for the actual deliberate purpose of telling a story (preplotted or spontaneous story being largely irrelevant to this entire discussion).




Nobody is saying these are the same, and as I said earlier your style of playing them as if making choices for them as a person is the rpg default. Consider the vitriol aimed at metagaming, which playing with an eye to the story absolutely is. It's not seen as a valid tool for other styles of play but as a terrible thing nobody should do.


And saying "you are engaged in collaborative storytelling" is saying "you're metagaming". This isn't a judgement of those who want to engage in collaborative storytelling, or use "narrative rules", it's simply an acknowledgement of the fact that both require decision-making and affecting the game from outside the character.

Or maybe it's not fair to use the term "metagaming" in that way, because it has a history and carries baggage, and it can't really be used as a neutral descriptive term. Maybe it's more likely to start arguments than further communication.

Huh.




You and Max are both tilting at windmills here. You play RPGs in the dominant fashion, everyone else here either primarily plays it in the same fashion or respects that fashion of playing, and some tiny communities with minimal influence (some WoD fans, The Forge) which occasionally use community specific jargon are being cast as dominant forces within the hobby dictating terms, against which your style of play is some tiny resistance movement that plays the game right in the face of the corruption of the industry. It's ridiculous.


And that little retelling is precisely what happens when the focus is on narrative instead of facts, on interpretation instead of reporting. In that paragraph, you've taken individual things that have happened, laid out a story from the series of events, and presented that story as truth (even through it is not, at the factual level, true).

If you check the actual record of the posts on this thread, the people who've been talking the most about the baggage of the term, and the broader confusions the term can cause, and the usage of the term outside of this odd little hobby-specific sort of literalist term-of-art that's been created ("It's collaborative because you're sitting at the table talking about it, and storytelling because a series of events that you have to talk about emerges!")... have been kyoryu and I, not that most of you seem to have noticed his posts on the subject at all.

No one has tried to present a "character-focused" style of play as waging some sort of desperate resistance against the oppression of The Forge -- that's all your inference / imagination. What we have said is that The Forge and others specifically used the same arguments being used here by the "all gaming is storytelling" side, to push a very specific and self-serving agenda about what was and was not "good gaming", and that their impact on the term "collaborative storytelling" left it unavoidably NOT a neutral, purely descriptive term.


And if most players really are just engaged in character-focused gameplay without any regard for crafting a story or concern for what story might emerge, then they are not engaged in collaborative storytelling, and for them to say that they are... is misrepresenting what they're doing.

[Max_Killjoy]

This (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WatsonianVersusDoylist) will be my second, and last, contribution to this thread.

That's an interesting not-quite-parallel. Thank you.

[Knaight]

And that little retelling is precisely what happens when the focus is on narrative instead of facts, on interpretation instead of reporting. In that paragraph, you've taken individual things that have happened, laid out a story from the series of events, and presented that story as truth (even through it is not, at the factual level, true).

It's what happens when you don't try to pretend subtext doesn't exist.

[Max_Killjoy]

And that little retelling is precisely what happens when the focus is on narrative instead of facts, on interpretation instead of reporting. In that paragraph, you've taken individual things that have happened, laid out a story from the series of events, and presented that story as truth (even through it is not, at the factual level, true).



It's what happens when you don't try to pretend subtext doesn't exist.


"Subtext"... a fancy word for the observer's own inferences. :smalltongue:

Meanwhile, and with all possible irony... there's real, non-inferred, actual contentious baggage, and non-RPG specific usage, and internal-to-RPGs motive and methodology distinctions, all attached to the term "collaborative storytelling", that some posters want to fastidiously ignore.

And for added irony on this "subtext" nonsense, we've just had ~15 pages of people using the same exact arguments that were used by "the Edwardians" and a specific term that was used by "the Edwardians" to push their (the "Edwardians") specific agenda, an agenda that still has effects on the way games are designed and discussed... and you calling any concern that might have caused some of us here (paraphrasing) "conspiratorial nonsense")... which might be taken as completely belittling and deriding anything other than a very precise technical reading of the term in question here even given that well-established history...

...and now you're flipping around 180 degrees and claiming that the charming little narrative you just made up from bits and pieces of what was actually posted is (paraphrasing) "all there in the subtext".

[Knaight]

"Subtext"... a fancy word for the observer's own inferences. :smalltongue:

Meanwhile, and with all possible irony... there's real, non-inferred, actual contentious baggage, and non-RPG specific usage, and internal-to-RPGs motive and methodology distinctions, all attached to the term "collaborative storytelling", that some posters want to fastidiously ignore.

And for added irony on this "subtext" nonsense, we've just had ~15 pages of people using the same exact arguments that were used by "the Edwardians" and a specific term that was used by "the Edwardians" to push their (the "Edwardians") specific agenda, an agenda that still has effects on the way games are designed and discussed... and you calling any concern that might have caused some of us here (paraphrasing) "conspiratorial nonsense")... which might be taken as completely belittling and deriding anything other than a very precise technical reading of the term in question here even given that well-established history...

...and now you're flipping around 180 degrees and claiming that the charming little narrative you just made up from bits and pieces of what was actually posted is (paraphrasing) "all there in the subtext".

I could respond to this, but it honestly works better if I just quote it entirely to archive the conspiratorial myth making that is exactly what I referred to. It's a microcosm of everything I've criticized, and for that I thank you.

[Max_Killjoy]

I could respond to this, but it honestly works better if I just quote it entirely to archive the conspiratorial myth making that is exactly what I referred to. It's a microcosm of everything I've criticized, and for that I thank you.

OK, so it's "conspiratorial myth-making" when people are using the exact same arguments and the exact same terms, and we're trying to point that out as an issue...

...but it's "valid subtext" when you're making up things that people never actually posted?

Hypocrisy and double-standards are fine now, I guess.


Are you accusing kyoryu of wearing a tinfoil hat, too, or are you still conveniently ignoring his posts covering exactly the same issues?

[kyoryu]

Are you accusing kyoryu of wearing a tinfoil hat, too, or are you still conveniently ignoring his posts covering exactly the same issues?

I find that offensive!

Double-lined lead engraved with Dho-Na geometry curves are the least one can do to protect one's self.

[Segev]

I find that offensive!

Double-lined lead engraved with Dho-Na geometry curves are the least one can do to protect one's self.

Good grief. Just cast mind blank like the rest of us.

[Knaight]

Are you accusing kyoryu of wearing a tinfoil hat, too, or are you still conveniently ignoring his posts covering exactly the same issues?

I just went through and reread every one of his posts (unless Chrome's search function missed some). None of my criticisms apply to them, which is why I didn't include them in said criticisms. At most I'll say that the impression I've gotten assigns an out sized role to the Forge and similar a bit, but the claim that there is baggage for specific people who've engaged in specific arguments against the Forge being applied elsewhere is a totally different claim than "collaborative storytelling is a meaningless phrase", let alone the accusations of pushing agendas being thrown around left and right.

As for ignoring his posts, there's only so much that can be responded to feasibly. I've chosen to focus my efforts on the most egregiously wrong points, and the people trying to assign agendas to me that I don't actually have. Kyoryu's done none of that.

[kyoryu]

As for ignoring his posts, there's only so much that can be responded to feasibly. I've chosen to focus my efforts on the most egregiously wrong points, and the people trying to assign agendas to me that I don't actually have. Kyoryu's done none of that.

Thanks. I try to engage in debates with honesty and integrity.

Because otherwise, ya know, what's the point?


Good grief. Just cast mind blank like the rest of us.

Yes, well, that's not really sufficient for those of us that have signed Section Thr....

Nevermind. Yes, that's a perfectly fine suggestion.

[Max_Killjoy]

I just went through and reread every one of his posts (unless Chrome's search function missed some). None of my criticisms apply to them, which is why I didn't include them in said criticisms. At most I'll say that the impression I've gotten assigns an out sized role to the Forge and similar a bit, but the claim that there is baggage for specific people who've engaged in specific arguments against the Forge being applied elsewhere is a totally different claim than "collaborative storytelling is a meaningless phrase", let alone the accusations of pushing agendas being thrown around left and right.

As for ignoring his posts, there's only so much that can be responded to feasibly. I've chosen to focus my efforts on the most egregiously wrong points, and the people trying to assign agendas to me that I don't actually have. Kyoryu's done none of that.


Because not bothering to engage the constructive posts in favor of engaging posts that are (at least according to you) "egregiously wrong" does so much for the quality of discourse...

"The agenda" was about some posters trying whatever it took to apply a term to other people's gaming, no matter what it took, even if that meant stripping the term down to a word-by-word over-literal definition based on the broadest loosest meanings of the individual words, and utterly ignoring any other usages of that term*, and utterly ignoring the history of that term, and telling people things like "This is what you do when you game, even if you don't want to, don't intend to, and don't attempt to." and "We know more about how you think and how your mind works and what's going on in your head than you do." and "You're kidding yourself if you don't think you're telling stories." and "all communication is storytelling".

The reason The Forge came up was twofold: because those were exactly the sort of tactics that Edwards and his little cult used, and because that's where a chunk of the nastiest baggage comes from.

* Outside of gaming, collaborative storytelling refers to a whole swath of things have nothing to do with RPGs. Inside gaming, "storygames" and "storytelling games" are names for narrower specific type of game.

And it's pretty freaking ironic to object to people "assigning you agendas you don't have" but evidently be fine with telling people what their in-game agenda is even when they repeatedly tell you that it's not why they game, or how they game, or what they do when they game.

[Tinkerer]

Again, I go to my three interaction types in RPGs

1)
GM: "This is the situation"
Player: "I do this."
GM: "This is the new situation."

2)
Player 1: "I move my piece in accordance with the rules."
Player 2: "I move my piece in accordance with the rules."
Player 3: "I move my piece in accordance with the rules."

3)
Player 1: "This happens."
Player 2: "Then this happens."
Player 3: "Then this happens."

Few games are strictly one type or another, and most blend at least two. "Cooperative storytelling" is primarily when everyone is engaging in type 3 interactions for the majority of the game. Fiasco, Microscope, Penny For My Thoughts, Kingdom - these are all good examples.

My personal beef is the "it's all about storytelling." No, it's not, unless you stretch the definition of "storytelling" to the breaking point, and make it so expansive that any human activity can be "about storytelling."

Snip

In regards to Kyoryu's comments which mainly focus around this post I would have to strongly disagree with the statement that it is only my stretching the definition of storytelling to it's breaking point that storytelling would describe what is going on during a gaming session. A group of people are sitting around a table providing an account of the actions and dialogue of characters within a fiction. That seems to pretty much be the very definition of storytelling to me.

The only real interesting point which has come up in my eyes is the tense of the actions. If you can describe something which is happening at the moment as a story. After taking a peek at some books on my shelves and thinking back on some news coverage though I reached the personal conclusion that yes it can.

I established a base line of this conclusion by comparing it to Tanarii's definition and asking myself it seems more reasonable. Now one of the key components in Tanarii's definition is that the term story in an RPG only applies when one disregards causal resolution in favour of narrative resolution. So a person who utilizes causal resolution cannot be engaged in storytelling by that definition.

EDIT:
And it's pretty freaking ironic to object to people "assigning you agendas you don't have" but evidently be fine with telling people what their in-game agenda is even when they repeatedly tell you that it's not why they game, or how they game, or what they do when they game.

That's the thing though Sir Killjoy. Nobody has been trying to tell you what your in-game agenda is. They have been trying to tell you what your actions are. There is a load of difference there. This cycles back to the intent discussion however I think everyone established their thoughts on that and you now know that no-one is discussing your agenda although we do still have disagreements on if intent matters.

[kitanas]

The necessity of maintaining a shared "secondary reality" and mental gamespace between those involved in the game, does not in and of itself make for "storytelling". Communication must occur or there is no game. Presenting that as being an automatic act of storytelling is nothing less than an assertion that all communication is supposedly storytelling.

Not necessarily. It could also say that the inherent nature of those "necessary communications" means that it fits into the category of communication known as "storytelling", without saying that all communication is storytelling

Does that make sense?

Anything I can explain/clarify?

[Knaight]

And it's pretty freaking ironic to object to people "assigning you agendas you don't have" but evidently be fine with telling people what their in-game agenda is even when they repeatedly tell you that it's not why they game, or how they game, or what they do when they game.

That's funny, I don't remember telling people what their in-game agenda is. I remember explicitly describing it as an incidental side effect, and saying that the actions they explicitly say they're doing fit the definition.

As another analogy, consider the terms "ape" and "animal". Yes, there's an application of both terms where you use them to describe people as an insult. "You're an animal" as specific phrasing is almost always an insult.

That doesn't mean that saying "animal is a meaingless word" is in any way correct, and when people familiar with basic taxonomy point out that it's a useful category getting pissy because they dared to state that humans are animals, even when they insist that they're not.

That's what's going on here. Tanarii opened the thread with "animal is a meaningless word", most of the thread responded "animal is a useful taxonomic term", and then there's been push back alternating between "I'm not an animal, how dare you call me an animal", "The term animal has baggage, so I object to being called an animal", and "If you look at horizontal gene transfer in bacteria it really shows that the whole concept of a species is fuzzy. Therefore all words pertaining to species classification are meaningless, therefore 'animal' is a meaningless term."

Yet everyone here is still an animal. Whether or not we intend to be an animal is irrelevant.

[Aliquid]

The necessity of maintaining a shared "secondary reality" and mental gamespace between those involved in the game, does not in and of itself make for "storytelling". Communication must occur or there is no game. Presenting that as being an automatic act of storytelling is nothing less than an assertion that all communication is supposedly storytelling. But it isn't all communication. Even during an RPG, plenty of communication isn't storytelling... such as discussing rule mechanics.


AND it comes across as a "gotcha", a cheap rhetorical trick, whereby those who are decidedly NOT engaged in storytelling are told "well you can't play without communicating, so you're doing story no matter what". I'm really sorry that you have encountered these story Nazis... that seem to insist that storytelling should be the motivation and purpose of playing an RPG. I think they are idiots and wrong.

There is no hidden agenda behind my saying that "technically you are telling a story when you play an RPG, even if that isn't why you are playing"... I'm just making a logical statement based on the meaning of a word. The only reason I argue this is because you are saying that my logic is wrong... I don't care about stories or about the phrase "collaborative storytelling", I'm just defending my logic.

[Max_Killjoy]

That's the thing though Sir Killjoy. Nobody has been trying to tell you what your agenda is. They have been trying to tell you what your actions are. There is a load of difference there. This cycles back to the intent discussion however I think everyone established their thoughts on that and you now know that no-one is discussing your agenda although we do still have disagreements on if intent matters.


Regarding the bold part... based on the term, what the term means in broader contexts, and the arguments used in favor of the term in this specific context, the only reason I know that people aren't doing that is because they are very specifically telling me that they're not doing that.

[Tinkerer]

Regarding the bold part... based on the term, what the term means in broader contexts, and the arguments used in favor of the term in this specific context, the only reason I know that people aren't doing that is because they are very specifically telling me that they're not doing that.

Hmm, I'm gonna go back and add "in-game" before the word agenda. No one is telling you what your in-game agenda is. That was the intent there. Aside from that I don't quite follow.

[Max_Killjoy]

Hmm, I'm gonna go back and add "in-game" before the word agenda. No one is telling you what your in-game agenda is. That was the intent there. Aside from that I don't quite follow.


What I'm saying is the very term "collaborative storytelling", and the larger outside-this-thread contexts and usages of that term, and the arguments made in-thread in favor of that term, all gave the appearance of direct assertion about why and how other people game; that is, an assertion about their "agenda" for engaging in the act of playing a PC in an RPG.

The only reason I've been given to conclude that some posters were not making that assertion about other players and their "agendas in gaming" is their statements that they were not making that assertion.

[Darth Ultron]

That is the whole point of having multiple authors in a linearly progressing story, you don't get to control everything.

Except the Classic Type RPG (aka like D&D) only have one author: The DM. Players, at best, might get a Producer credit or something like that.



In short I don't get why you interpret story as predetermined-narrative.

I'd say as a story, to be a good story, needs a lot of predetermination.

Everyone is SO caught up on the Bad Story: This is where you just do some random stuff for a set amount of time, then stop. After you stop, you can look back and tell the story of what you did during that time. And this does not work for fiction as you will just have a random mess of ''this happened'' or ''that happened'' and then ''I did this or that''. It will be the story of what you did, but it will be a bad fiction story.

A good story, even more so a good fictional story, needs things like predetermination and details and things set up.

[ross]

It sounds like a good understanding of the nature of language informed by reading linguistic theorists like Agamben. In other words, yes, and get over it.

Agamben's a moron and post-modernism is trash :)


Put a mystery to solve,

That's a story


or an enemy infiltrator to uncover,

That's also a story


or an artifact to recover,

That's a story too

[Tinkerer]

What I'm saying is the very term "collaborative storytelling", and the larger outside-this-thread contexts and usages of that term, and the arguments made in-thread in favor of that term, all gave the appearance of direct assertion about why and how other people game; that is, an assertion about their "agenda" for engaging in the act of playing a PC in an RPG.

The only reason I've been given to conclude that some posters were not making that assertion about other players and their "agendas in gaming" is their statements that they were not making that assertion.

Hmm, I know it's against the rules to pull from another thread however does that apply if I ask your permission?

[Max_Killjoy]

That's a story



That's also a story



That's a story too



Not unless they're structured into actual stories.

Or you're claiming that the real world is also comprised entirely of stories.

At which point you've reduced the word "story" to uselessness through ubiquity.

[ross]

Not unless they're structured into actual stories.

Or you're claiming that the real world is also comprised entirely of stories.

At which point you've reduced the word "story" to uselessness through ubiquity.

Nope, it's ubiquitous and useful.

[Max_Killjoy]

Nope, it's ubiquitous and useful.

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

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

[Lord Raziere]

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

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

welcome to being the lone/two arguer of your lone unpopular point, Max.

your argue and you argue your point, but then a new person with the popular point comes up and starts it all over again. this is why I recommend you give up, save yourself the trouble. you'll get tired of this eventually, better give up while you can still bow out gracefully in these kinds of threads.

[Tinkerer]

welcome to being the lone/two arguer of your lone unpopular point, Max.

your argue and you argue your point, but then a new person with the popular point comes up and starts it all over again. this is why I recommend you give up, save yourself the trouble. you'll get tired of this eventually, better give up while you can still bow out gracefully in these kinds of threads.

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

[Lord Raziere]

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

Which is kind of my point. you argue for too long on something minuscule and stupid like this, you start annoying people more than having a conversation with them, which can only make you enemies, and making enemies is never good, especially when they otherwise agree with you on other things.

[Aliquid]

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

[Mutazoia]

welcome to being the lone/two arguer of your lone unpopular point, Max.

your argue and you argue your point, but then a new person with the popular point comes up and starts it all over again. this is why I recommend you give up, save yourself the trouble. you'll get tired of this eventually, better give up while you can still bow out gracefully in these kinds of threads.

Max and Cosi should go on a date...but then I would be horrified of any resulting love-children :smallbiggrin:

[Florian]

Not unless they're structured into actual stories.

Or you're claiming that the real world is also comprised entirely of stories.

At which point you've reduced the word "story" to uselessness through ubiquity.

The real world tends to generate "history", not "story". Note the relation of the words.

Context matters here. I can accept your position under the stipulation that there're some gaming styles that are more focused on exploration of a fictional world and those will indeed inly generate history, not story. But I think that those styles are far less common than the ones that are based on exploration of a story. Note the difference between the setting being the game in contrast to the story being the game and the setting only being the background and facilitator to it.

[Lord Raziere]

Max and Cosi should go on a date...but then I would be horrified of any resulting love-children :smallbiggrin:

A stubborn being who endlessly argues for both imbalance AND real world simulationism? :smalleek: That would be horrifying, at least it would be unlikely for them to end up in any position of power, that would be too inconsistent for both of them! After all, they'd have tell so many lies, and for the life of me I can't imagine either of them lying at all, they're so aggressively honest. :smallbiggrin:

[Darth Ultron]

welcome to being the lone/two arguer of your lone unpopular point, Max.



I know this well myself.


I'll say again: to just tell the sequence of events that happened for a set time is the worst and lowest possible type of story. Just barley counting as a story. So, sure, at the very, very, very bottom of the types of stories is the ''this is what I did Friday'' types. This type of story takes no skill, talent and very little effort. And nearly all the time it will be dull, boring and uninteresting. All most all the time: exciting, engaging and interesting things simply do not happen. Though it's popular as anyone, and again with no skill or talent or anything else, can tell the story of what happened for a set time.

But telling at tale is a story like a bread and water is a meal. You can have bread and water for a meal, and it does count as a meal...same way telling a tale counts as a story.

Now, a Real Story (like a feast) needs preparation and an outline, and rails, and all sorts of things. A Real Story has a propose: to tell ''something'' for a reason. A Real Story has a start and middle and end. And maybe most of all, a story is controlled/set up/created/ and made for things to happen.

[Mutazoia]

The real world tends to generate "history", not "story". Note the relation of the words.

After several years of Naval service, traveling all over Asia and the South Pacific, the stories I could tell you could fill volumes.

History IS stories...History is the collection of stories from the many peoples and events, that all come together at random place, at a random time, and combine into a story larger than the sum if it's parts.

Sit down and watch "A Band of Brothers."

You get the stories of the individual soldiers.
You get the stories of the entire unit.
You get the stories of the places they visit, and the people they encounter.
All of those combine, and you get the story of various theaters of action during WW2.
Combine all of the stories of the various theaters of acting during WW2, and you get History.
History is nothing more than a story that has grown so big, it out lives, and becomes bigger than, the people and places that took part in them

For ages, before man started writing things down, history was told to new generations as stories, heroic lays, songs.... Just because you take a lot of the excitement out if a story, and just tell the bare facts, doesn't make it any less of a story.

[drakir_nosslin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tanarii]

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


I can say the same thing.
Hey, I'll take that as a good sign. :)

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

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

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

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

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

[ImNotTrevor]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Aliquid]

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

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

Why do you find "RPGs are about collaborative storytelling", used as a universal thing that all RPG play either participates in, or requires, or is done by every player just by playing their character, to be a useful and meaningful application of the term "collaborative storytelling"?Short answer? I don't.

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

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

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

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

[Florian]

@Aliquid:

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

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

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

[Aliquid]

@Aliquid:

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

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

That, tho, seems to be the key difference in this discussion, maybe also add ego to it.Well I think that hints at the biggest problem for Tanarii and Max. To follow your golf analogy, it might suggest that if they don't play an RPG for the story, then they are no "true roleplayer", and from what I have read that is offensive to them (and understandably so)

[Knaight]

For what it's worth I'm in complete agreement with them on everything except the definition of "storytelling" and "story". And "account" apparently... and a few of the digressions. Unfortunately when the definition of collaborative storytelling is the point of the thread that doesn't really account for much. They are a trio though.
I'm pretty much in a similar place, although I'm totally fine with a metagame heavy author stance approach. I don't use it much, but I've got no beef. I'd also disagree regarding the extent to which various factions actually have influence over the industry/hobby.


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

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

My intention is to ask about the converse of my contention, that using it in this way strips it of meaningful and useful context and definition, making it too broadly applicable to tell you anything about playing the game. Ie describing different play styles.
Useful and meaningful are two separate questions here. I'd consider the term meaningful because it generally exists as a cohesive category - and RPGs aren't particularly relevant to that question. If nobody ever came up with the idea it would still be a meaningful term.

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

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

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


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

[Max_Killjoy]

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


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

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

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

[Florian]

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

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

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

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

[Knaight]

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

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

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

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

That's what's going on here.

[Tinkerer]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

[Max_Killjoy]

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

That's what's going on here.


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

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

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

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


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



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

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

[Max_Killjoy]

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


Storytelling games / storygames (see here (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/6517/roleplaying-games/roleplaying-games-vs-storytelling-games)) lean towards and sometimes cross into "too far".

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

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




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

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

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


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




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


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

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

[Aliquid]

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

That's what's going on here.Actually, I agree with Max_Killjoy on this one.

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

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

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

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



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


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


the broader usages of "collaborative storytelling" that have nothing to do with RPGs
the narrower usage of "collaborative storytelling" within the RPG hobby for a specific subtype (or related type) of game
the history of the term within RPG gameplay and design theory discussion
the untrue implications it has regarding the "why" and "how" of some RPG participants
Before this thread:
If someone said "hey, I like hack and slash games where I only care about treasure and levelling up. I don't think 'collaborative storytelling' is a good description of that"... I would have said "fair point".

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


It is no more helpful, useful, or informative to describe all RPG gameplay as "collaborative storytelling" than it is describe someone standing on the third floor of a building as "high as a kite". I would say that it is very useful for some styles of play, vaguely useful for other styles of play, and completely useless for the remaining styles of play.


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


Yeah, technically, with a very precisely chosen usage of the words, anyone playing an RPG is engaged in "collaborative storytelling"...
That's all I needed to hear to make me shut up and back off.

[Max_Killjoy]

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

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

In some cases, this “search for a label” has been about raising a fence so that people can tack up crude “KEEP OUT” signs. I don’t find that particularly useful. But as an aficionado of Scott McCloud’s Understanding Comics (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/006097625X/digitalcomi0a-20), I also understand the power of proper definitions: They allow us to focus our discussion and achieve a better understanding of the topic. But by giving us a firm foundation, they also set us free to experiment fully within the form.

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




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


E: also, I really hope that those who are looking for a deeper understanding of why the topic of this thread is so contentious for some of us will read that essay (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/6517/roleplaying-games/roleplaying-games-vs-storytelling-games) in full. And this one: https://refereeingandreflection.wordpress.com/2014/12/22/remembering-the-forge/ (https://refereeingandreflection.wordpress.com/2014/12/22/remembering-the-forge/)

[Tinkerer]

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

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

[Knaight]

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

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

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

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

[BoringInfoGuy]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Raziere]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Florian]

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

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

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

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