Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 5756917" data-attributes="member: 3192">I also see collaborative storytelling as a kind of &quot;one true wayism&quot; in the hobby at the moment. Collaboration isn't bad, but its hardly the only means in which to engage in a game with others. For a start there are competitive games and cooperative games too. Competitive is its own thing, but to differentiate between collaborative and cooperative:Collaboration is normally a rule of a game or enterprise. If we stop collaborating in a joint storytelling venture, then we're no longer working together. We might each be storytelling individually, but we're no longer bothering to do it with other people. The upside is the collaborative expectation defines the borders of our working together before beginning and trust is built into their transparency. Some downsides are that these definitions limit our understood engagement as well as make expanding it an all or nothing choice. For games, the game is over if we choose to stop collaborating.In cooperative enterprises we a joint harmony with other people, but it can change. And, perhaps most importantly, the choice to cooperate or not is the major theme. In cooperative games each player is repeatedly in the position to choose whether or not to cooperate with one or more of the other players. However, if they choose to go alone, the game still continues. Plenty of boardgames are like this, where the objective of the game is set for a group, but the players can choose to work together or not throughout play. If you believe everyone else's plans are going to lead us all off a cliff, then you can act differently without necessarily divorcing one's actions from the group's goals. One could even have a separate, personal goal with each choice then being about how to give and take within the group for the achievement of those individual objectives.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="howandwhy99, post: 5756917, member: 3192"] I also see collaborative storytelling as a kind of "one true wayism" in the hobby at the moment. Collaboration isn't bad, but its hardly the only means in which to engage in a game with others. For a start there are competitive games and cooperative games too. Competitive is its own thing, but to differentiate between collaborative and cooperative: Collaboration is normally a rule of a game or enterprise. If we stop collaborating in a joint storytelling venture, then we're no longer working together. We might each be storytelling individually, but we're no longer bothering to do it with other people. The upside is the collaborative expectation defines the borders of our working together before beginning and trust is built into their transparency. Some downsides are that these definitions limit our understood engagement as well as make expanding it an all or nothing choice. For games, the game is over if we choose to stop collaborating. In cooperative enterprises we a joint harmony with other people, but it can change. And, perhaps most importantly, the choice to cooperate or not is the major theme. In cooperative games each player is repeatedly in the position to choose whether or not to cooperate with one or more of the other players. However, if they choose to go alone, the game still continues. Plenty of boardgames are like this, where the objective of the game is set for a group, but the players can choose to work together or not throughout play. If you believe everyone else's plans are going to lead us all off a cliff, then you can act differently without necessarily divorcing one's actions from the group's goals. One could even have a separate, personal goal with each choice then being about how to give and take within the group for the achievement of those individual objectives. [/QUOTE]

Verification