A Question Of Agency?

[hawkeyefan]

I tend to avoid that particular term as enormously loaded. Not that it isn't broadly accurate, but it tends to cause more arguments than it solves for some reason. IDK, maybe collaborative make-believe?

Right, I’m not crazy about the term either, but I just don’t see the distinction being made given that it can be applied to any RPG I can think of.

I’m responding to this idea not to argue definitions because I think we’ve done that enough, but instead because I think this was said in relation to the goals of play, or perhaps the focus of play, and how they may be different, depending on the game.

 

[Fenris-77]

Right, I’m not crazy about the term either, but I just don’t see the distinction being made given that it can be applied to any RPG I can think of.

I’m responding to this idea not to argue definitions because I think we’ve done that enough, but instead because I think this was said in relation to the goals of play, or perhaps the focus of play, and how they may be different, depending on the game.

I don't have any problem with the term personally, but I've seen a lot of pretty heated responses to it from time to time, mostly from more traditional types. Anyway, I'm not trying to hack out another definitional debate here, just putting in my two cents about how divisive the term has proven to be in other discussions.

 

[aramis erak]

So, is there a RPG that isn’t on some level an exercise in collaborative storytelling?

Several - but they're very limited systems intended for use in gamebooks. The story is already 90% written in the solo-module, and the game rules are used to fill out that 10%, usually with combat.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't have any problem with the term personally, but I've seen a lot of pretty heated responses to it from time to time, mostly from more traditional types. Anyway, I'm not trying to hack out another definitional debate here, just putting in my two cents about how divisive the term has proven to be in other discussions.

A better division would be to look at what's being advocated for by players -- is it telling an interesting story or is it advancing the character's agendas? The way these are actualized in play goes further towards the distinction trying to be made by the loosely fit "storygame," and have much better resolution in analysis of play.

For instance, I think there's quite a lot of story advocacy in party play, because there's the inherent limitation on actions that "go against" the party. This is advocating for something other than character advocacy, and is used to make sure that the story that forms is about the party. It's a mild form of story advocacy, especially compared to others, but it's present nonetheless. Which is a weird dichotomy in how these games are often portrayed as being rooted in playing from within the character -- so long as that character works with the group, that is.

 

[prabe]

I tend to avoid that particular term as enormously loaded. Not that it isn't broadly accurate, but it tends to cause more arguments than it solves for some reason. IDK, maybe collaborative make-believe?

Agreed about avoiding "collaborative storytelling." Part of it is that the table isn't just telling the story, and they're not even exactly writing it--there's some portion of being an audience in the mix; part of it is that in most TRPGs the story emerges through the processes of play, so it's different in important ways from authored fiction. The problem is, there's not a good word (or phrase even) in English that sums it up concisely.

 

[Lanefan]

A player can't have his PC find his brother [alive] if the GM has decided already that the brother is dead.

You keep saying this, yet you leave out the one word you seem to be assuming (which I've taken the liberty of plugging in).

Sure the PC can learn the brother is dead, but if the PC is persistent and-or stubborn enough that's not the end of things. I mean, any of the following are possible and this is just an off-the-cuff list:

--- if such magic exists in the setting, something like Speak With Dead can be used to communicate with the brother, albeit briefly
--- if revival magic exists in the setting the PC can get the brother brought back to life
--- the PC can do whatever is needed to somehow journey to the land of the dead and find the brother there (and possibly generate several good adventures on the way in so doing!).

 

[Fenris-77]

I think it's also possibly for story and character advocacy to exist quite happily in a party that's sewn tight by connections and relationships from the get go, and playing a game where the teleos was already well established, either by genre or common interest. It depends on the table. You point is well taken though, there are different axes of advocacy at work in any game.

 

[FrogReaver]

Right, I’m not crazy about the term either, but I just don’t see the distinction being made given that it can be applied to any RPG I can think of.

I’m responding to this idea not to argue definitions because I think we’ve done that enough, but instead because I think this was said in relation to the goals of play, or perhaps the focus of play, and how they may be different, depending on the game.

Focus of play I think it was. I agree it’s true of all rpgs to some extent. I tend to think of story now games having a bit more of this than other styles because the input they give players into establishing what the successful outcome is. May just be perspective though.

I think focus of play for story now is definitely better described by exploring the character or setting up dramatic situations to learn about the character.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't have any problem with the term personally, but I've seen a lot of pretty heated responses to it from time to time, mostly from more traditional types. Anyway, I'm not trying to hack out another definitional debate here, just putting in my two cents about how divisive the term has proven to be in other discussions.

Yeah, it doesn’t necessarily bother me personally, but I recognize it as a bit loaded to some folks.

In this case, I don’t think it’s the term so much as the idea that it’s the goal itself for some games but not for others.

Especially when, from many examples provided, often those who say storytelling isn’t their goal are eschewing actual game mechanics.

In that sense, storytelling seems almost foundational for that approach. Seems odd to then say that it’s not a goal of play.

 

[prabe]

A better division would be to look at what's being advocated for by players -- is it telling an interesting story or is it advancing the character's agendas? The way these are actualized in play goes further towards the distinction trying to be made by the loosely fit "storygame," and have much better resolution in analysis of play.

For instance, I think there's quite a lot of story advocacy in party play, because there's the inherent limitation on actions that "go against" the party. This is advocating for something other than character advocacy, and is used to make sure that the story that forms is about the party. It's a mild form of story advocacy, especially compared to others, but it's present nonetheless. Which is a weird dichotomy in how these games are often portrayed as being rooted in playing from within the character -- so long as that character works with the group, that is.

I agree with @Fenris-77 that the dichotomy between "telling an interesting story" and "advancing the characters' agendas" isn't so stark as you seem to imply here. There's absolutely nothing that says you can't tell interesting stories by advancing the characters' agendas. I mean, if a GM (or publisher) writes an "interesting story" in the form of an Adventure Path, there's not likely to be much if any consideration of any individual character's (or a given party's) agenda, but that's a specific type of play.