Trying to Describe "Narrative-Style Gameplay" to a Current Player in Real-World Terms

This is a purposeful diversion.

It strikes me as a bit of a funny linguistic misstep that we have decided to talk about 'blocking' in the improv sense to describe rejecting another player's input, especially in discussing RPG theory where we already have richer terms for the nuanced way players adapt and build on each other’s contributions and with robust and relevant literature behind these terms. Clinging to that usage of 'blocking' in the context of this post has felt very limiting and misleading to me personally, I think, because of the looming, more productive 'media' sense of the word, where 'blocking' refers to the purposeful orientation and positioning of actors and objects within a scene.

When it comes to describing narrative-style RPGs, we’re far better served by thinking of 'blocking' as a term for orientation—guiding focus and interaction—rather than obstruction. Especially today, in 2024, players who find themselves struggling with this style of play might benefit from realizing that these games are not simply stage 'improv' around a table. Effective narrativist play requires communication and an awareness of orientation in relation to fellow players and their gameable objects with positioning, rather than mimicking the dynamics of improv. Embracing this approach brings out the collaborative depth essential to narrativist games, recognizing that yes and, no but, granting assent, withholding assent, saying "maybe...let's roll", and all other possible arrangements of human creative collaboration collapse within as vectors of actionable play.

Like I said, funny linguistics.

It seems
This is a purposeful diversion.

It strikes me as a bit of a funny linguistic misstep that we have decided to talk about 'blocking' in the improv sense to describe rejecting another player's input, especially in discussing RPG theory where we already have richer terms for the nuanced way players adapt and build on each other’s contributions and with robust and relevant literature behind these terms. Clinging to that usage of 'blocking' in the context of this post has felt very limiting and misleading to me personally, I think, because of the looming, more productive 'media' sense of the word, where 'blocking' refers to the purposeful orientation and positioning of actors and objects within a scene.

When it comes to describing narrative-style RPGs, we’re far better served by thinking of 'blocking' as a term for orientation—guiding focus and interaction—rather than obstruction. Especially today, in 2024, players who find themselves struggling with this style of play might benefit from realizing that these games are not simply stage 'improv' around a table. Effective narrativist play requires communication and an awareness of orientation in relation to fellow players and their gameable objects with positioning, rather than mimicking the dynamics of improv. Embracing this approach brings out the collaborative depth essential to narrativist games, recognizing that yes and, no but, granting assent, withholding assent, saying "maybe...let's roll", and all other possible arrangements of human creative collaboration collapse within as vectors of actionable play.

Like I said, funny linguistics.

I apparently struggled to respond to this without being incredibly rude so I had ChatGPT politewash my response:
### 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.

Elaborate? I shouldn't even have to ask.

I assumed you've actually been reading my posts and could easily infer that I was talking about the nature of Rules as an improv participant.

If you really view RPG improv and traditional improv as being different kinds, then I don't think it's actually that helpful to talk about RPG improv.

I think this is a pretty clear misunderstanding that'd be cleared up if you actually read and internalized the things I've been arguing. RPGs are traditional improv, specifically narrative improv. The only material difference is the nature of the Rules imposed.
It's the same trodden path of piggybacking off a real concept from another field and then drastically changing the meaning, which is just creating new jargon.
Its literally the same meaning. I do not see how anyone can infer that I'm saying they mean anything other than what they mean.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

kenada

Legend
Supporter
Thats the purpose of prompts, and why you can just outright ignore them if you want.

In my experience, most people tend to come around to it once they see what they can do with them, even if they have that hang up, because even if you're the only person with an Event, you won't actually know how its going to play out, and this only becomes more unpredictable the more people have Events.

Events don't end with you merely declaring what you encountered, but after your entire group has engaged with it and Yes,And'd it. Its very much different from the idea of having players just arbitrarily come up with stuff about the world.
Thanks for the clarification about how your Events are structured. One question that comes to mind is how they interact with immersion. I’m not really a deep immersion kind of player—immersion for me is about making decisions as and doing what my character would do; but I know some people are really big about going deep and staying there (in the secondary world).
 

andreszarta

Adventurer
I apparently struggled to respond to this without being incredibly rude so I had ChatGPT politewash my response:
Oh! Thank you. This is what my ChatGPT said in response to your ChatGPT. I'm sending you a screenshot for the purposes of proper attribution:

Screenshot 2024-11-10 at 9.42.48 AM.png
 

Thanks for the clarification about how your Events are structured. One question that comes to mind is how they interact with immersion. I’m not really a deep immersion kind of player—immersion for me is about making decisions as and doing what my character would do; but I know some people are really big about going deep and staying there (in the secondary world).

Typically what happens is people will use Events to pull on their personal narratives, and if not, they'll pull in the things that have been going on to contextualize their prompts.

For example, this Event: "They are coming...Run!"

Even though the player may technically be the ones essentially conjuring whatever into the gameworld through their interpretation, its usually something that already existed in some fashion. If the group has enemies, or is in hostile territory, or what have you, it doesn't feel unimmersive to be the one to invite an encounter with them as opposed to the Keeper imposing it through the gameworld.

While I'm still working on curating the prompts, the idea is to hit this same level with each one, where not only can they be clearly linked to relevant things in an adventure that, in all likelihood, already exist in the gameworld, but are also open ended enough to allow for interpretation to go anywhere. That same prompt can be utilized for an amusing run-in with an angry cloud of Bee's, for example, or could even be interpreted for romance, as one player of mine did, where they played out a flirty chase scene with their in-game partner. (Which is a great example of how Events can be used to not conjure things into the gameworld)

Plus, what also helps with this is that as part of the exploration/travel procedure, the Keeper is providing a lot of context to the area they're in, and this also helps players contextualize their prompts, so there's a lot of leeway in terms of how you want to approach it, and by design it doesn't matter if you're trying to go fullblown storyteller or trying to maintain full immersion, the system accepts and embraces your input, up to and including not engaging with it at all.
 

Oh! Thank you. This is what my ChatGPT said in response to your ChatGPT. I'm sending you a screenshot for the purposes of proper attribution:

View attachment 385676

This is what we in the internet argument business like to call a thought terminating cliche. You can either respond to the points presented or you can just stop responding to me if you no longer want to argue.

E: I'll also add that the apparent hostility in the tone of your response is telling.
 

andreszarta

Adventurer
This is what we in the internet argument business like to call a thought terminating cliche. You can either respond to the points presented or you can just stop responding to me if you no longer want to argue.

Perfect, then why don't YOU raise YOUR points and you conduct yourself in a manner that allows for effective communication and elucidation about these topics, as opposed to drowning the conversation in non-sensical AI-generated walls of text that are not only present in your confessed response to me, but also plainly evident elsewhere in this thread.

Pick ONE thing about what I said that YOU disagree with, phrase it in a way that shows you are open to have a conversation about it and you'll get from me not only my best coherent response but also plenty of literature that backs my claims.
 

pemerton

Legend
I don't think I'm seeing all this conversation about "improv" and "blocking". So I'm having a bit of trouble following the bits that I can see.

I think Baker is correct to say that RPGing is all about negotiated, shared imagining. But it doesn't have to be freeform: there can be rules, practices and the like that allocate authority/ownership in respect of different bits of the fiction. And likewise there can be rules that limit or even stipulate what participants have to say at certain points, which may be quite different from what would happen in freeform improv.

I've never taken part in improv, and don't watch much of it, but one aspect - as I understand it - is that it is for an audience and therefore has to "flow" smoothly.

Whereas in RPGing, the audience and authors are the same people, and so they can pause to clarify - are you sure that's right? - or to improve contributions (the AW rulebook has plenty of examples of this) - or to think about what would be good (in my session of Torchbearer today, I had to stop and think a few times to come up with what I thought were good ideas for compromises).

So in a discussion about RPGing, I think it makes more sense to talk directly about the rules, practices etc that are doing this work of shaping the negotiations; rather than trying to mediate that discussion via a somewhat inapposite notion of "blocking" taken from a medium that is different in the way its pacing/editing works due to its different relationship to an audience and its quite different procedures.
 

Perfect, then why don't YOU raise YOUR points and you conduct yourself in a manner that allows for effective communication and elucidation about these topics, as opposed to drowning the conversation in non-sensical AI-generated walls of text that are not only present in your confessed response to me, but also plainly evident elsewhere in this thread.

Pick ONE thing about what I said that YOU disagree with, phrase it in a way that shows you are open to have a conversation about it and you'll get from me not only my best coherent response but also plenty of literature that backs my claims.

Its funny, for one, just how incredibly emotionally invested you are for absolutely no reason whatsoever. But its also funny that you think calling what I posted "non-sensical" even makes sense.

Its triply funny to then act like crying about a "Wall of Text" isn't just a self-own.

Anyways, I already gave my response. If you want to claim its nonsensical, then you should actually respond to it, not keep refusing to engage because I'm not arguing on your terms.
 


aramis erak

Legend
I've never taken part in improv, and don't watch much of it, but one aspect - as I understand it - is that it is for an audience and therefore has to "flow" smoothly.
Not all of it is for an audience other than the participants.

It's used in some classroom exercises, it's used as practice by some acting students.
It was used in gifted ed in High School when I was in it as a way of displaying knowledge in a non-academician mode by discussing it in character.
It's also been used a lot in both DARE and the district's anti-bullying curriculum in the Anchorage School District.'

Many a social studies teacher has used improv to get students thinking as the people studied.

I don't generally enjoy doing improv, and while I can do the improv style of play, I find it offputting. Most especially since improv mode often turns longwinded; I'd rather just get the précis and assign a roll, thank-you.
 

Remove ads

Top