![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
p_h_leeYou're conflating three things, here. This isn't surprising, since the conflation is going on in the "things I don't like" side of the equation -- it's often hard to parse out differences amongst things you don't like.
That said: Collaboration isn't the same thing as anti-destructive play isn't the same thing as consensus.
Collaboration: Anything where we're working together to build something. This includes, like, a great deal of role-playing games.
Anti-destructive: A set of creative collaboration rules which prohibits saying "no" or elsewise destroying, cancelling, or dismissing the contributions of others or yourself.
Consensus: A set of creative collaboration rules where everyone needs to agree to everything, usually in an unstructured form.
Do you follow all that?
My thought is that improv theater is anti-destructive, and a lot of improv-lusters have uncritically imported this techniques into RPGs under the banner of collaboration, without realizing that they're really shitty collaboration techniques for RPGs: They work well only in trained environments, with audience participation, for the joy of the audience and not the actors. Most people don't have an instinct for, say, not blocking, and it's a skill which really only comes with training -- rules can't get you there.
A lot of people who are hoping to improve collaboration as a reaction to previous abusive experiences with RPGs similarly turn to consensus as a form of collaboration, because it sells itself as a great way of no one getting hurt. I actually think that this is also a complete failure: "everyone has to sign off" is basically a mass invocation of the Czege principle, which robs games of their dramatic tension and often still results in hurt feelings, just slower acting and less justified hurt feelings.
But I'm still going to say, hey, collaborative games are really the way to go. At least for myself, all of my game designs are pretty aggressively collaborative, and even those that aren't (the Drifter's Escape) have strong collaborative elements. My point here is that collaboration is just about engaging with each other's contributions, and that anti-destructive rules and consensus processes are actually a very bad way to do this.
I think that a fruitful approach towards collaboration involves giving differentiated authority amongst the players, and then giving them goals which require interacting with realms outside their authority. Clover is probably the easiest example here: Clover's Dad has authority over the world, and Clover wants to, you know, do things and explore and so on. This means that Clover's player must constantly be engaging and reacting to the authoritative statements of the Clover's Dad player. In order to get what you want, you have to collaborate with the other player aggressively.
In a sense, competition is just a particular way of achieving this effect.
--
Tim's response to me
Ben, I've read your post a couple of times now. I agree that I was a bit too fast and loose with the word, "collaboration." By in large I was using it to mean "consensus," but also to mean a lack of any external adversity. I am using "external adversity" to mean adversity that is generated by someone other than the active player, whether by the group as a whole or by the player himself. In order words, the Czege Principle.
Your point about anti-destructive play is an interesting one, and something that I hadn't really considered. I haven't seen many games that directly use the technique of not saying "no." Usually, when a designer imports improv techniques, he does so in a way that ends up resulting in consensus or pass the conch type play. It's to the point now where I associate improv techniques in roleplaying games with the removal of external adversity. Why designers continue to think this is a good idea, I don't know. I really don't. Play is often lackluster and flat when compared with games like Trollbabe, Polaris, etc., etc.
Now, I agree with you that most, actually probably all, roleplaying games rely on collaboration to one degree or another. I like collaborative games. I dislike consensus games. In my post, I was trying to set up the idea of a continuum. At the extreme, you have "fully collaborative" games, by which I really meant consensus or pass the conch games. Your terms are better.
I like the point you made on twitter about roleplaying being something different, not inferior to improv. Importing improv techniques is a mistake. Sure we can learn from improv, but less than some people seem to think.
The point I was trying to make in my post, however, was that it is easier to play a game that has more external adversity in it because it is easier to react to a threat than to play proactively or as part of a consensus-building team. I also think it is easier to play against adversity than it is to play a pass the conch game where you are put on the spot and expected to "tell a story" for your turn (e.g., Baron Munchhausen and Pickets & Blinds). In other words, some of the more traditional techniques are actually easier for new players to understand.
As a separate issue, we also have GM-full games. These require a higher degree of collaboration, I think, than games where the sense of adversity is stronger. A player is also expected to play more proactively. This proactive requirement, to make your character do things that he cares about without prompting from the GM, is more difficult for new players than some designers (myself included) seem to think. So again, I think this is something to keep in mind when designing a game for new players.
The push has been for (1) less external adversity, (2) more consensus-building, and (3) more proactive play as a means to bring in new players. I think this trend is a mistake. Many new players end up flailing in such an environment, or else find the experience uninspiring.
That said: Collaboration isn't the same thing as anti-destructive play isn't the same thing as consensus.
Collaboration: Anything where we're working together to build something. This includes, like, a great deal of role-playing games.
Anti-destructive: A set of creative collaboration rules which prohibits saying "no" or elsewise destroying, cancelling, or dismissing the contributions of others or yourself.
Consensus: A set of creative collaboration rules where everyone needs to agree to everything, usually in an unstructured form.
Do you follow all that?
My thought is that improv theater is anti-destructive, and a lot of improv-lusters have uncritically imported this techniques into RPGs under the banner of collaboration, without realizing that they're really shitty collaboration techniques for RPGs: They work well only in trained environments, with audience participation, for the joy of the audience and not the actors. Most people don't have an instinct for, say, not blocking, and it's a skill which really only comes with training -- rules can't get you there.
A lot of people who are hoping to improve collaboration as a reaction to previous abusive experiences with RPGs similarly turn to consensus as a form of collaboration, because it sells itself as a great way of no one getting hurt. I actually think that this is also a complete failure: "everyone has to sign off" is basically a mass invocation of the Czege principle, which robs games of their dramatic tension and often still results in hurt feelings, just slower acting and less justified hurt feelings.
But I'm still going to say, hey, collaborative games are really the way to go. At least for myself, all of my game designs are pretty aggressively collaborative, and even those that aren't (the Drifter's Escape) have strong collaborative elements. My point here is that collaboration is just about engaging with each other's contributions, and that anti-destructive rules and consensus processes are actually a very bad way to do this.
I think that a fruitful approach towards collaboration involves giving differentiated authority amongst the players, and then giving them goals which require interacting with realms outside their authority. Clover is probably the easiest example here: Clover's Dad has authority over the world, and Clover wants to, you know, do things and explore and so on. This means that Clover's player must constantly be engaging and reacting to the authoritative statements of the Clover's Dad player. In order to get what you want, you have to collaborate with the other player aggressively.
In a sense, competition is just a particular way of achieving this effect.
--
Tim's response to me
Ben, I've read your post a couple of times now. I agree that I was a bit too fast and loose with the word, "collaboration." By in large I was using it to mean "consensus," but also to mean a lack of any external adversity. I am using "external adversity" to mean adversity that is generated by someone other than the active player, whether by the group as a whole or by the player himself. In order words, the Czege Principle.
Your point about anti-destructive play is an interesting one, and something that I hadn't really considered. I haven't seen many games that directly use the technique of not saying "no." Usually, when a designer imports improv techniques, he does so in a way that ends up resulting in consensus or pass the conch type play. It's to the point now where I associate improv techniques in roleplaying games with the removal of external adversity. Why designers continue to think this is a good idea, I don't know. I really don't. Play is often lackluster and flat when compared with games like Trollbabe, Polaris, etc., etc.
Now, I agree with you that most, actually probably all, roleplaying games rely on collaboration to one degree or another. I like collaborative games. I dislike consensus games. In my post, I was trying to set up the idea of a continuum. At the extreme, you have "fully collaborative" games, by which I really meant consensus or pass the conch games. Your terms are better.
I like the point you made on twitter about roleplaying being something different, not inferior to improv. Importing improv techniques is a mistake. Sure we can learn from improv, but less than some people seem to think.
The point I was trying to make in my post, however, was that it is easier to play a game that has more external adversity in it because it is easier to react to a threat than to play proactively or as part of a consensus-building team. I also think it is easier to play against adversity than it is to play a pass the conch game where you are put on the spot and expected to "tell a story" for your turn (e.g., Baron Munchhausen and Pickets & Blinds). In other words, some of the more traditional techniques are actually easier for new players to understand.
As a separate issue, we also have GM-full games. These require a higher degree of collaboration, I think, than games where the sense of adversity is stronger. A player is also expected to play more proactively. This proactive requirement, to make your character do things that he cares about without prompting from the GM, is more difficult for new players than some designers (myself included) seem to think. So again, I think this is something to keep in mind when designing a game for new players.
The push has been for (1) less external adversity, (2) more consensus-building, and (3) more proactive play as a means to bring in new players. I think this trend is a mistake. Many new players end up flailing in such an environment, or else find the experience uninspiring.
