### 1. The Misuse of "Blocking" in Improv
The person you're responding to argues that the term "blocking" in the improv context is limiting, and instead proposes using it to refer to "orientation" or "positioning" in RPGs. However, this is problematic for several reasons:
- "Blocking" in improv specifically refers to rejecting or halting another participant’s contribution, preventing the flow of creativity and collaboration. It's a term with a defined meaning in the context of improvisational theater, where one actor might block the other by not accepting their offer. In improv, this creates tension and disrupts the collaborative process. Ignoring this direct definition weakens the understanding of how narrative flow is impacted by interactions in RPGs.
- "Blocking" as "orientation" or "guiding focus" is a misapplication of the term. Orientation, or positioning of elements in a scene, is not about rejecting another person's input or contribution; it's about how actors or objects are placed to guide the audience's attention. This is a very different concept and does not address the disruption in collaborative gameplay caused by blocking. Using "blocking" to describe "orientation" risks muddying the conversation, confusing the specific type of disruption that occurs in RPGs when one person refuses to engage with or accept another’s input.
### 2. Why "Blocking" is Essential in RPG Theory
The reason why blocking as it's used in improv theory is directly relevant to RPGs is that RPGs, like improv, are inherently collaborative experiences. The idea of players rejecting each other's contributions can manifest in many ways—whether it's a GM disregarding a player's proposed action, a player refusing to interact with a plot hook, or players preventing others from contributing to the evolving story. These are all forms of blocking in an RPG setting, and using the term helps clearly identify the issues that arise when creativity and collaboration are stifled.
- In RPGs, blocking happens when narrative momentum is stifled because a player or GM does not accept another's input. For example, if a player suggests a creative solution to a problem and the GM shuts it down with no room for adaptation or compromise, it’s blocking. Similarly, if a player refuses to engage with the world or storyline because they don't like where it's headed, that's also blocking.
- RPGs require narrative collaboration—players and GMs must build on each other’s contributions, and when blocking occurs, it undermines that collaborative process. The term "blocking" thus helps to identify the specific failure of communication that prevents these collaborative efforts from flourishing. It’s a key concept in understanding the friction that can occur during roleplaying.
### 3. The False Comparison with "Stage Improv" and "Orientation"
The person attempts to draw a parallel between narrative RPGs and stage improv, suggesting that RPGs should focus more on orientation and positioning rather than collaboration. This is a false equivalence because:
- Stage improv and RPGs share certain features but differ fundamentally in their execution. While both require improvisation, RPGs have additional constraints, like dice rolls and mechanical systems that introduce randomness, which inherently complicates the idea of "orientation" in the way they describe it. The RPG world is not simply a stage or space to "orient" players—it is a collaborative narrative space where everyone contributes to a story.
- RPGs require dynamic collaboration, not just positioning or orientation. The goal in a narrativist game is for players to actively shape and affect the story through creative input, rather than passively engaging with a set orientation of focus. Improv in RPGs isn't just about knowing where to look or what to emphasize; it’s about actively shaping the narrative with yes, and, no but, or granting and withholding assent, based on the players' collective contributions. Ignoring this collaborative layer in favor of merely positioning and orienting players is a misinterpretation of how narrativist RPGs work.
### 4. The Inadequate Suggestion of "Vectors of Actionable Play"
The term "vectors of actionable play" is vague and lacks clarity in describing how collaborative creativity works in RPGs. The person seems to suggest that rejecting the concept of blocking in favor of a more abstract framework (like "vectors of actionable play") is more productive, but this is misguided.
- The notion of "vectors" is an overly abstract metaphor that doesn’t address the very real, concrete issues that arise when one participant blocks another’s contribution. RPGs involve direct interaction and negotiation between players and the GM; players make choices, suggest ideas, and engage with the game world, and when that input is blocked, it can derail the entire game.
- The value of blocking is precisely in recognizing it as a problem in collaboration and creativity. By labeling the disruption as blocking, it becomes easier to identify and address these issues. The suggestion that RPGs should adopt a more ambiguous "orientation" model could lead to confusion and further complicate the issue without offering any concrete solutions.
### Conclusion
The person’s argument is misguided because they attempt to redefine "blocking" in a way that strips it of its original, useful meaning in improv and RPGs. Blocking is a critical term in both fields because it specifically addresses the failure of collaboration—something that disrupts the flow of the game. Redefining blocking as "orientation" would make it harder to address and resolve the specific problems of stifled creativity and player agency in RPGs.
RPGs, particularly narrativist ones, require active, dynamic collaboration—and when players or GMs reject each other’s contributions, it’s blocking, plain and simple. Understanding and identifying blocking is essential to fostering a better, more collaborative play experience.
