« Limits of Story | Home | In Passing »
Interaction vs. Participation
By Corvus | February 27, 2006
It dawned on me last Friday, mid post, that my use of the oft debated term Interactive Storytelling could stand some clarification. I paused, exploring the options, my fingers hovering over the keyboard… and then typed Participatory instead. It seemed, momentarily, like a small thing, a minor change. But after a moment of looking at the word on the screen, I became excited at the possibilities. I was onto something. According to a comment from Patrick I’m not the first to use the alternate term (hardly surprising), but before I head out and find what Andrew Glassner has to say on the topic, I thought I’d lay out some of my own thinking on the issue.
Interactive Storytelling, or interactive narratives, is a term with a pretty rich history. Most of us, when hearing it, place our assumptions firmly in place and proceed with confidence that we’re all talking about the same thing. However, I notice cracks in the conversations and holes in the debates. Sure, there are plenty of overlapping areas, but there are also terrifying pits of non-comprehension that clearly destabilize our attempts to reach an accord. I find, at times when a word has so much history, it becomes an impediment to communication and/or comprehension and that using another word, one that may even be more fitting to the core concepts at hand (*psag*), is often a useful tactic.
So, let’s get lexicological on the words interact, interaction, participate, and participation These definitions were ganked from Merriam Webster online (link – popup warning). The emphasized definitions are of my doing:
Main Entry: in·ter·act
Pronunciation: “in-t&-’rakt
Function: intransitive verb
1 : to act upon one anotherMain Entry: par·tic·i·pate
Pronunciation: pär-’ti-s&-”pAt, p&r-
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -pat·ed; -pat·ing
Etymology: Latin participatus, past participle of participare, from particip-, particeps participant, from part-, pars part + capere to take — more at HEAVE
transitive senses, archaic : PARTAKE
intransitive senses
1 : to possess some of the attributes of a person, thing, or quality
2 a : to take partb : to have a part or share in something
synonym see SHAREMain Entry: in·ter·ac·tion
Pronunciation: “in-t&-’rak-sh&n
Function: noun
: mutual or reciprocal action or influence
- in·ter·ac·tion·al /-shn&l, -sh&-n&l/ adjectiveMain Entry: par·tic·i·pa·tion
Pronunciation: (“)pär-”ti-s&-’pA-sh&n, p&r-
Function: noun
1 : the act of participating
2 : the state of being related to a larger whole
Let those sit in the back of your mind while we turn our focus to Umberto Eco’s Role of the Reader for a moment. This set of essays from the incomparable Eco focuses on the “Poetics of Open Text”. In them, Eco explores the idea that no work, whether it be a poem, novel, painting, musical score, sculpture, or video game (I added that one to the list), is truly complete until it has been experienced by its receiver, or audience. Art, argues Eco, is inherently “open” and dependent upon the viewer for interpretation. No piece of art is ever the same twice, as each and every viewing brings new awareness, new perspective, new meaning, to the viewer.
The written word is more problematic. Many texts are closed, guiding the reader through the author’s themes and imagery, allowing practically no variance of interpretation. I’d suggest that Lord of the Flies, with its carefully structured use of metaphor fits into this mold. Other texts, such as the Bible, are not completely closed, but available for a structured interpretation upon prescribed paths.* Still others, like Joyce’s Finnegan’s Wake (and even Ulysses according to Eco), are almost completely dependent upon reader interpretation for comprehension.
Eco also spent the length of an essay exploring the possibilities of methodically extracting the metaphors from a work by mapping the metonyms used. I find myself riding the looping and twisty rails of this concept while half my brain screams in fear and the other half screams in excitement. It’s not particularly relevant to this post, but it insisted on being mentioned, so there you are.
I’ve argued before that games would appear to be ideal platforms to present open texts. I also realize that it’s important to acknowledge that we’re talking about a sliding scale of openness. It’s not all or nothing; totally open sandbox, or totally closed adventure game (more on that in a moment). Craig referred to “open” rule sets in the comments of last Friday’s post. Clearly referencing online spaces such as Second Life, Craig applies the term “‘open’ rule sets” to the aspects of the game that allow for player customization of content. I think that’s perfect. Second Life is an extremely open text, as opposed to most of the MMOG spaces available, which are only slightly ajar at best.
So, the term Interactive Storytelling, to me, has been a tricky one. I use it to mean that the audience is allowed actions which effect the unfolding of the narration, whether that be pace, direction, etc. This would allow for any game with (arguably, even without) a story present in the narrative to be considered Interactive Storytelling. Many, however, disagree and say that unless you can interact directly with the unfolding of the story itself, significantly impacting its course, the game doesn’t qualify. The lack of degree in people’s use of the word has always bothered me, but judging by the definitions presented above, I can see that interaction lends itself quite nicely to a nearly binary interpretation. You either experience mutual influence, or you don’t. After all, even in game such as Beyond Good & Evil, which had a good story and a fun unfolding narrative, you don’t truly have “mutual or reciprocal action or influence” upon the story, or even the narration. The plot unfolds as intended by the designers and that’s pretty much that.
Participation, however, allows for a broader range of interpretation; not laterally, which could lead to further confusion and misinterpretation, but linearly, which will allow for greater nuance. Besides being a new word which encourages new approaches to the discussion, participation refers to more degrees of openness. It allows for games which present story through their static narrative elements, while allowing for periods of dynamic narration, or gameplay. It also allows for sandbox games such as the Sims, with the audience taking the lion’s share of responsibility for the unfolding of the narrative and experience of a story.
All the Storytelling I’ve done over the years has had an ebb and flow. There are times where I have a pretty firm sequence of events in mind and I gently usher the participants through the narration, allowing the story to unfold as I intended, while allowing them autonomy over pacing and, to some degree, style. Other times, I have allowed the participants to take firmer control, following their story needs and providing the narrative framework on the fly. Mixing these approaches has allowed players a variety of experiences and, hopefully, a richer experience as well. It made them feel, not in control of, not at the mercy of, but a part of a Storytelling experience. It gave them a narrative home**, as it were.
Another reason I’ve determined Participatory Storytelling to be my preferred term, is that Interactive sounds rather… clinical at times. I refer to conversational exchanges at work as “interactions” but conversational exchanges with friends simply as “conversations”. I refer to playing a computer game, alone, as an “interaction”, but to playing a board or card game with friends as “playing”. Even though my table top RPG experiences haven’t reflected this, when I call myself an Interactive Storyteller, I picture myself as a biological, water powered, computational device, with stops and pedals like a church organ, something to be prodded and pulled on, in an effort to produce desired story effects at the whim of the audience. Participatory Storyteller, on the other hand, creates an atmosphere of shared responsibility for the story that will be produced and allows those not ready to take full reign to share in a smaller part, while those eager to influence worlds and shape kingdoms, can take their full measure and be assured that they’ll have an environment which supports them.
So.. Participatory Storytelling. What do you think?
*This is a rough and loose presentation of Eco’s actual text about interpretation of the Bible.
**Foreshadowing!
February 27th, 2006 at 11:12 am
After years of discussion on interactive storytelling, I’m a bit tired of the subject. I think much of it is a straw man argument. I see no conflict between story and… participation if you will. Games like GTA demonstrate this effectively. The story exists on one level, and the gameplay on another.
I think if you want to ‘tell your own story,’ then all you really want is a sandbox anyway. I don’t really understand the self-authorship desire–meaning, I don’t understand why people want to be able to tell their own true stories or myths within a game. I’m not sure it’s possible for a game to provide that.
Unless you made a Fiction Writer simulation where players could just toy with creating characters and putting them in situations. This would be more like The Movies, but for writers. Or a Make Your Own Game construction kit.
The idea of full participation breaks down several ways, as I said above. But I don’t think any of those are what designers are grasping at when they talk about interactive storytelling. There’s some elusive ‘Make-Your-Own-Story’ game that these designer discussions hint at, and I’m not really sure that’s possible. You’re either GTA, or The Sims, or Beyond Good & Evil, or some other game. Point; The examples all exist.
What I get from this is that many people are looking for a new kind of ‘participatory’ storytelling that doesn’t exist. It’s kind of like trying to figure out where a griffon, a dragon, or a hydra might fit in our classification of animals, and in evolution.
We’re trying to describe something that either exists already in limited form, or doesn’t exist in the mythical way that designers like to think.
February 27th, 2006 at 7:13 pm
That’s pretty much what I was trying to get at, albeit it in a round about manner. Interactive Storytelling has become this beacon which I don’t think any can see anymore, much less reach in a manner that everyone will recognize.
By using a new term, and using it in a fashion as to encourage people to drop the all-or-nothing perspective, perhaps we can focus on what’s important: Making better games and telling better stories.
Of course we hope to push the boundaries of telling stories via a dynamic narrative, but that’s beside the point of this particular post.
February 27th, 2006 at 10:48 pm
I think that I like the term. I agree that “Participatory” sound much less clinical. Looking at the definitions that you provided for the terms, I think that it fits better with some of the game ideas that I have.
I don’t know that I’m looking for a new kind of narration or story-telling within games. I, perhaps, am looking for a much older form to resurface. Storied used to be told by people, to other people. The story teller had the ability to take the story they were telling and change it to fit the needs or moods or whims of his audience. I’d like to see more of that appear in games. I think that it is possible, and would be characterized much better as “Participatory Fiction”.
February 27th, 2006 at 11:28 pm
“Interactive” is a broad term that can be used to describe any recipricol I/O exchange, whether between humans or between computers or between humans and computers. Its broad, just like the word, “emergent” which could be used to describe the entire history of the universe. However, many words, despite applying to a wide range of contexts, still look good when I read them, so thats my bias.
“Interactive Entertainment” can describe any video, computer or board/table-top game, though the prior two are emphasisized typcially.
“Interactive Storytelling” is a focus within that sphere.
Now, if you follow Chris Bateman’s model of the audience at large, including non and causal gamers, it seems like most people have made focused conquest and management games. But there are two other styles, wanderer and participant. So Participatory Fiction would be a good other word to describe this stuff, as its a bit more focused.
However, it is possible to set-up a story so that it recipricates meaninfully to the user’s actions, I’m familiar with several different algorithmic strategies to implement such an experience. I think to really get interactive storytelling, you’ve got to put the participatory aspect in a wide, explorable context, and maybe integrate optional conquest and management stuff where appropriate.
Corvus, if you want to set-up a framework where player-created content helps to a create a fictive context, so in their contributions they are participating in the greater metaplot, then thats an apporach that can cultivate an audience, but you’re aiming squarely at the hardcore participants. There is a wider audience for whom “interactive” is a better term, since it describes a great range of play styles.
February 28th, 2006 at 6:01 am
Duncan: Precisely. I particularly like your distinction between creating new forms, and reawakening old forms. I too, am more of a classicist, intent on injecting ancient patterns into new technologies.
Patrick: I was never using Interactive Storytelling to merely to define a focus within a sphere of games, per se. I also was attempting to use it to define my more traditional, but still reactive, storytelling.
As far as our games go, we will be attempting to recreate my fifteen years of table top RPG experiences, which are much better described as participatory. The upcoming games range from card and board games, to a table top RPG system, to a variety of online games. We’ll also be focusing on community and creating a layered experience, which rewards the level of participation that the individual wishes to focus on.
I am not squarely aiming at hardcore participants, although I expect they’ll find value in our offerings as well. Plus, I feel that participatory, as I’m using it, describes a much greater range of play style.
Then there’s the issue of history of the term. Both you and Eric have amply proven my point about people bringing their own definitions of “Interactive Storytelling” to the discussion. Why would I want to continue to wave a flag that guarantees a strong reaction. Calling my work Participatory Storytelling avoids turning off those that are leary and/or weary of IS and will hopefully help us avoid the wrath of those who have a definition of IS that doesn’t quite match what we’re attempting.
March 1st, 2006 at 4:28 am
Since distinctions between interactive storytelling and interactive narrative have already melted a large portion of my cortex during the process of editing chapter 3 of the Game Writing book, I’m not sure I have the mental faculty to handle this piece right now.
Certainly, ‘participatory storytelling’ is a great description of tabletop role-playing games – and is a technique which has (I believe) never been properly adapted to videogames because of the immense problems involved in doing so.
March 1st, 2006 at 12:24 pm
I believe that, among the current players of MMOGs who might be considered hardcore, there are some who will become “hardcore participants” of the type of game(s) we are producing. However, I also believe that a lot of the elements that make current players hardcore will not be the same in our game(s) and will not appeal to some of those same hardcore players. On the other hand, there will be others who are drawn to our game(s) as they will be significantly different from the current offerings. At some point, we’ll probably post our ideas about different levels of involvement an interaction in our games, but for now you’ll have to wait…