« Picture Imperfect – Schizophrenic Camera/Eye | Home | Shout Out: Jay Barnson! »
More on Defining Story & A Bit on Play
By Corvus | October 7, 2008
As I’ve said many times, my approach to video games is firmly rooted in the concept of participatory storytelling. I specifically use the word participatory rather than interactive, because I think video games have already reached the stage of interactive storytelling, but are capable of so much more than mere branching story-responsiveness to the pushes of buttons.
The model of participatory storytelling is also not limited to video games. All media, from live performance to literature, can be examined using the model, and it will hopefully serve as a lens that will help us discover new things about the power inherent in all forms of communication.
So what exactly is participatory storytelling? I define participatory storytelling as the intersection between story, play, and community. I’m currently in the process of creating interlocking definitions for each of these three pillars of the model. By interlocking, I mean that, while the definitions must be recognizable outside the context of the model, they must also support each other in new ways when viewed within the model. That’s an admittedly fuzzy-sort-of-metaphoric overview of what I’m trying to accomplish, and hopefully it’s enough to give you an idea of what’s going on behind the scenes here at Man Bytes Blog and Zakelro Story Studio.
Last month I proposed a definition for story that reads like this:
Story is the shared exploration of a relationship over time.
I included the word shared because to even think of something in terms of a story is to add to its potential energy. The same applies to jotting a story down in a private diary. These actions, daydreaming and journaling, may not seem like sharing, but they do greatly increase the share potential of a story.
Exploration is an important word in the definition. The implication of to explore is so much more dynamic and powerful than the implication of to relate, or even to experience. It implies a sense of active observation, of discovery, of thoughtful participation. There is nothing passive about the act of storytelling and, by extension, the idea of story. Additionally, this term will help attach the definition of story to the definition of play.
The final component of the definition–relationship over time–is, of course, the most critical component. I’m going to quote a comment that Cyranix left in response to my last post on this topic:
Dynamism is what separates story from snapshot. The changes over time allow us to say that a dance, musical work, film, or novel tells a story; otherwise, we’re left with a story-less instant: a pose, a chord, an image, or a verbless phrase. Any story that comes from those latter things exists purely by extrapolation, such that the audience becomes a secondary author.
Cyranix is exactly right, although I suspect the position he’s taking here is actually the inverse of mine. I contend that the audience, as they construct their fabula, is always a secondary author, and therefore, my definition of story actually includes snapshots and static works. If a sculpture, or painting, or photograph captures the imagination so that the audience goes on to construct the events immediately preceding or following the event depicted, that’s building story. This is why the word shared is the very first substantive word of the definition.
It is, in fact, this idea of shared exploration that leads us directly into talking about the definition of play. Novelists, playwrights, and film makers have been playing with the audience for eons. Whether they include sly references to cultural touch stones, surprise the audience with new information or unexpected plot twists (more on this idea will follow in a post on fabula), or tease them with cliff hangers, the storyteller has always delighted in playing with the audience. With the introduction of interactive technologies, the relationship has suddenly reversed itself and allowed the audience to begin playing with the storyteller.
…and with that, we find ourselves needing a definition of play so that we can continue the conversation in a meaningful manner. The existing definitions of play have so diluted the term that it can mean a bewildering number of seemingly contrasting things–to occupy oneself in amusement or sport, to gamble, to act in jest, to behave indifferently, to behave sportively, to conduct oneself in a specified way, to act, to perform on an instrument, to be performed, to be received, to move quickly and irregularly (the light played across the water), and to move or operate freely within a bounded space.
And those are just the intransitive meanings. Add the transitive verb meanings (I’ll try and not repeat the transitive forms of intransitive verbs already mentioned) and we include–to pretend to be, to mimic the activities of, to employ in a game or position, to use in a game, to handle or manage, to manipulate (especially for one’s own interests), to cause media to emit recorded sounds, to discharge or direct in a continuous stream, and to exhaust a hooked fish by allowing it to pull on the line.
Several of the definitions, especially those pertaining to gambling and fishing, we can clearly disregard. I also want to be very careful to avoid limiting the concept of play to games, or to lighthearted behavior. I like the idea of “to occupy oneself in a specified way” as a loose structure, but feel it lacks the necessary body to make for a compelling definition. I think that if I find a way to incorporate the definition originally meant to imply machinery–”to move or operate freely within a bounded space”–that I’ll be on to something.
But as I work to narrow this down, I want to hear from you. What is your definition of play? Let me know in the comments!
Tagged:definition, participatory-storytelling, play, story, storytelling. | 9 Comments »
October 7th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman, in their book Rules of Play, define play as “free movement within a more rigid structure”. It is a fairly high level definition but one that, especially the way they use it throughout the book, seem able to cover all activities people generally consider to be play or playful.
If we consider games as a system of rules then to play a game is to move freely within the structure defined by those rules. That is to explore the possibility space of the game.
Looking at it like that might play be considered a form of exploration of a system. Freeform exploration, or unguided exploration, maybe a better definition would be self guided exploration.
Maybe we can get away with using definition from Rules of Play with a modification: “Play is self guided exploration within a more rigid structure.”
Oh and welcome back. Hope you’re settling in.
October 7th, 2008 at 9:56 am
I’m not keen on “more rigid structure” because play can be purely exploratory in nature and take on a very fluid structure.
Games provide structure for encouraging play, but the play itself cannot be defined as structural… or so I feel.
I do quite like “self-guided exploration” though. Thanks for that!
It’s good to be back! My office is lacking shelf space for most of my toys and media, there are still a handful of boxes to unpack, many pictures and art to hang, and a room or two of furniture to move around, but we’re settling in nicely and loving Portland so far.
October 7th, 2008 at 10:29 am
The “rigid structure” part is because play tends to occur within some greater structure. Ala playing music takes places within the structure defined by the instruments and the notes they can reproduce.
October 7th, 2008 at 10:48 am
I understand why they use the term, but I think that for my purposes it lessons the concept of play, which can be extremely free-form and fluid in structure.
Much play, particularly childhood play, is simply exploration with with nominal and changable structure.
In the place of “rigid structure” I think I like the phrase “bounded space” as a reference to a conceptual rule-space, as well as physical space.
October 7th, 2008 at 11:30 am
I think you need something in the definition of play dealing with at least edification (somewhere in the space between the archaic definitions involving building and creation and the modern definitions involving “religious knowledge”), if not entertainment. At this point the very fine-line distinction between work and play for many people is the concept, or perhaps conceit in some circumstances, of “fun”… But that may only add more questions and more need for definition because fun is perhaps a harder thing to describe than play, but they seem to go hand in hand and almost need mutually recursive definitions, I think.
October 7th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Yeah, I want to avoid “fun” in the definition. This is because while I think “fun” is the ideal goal for story and play in the game space, I’m not sure how applicable it is when applied to an analysis of all media.
Edification is a natural byproduct of play, as far as I’m concerned, but I want to be careful not to make play sound overly pedantic. If you know what I mean. However, building knowledge, testing limits. challenging self–those are ideas I would like to express within the final definition.
Great thoughts so far, guys! Keep it up!
October 7th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Not necessarily something I agree with 100%, but I remember in my theatre class the teacher talking about a definition of play from a socio-biological perspective. Basically all animals play, and how it’s really just training cubs, kittens, puppies, etc. for hunting, survival, etc. Growing up with 2 brothers I can attest to the fact that humans do this also
but I wouldn’t limit a definitive definition of play to such a narrow scope.
October 13th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
I’d probably go with play as an “exploration of possibility.” Structure helps and can guide/enhance the experience, but I don’t think it’s strictly a requirement.
October 14th, 2008 at 6:32 am
I like that idea, Alan. Thanks!