Consensus-based roleplaying?
Peter Knutsen
I've ben reading some old postings on rpg.net about "chicks in
roleplaying" (by Joanne Ellem) which is found here:
http://rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/guestaug99.html
And it set me thinking: we know that roleplaying games has to
involve an element of conflict. But is that really true? Does it
have to have conflict? I'm not going to spend much time on the "boy
vs. girl" angle, only mention that perhaps a lot of people are put
of (one or two f's?) bu the notion of conflicts, and since
roleplaying games are about conflict, these people doesn't percieve
roleplaying as potential fun, or a potentially interesting activity.
So how about consensus-based roleplaying games, as opposed to
conflict-based roleplaying games?
I can't, personally imagine basing a roleplaying game on consensus
instead of conflict. It would stop being a "game" in my eyes.
But I feel the same way about not using randomizers. And about
not using rules. Yet I've had people tell me that they participate
in roleplaying games, without any randomizers and/or without any
rules. And some of these people seem fairly reliable, so I'm
inclined to trust them. It appears that you can play roleplaying
games (note my emphasis on "game") without randomizers, without
rules, even if I can't figure out how. So maybe it's also possible
to play roleplaying games focused on consensus, instead of focused
on conflict.
And I think this is the correct newsgroup to ask in, because it's
full of smart people (like me) who plays in really strange and
crazy and very different ways (i.e. unlike me). Maybe there are
already someone who plays conflict-free roleplaying games.
Any takers?
--
Peter Knutsen
Wayne Shaw
wrote:
>So how about consensus-based roleplaying games, as opposed to
>conflict-based roleplaying games?
This is, in essence, the way most of the MUSHes and MUXes I've been on
operated. After being involved for quite some time, I have mixed
feelings about it. If you have people more interested in producing an
intresting looking scene and moving the story forward, it can work
well enough on a purely dramatist/roleplaying centric approach. That
having been said, I think I'd find it quite unsatisfactory
face-to-face, and often found it frustrating in mushes, as the truth
is very few people are capable of really working out things so they're
both interesting and not in conflict in such cases, and even less can
do so on a consistent basis.
Marc Katt Lombart
>So how about consensus-based roleplaying games, as opposed to
>conflict-based roleplaying games?
>
Can you imagine a story being a good story without any conflict? What
would be the point of a non-conflict game? "Okay, you guys want to go to town
to sell the gold that magically appeared at your feet. Now, since you want to
go to town, you make it, you sell the gold at a huge fee." Get it? IMO,
suceeding through the conflic is what makes the game.
Marc
Arthur Boff
I think the original poster meant a game in which there was no player-
GM conflict - the result of a character's actions are determined via
consensus between all participants rather than the GM just saying "this
happens". Such a system only really works if all the players can find a
result they agree on all the time, and are mature enough not to abuse
the system.
Though I agree that conflict is required in ALL forms of storytelling.
As far as I know there has never been a story written, a movie made, or
a play performed in which the plot did not involve some form of
conflict.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mary K. Kuhner
>I think the original poster meant a game in which there was no player-
>GM conflict - the result of a character's actions are determined via
>consensus between all participants rather than the GM just saying "this
>happens". Such a system only really works if all the players can find a
>result they agree on all the time, and are mature enough not to abuse
>the system.
The original question was really ambiguous. Did it mean "No conflict
will be depicted in this game"? Or did it mean "The events in this
game will be resolved without reference to conflict among the players
or between player(s) and GM"?
The first strikes me as more or less impossible. However, one can
expand the scope of allowable types of conflict over those which
are presented in many games, and that might attract some new players.
I've run and played in games with no combat, for example; it's also
possible to have scenarios with no enemies (conflict with the
impersonal, or conflict among people who are not enemies). We
had some how-do-we-keep-the-village-from-starving? sessions in
"Rainbow Vale" with only people of good will involved, but some
fairly intense conflicts nonetheless.
The second is certainly possible, and has been tried by quite a few
groups. It's hard to get rid of all of the GM's roles, but you
can split them up and get rid of some of them. In my limited
experience, continuity checking and information hiding are the
two GM roles that are hardest to get rid of, if you value
continuity and secrecy, but not all games need those qualities.
Ars Magica contains some early attempts at codification of one
possible consensus-based style. I suspect the LARP and MU**
people could tell us about others.
My gut suspicion is when people say "I don't like gaming 'cause
I don't like conflict" they often mean either "I'm bored or
put off by combat" or "I hate the social dymanics of player/player
or player/GM competition". Both of these are things that can
be avoided if one wants, though the style involved takes some
learning. (I screwed up the first no-combat game I ran; the
second try was better.)
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
Marc Katt Lombart
>I think the original poster meant a game in which there was no player-
>GM conflict - the result of a character's actions are determined via
>
That's not the message I got, but if so...I don't think it would be
great. What's the point of a referee, if it isn't the referee who makes the
rulings?
Marc
Peter Knutsen
Arthur Boff wrote:
> I think the original poster meant a game in which there was no player-
> GM conflict - the result of a character's actions are determined via
> consensus between all participants rather than the GM just saying "this
> happens". Such a system only really works if all the players can find a
> result they agree on all the time, and are mature enough not to abuse
> the system.
No, that wasn't what I meant, but feel free to continue along
that line. I can only figure out one general way of roleplaying
(there must be some conflict + there must be some rules handled
by one GM), but I know other people can roleplay using completely
different methods (i.e. way more different from mine than, say,
simulationism is from dramatism).
> Though I agree that conflict is required in ALL forms of storytelling.
Yes, this is my assumption too. But I could be wrong, as I am
when assuming that you need randomizers and rules and such.
> As far as I know there has never been a story written, a movie made, or
> a play performed in which the plot did not involve some form of
> conflict.
I haven't heard of any either.
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Peter Knutsen
The Wraith
>involve an element of conflict. But is that really true?
Yes, it is really true. However, I think you are looking at player/GM
and player/player conflict, not character/character conflict. It is
only character/character conflict (where "character" includes both PC
and NPC) that is necessary. This conflict is necessary because all
stories involve an element of conflict, and RPGs incorporate stories
into their basic makeup. (Yes, I know that the story is not an
objective of some games, but it is always still there, even if not
deliberately built into the game.) Some have theorized that a story
without conflict at all is possible, and I suppose someone might even
have written/told one, but I haven't found one yet.
Actually, reading back over that paragraph, I realise that
character/character conflict can be replaced with
character/environment conflict, but the conflict is still there.
>So how about consensus-based roleplaying games, as opposed to
>conflict-based roleplaying games?
>
>I can't, personally imagine basing a roleplaying game on consensus
>instead of conflict.
Now, what you really mean is, consensus among the players and GM(s),
yes? This sort of thing is quite possible. It requires the
participants to maintain the distinction between in-character conflict
and out-of-character conflict, and eliminate the latter. I have
encountered this style quite a number of times, usually in systemless
gaming - systemed gaming usually means manipulating the rules
(indirectly, that is, through appropriate character actions - this is
quite acceptable) to achieve a result another might be trying to
prevent, at least so that the attempt at prevention provides a
challenge to be overcome. Some of the best examples have come from
freeforms (Aussie style). For instance, I played in one freeform in
which one character tried to beat another character to a pulp, and
succeeded. The fight was resolved between the players, without the GMs
intervening (or even being given a chance to do so). Both players knew
what the outcome would be, and just used the fight as an excuse to
make a lot of noise and do some very dramatic acting. Sure, one
character ended up in jail and the other in hospital, but they had
fun.
Another freeform (not systemless, but using a variation of the Amber
DRPG) produced the following conversation between players:
"I think we'd better get AJ [the GM] for this."
"Why, what are you doing?"
"I'm going to throw you across the room."
"Oh, we don't need AJ for that. What's your strength?"
"176."
"Oh, right then. I'll go along with that."
And the second player used a chair to boost himself, jumped over the
"banquet table", rolled across the floor and wound up upside-down up
against the far wall. The player got a round of applause, and I got to
explain the situation to the GM when he came back into the room to
find out what the commotion was about. (My character, having been
caught trying to destroy the universe, had run for the hills by then,
and I was just watching.)
So, yes, you can do "consensus-based" roleplaying, as long as you just
want consensus between the players.
--
Now, by popular demand, a new .sig!
I still can't think of anything witty to say, though.
The Wraith
angus_ma...@my-deja.com
> So how about consensus-based roleplaying games, as opposed to
> conflict-based roleplaying games?
>
> I can't, personally imagine basing a roleplaying game on consensus
> instead of conflict. It would stop being a "game" in my eyes.
> But I feel the same way about not using randomizers. And about
> not using rules. Yet I've had people tell me that they participate
> in roleplaying games, without any randomizers and/or without any
> rules. And some of these people seem fairly reliable, so I'm
> inclined to trust them. It appears that you can play roleplaying
> games (note my emphasis on "game") without randomizers, without
> rules, even if I can't figure out how. So maybe it's also possible
> to play roleplaying games focused on consensus, instead of focused
> on conflict.
Not to be repetative it depends on what conflict means. you certainly
can have a game when there is no single bad guy/event to stop. Certanly
there needs to be goals and challenges but these can be supplyed by the
players as well as the gm.
I think however that the idea it is not a game without rules and
dice and conflict (physical or magical) are all linked. I am a
evngelical systemless advocator but I have to admit the times when there
is simple do I win the fight, cast the spell or jump the cannion have
not been highlights that they can be with dice. To make this type fo
game work don't put the players in situations when there is a large
percentage chance of death if which they can not do anything about. e.g.
a fight.
This is basicaly the analagy of a action film with a psycological
thriller. Look back at your favorate of the two catagories. In the
former the hero keeps just making there life or death roll when in a
film like silence of the Lambs there would not be a situation where the
dice would be necessary. Try it!
> And I think this is the correct newsgroup to ask in, because it's
> full of smart people (like me) who plays in really strange and
> crazy and very different ways (i.e. unlike me). Maybe there are
> already someone who plays conflict-free roleplaying games.
> Any takers?
depends on what you ment by conflict?
> --
> Peter Knutsen
Wayne Shaw
Lombart) wrote:
>AJB...@yahoo.com (Arthur Boff) wrote in <8192uv$9d8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>
>>I think the original poster meant a game in which there was no player-
>>GM conflict - the result of a character's actions are determined via
>>
>
> That's not the message I got, but if so...I don't think it would be
>great. What's the point of a referee, if it isn't the referee who makes the
>rulings?
I'm not sure in the idea at hand you'd _need_ a referee. Perhaps the
whole GMing load would be diffuse, or perhaps all the normal GM role
would be would be creative work setting up situations and creating
NPCs.
Bryan J. Jonker
:
: Ars Magica contains some early attempts at codification of one
: possible consensus-based style. I suspect the LARP and MU**
: people could tell us about others.
I've done LARP games where we've arranged a general plot, and then
everyone goes in as a player, and anyone can theoretically steer the plot
somewhere else. There's no conflict between GM and player, because in
one sense, there's no GM; the plot gets moved by "player A finds a hidden
note" or "player B and player C has a personality conflict."
However, I've noticed that it's like Animal Farm: some players are more
equal than others. The two people who set up the LARP tended to control
the plot more than the other three people.
<---------------Bryan Jonker-----...@prairienet.org------------->
I dream in a language I do not Dictionary of the Khazars
understand when I'm awake. Milorad Pavic
Arthur Boff
WARNING: Silence of the Lambs spoilers ahead:
What about when Buffalo Bill and Agent Starling are running around in
his house and there's a 50-50 chance that either would get killed?
Mary K. Kuhner
>However, I've noticed that it's like Animal Farm: some players are more
>equal than others. The two people who set up the LARP tended to control
>the plot more than the other three people.
I've seen that effect in conventionally GMed games: among the players,
one or two usually have much more control over the plot than the
others. If some players contributed to design and others did not
this is especially marked, but it happens even when no one but the
GM did design work. I think, from my experience with consensus
groups outside roleplaying, it's probably inevitable in any group of
more than three that some people will have more influence than others.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
The Wraith
wrote:
>Bryan J. Jonker <jon...@prairienet.org> wrote:
>
>>However, I've noticed that it's like Animal Farm: some players are more
>>equal than others. The two people who set up the LARP tended to control
>>the plot more than the other three people.
>
>I've seen that effect in conventionally GMed games: among the players,
>one or two usually have much more control over the plot than the
>others. If some players contributed to design and others did not
>this is especially marked, but it happens even when no one but the
>GM did design work.
I think largely it is the result of some people being willing to put
more into the game than others (though, maybe not always). An active
player will tend to exert more influence than a passive player, one
who just sits back and watches without trying to get involved.
I'm not convinced that it is always a bad thing, either.
Brian Gleichman
news:19991123211437...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
> think the idea was to get the feel of what it might be like to
> live in a culture and environment unlike one's own; it wasn't
> necessary for anything of significance to actually happen.
Just to jump in... Conflict free gaming. Interesting concept.
---
GM: You wake up. The morning sun is just rising above the horizon.
Player 1: Man, I hate sunlight. Hurts my eyes and its bad for the skin.
GM: Oh. In that case this world doesn't have a sun. It has... reflected
moonlight and fungus for plants...
Player 2: I'm afraid of the dark.
GM: ???.
Player 1: Maybe we can compromise?
GM: No. That's a method of conflict resolution. Very much against the game
contract.
Player 2: Dang. How about we do Tunnels and Trolls next week instead?
:)
Wayne Shaw
>The 'wraith' posts, in part:
>
> It is only character/character conflict (where "character"
> includes both PC and NPC) that is necessary.
>
>Actually, unless I misinterpreted, some posters here have previously mentioned
>enjoying roleplaying that seemed to me conflict free even on the character
>level. In particular, it was roleplaying of typical days of ordinary
>characters. I think the idea was to get the feel of what it might be like to
>live in a culture and environment unlike one's own; it wasn't necessary for
>anything of significance to actually happen.
>
This can be interesting (I've certainly had scenes like that MUSHing)
but as a steady diet I suspect the vast majority of people would find
it to pall quickly.
Warren J. Dew
It is only character/character conflict (where "character"
includes both PC and NPC) that is necessary.
Actually, unless I misinterpreted, some posters here have previously mentioned
enjoying roleplaying that seemed to me conflict free even on the character
level. In particular, it was roleplaying of typical days of ordinary
characters. I think the idea was to get the feel of what it might be like to
live in a culture and environment unlike one's own; it wasn't necessary for
anything of significance to actually happen.
Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software
Marc Katt Lombart
<19991123211437...@ng-fi1.aol.com>:
>Actually, unless I misinterpreted, some posters here have previously
>mentioned enjoying roleplaying that seemed to me conflict free even on
>the character level. In particular, it was roleplaying of typical days
>of ordinary
>
Huh? Name me a single day of your real life that has no conflict in it.
Marc
Mary K. Kuhner
>Actually, unless I misinterpreted, some posters here have previously mentioned
>enjoying roleplaying that seemed to me conflict free even on the character
>level. In particular, it was roleplaying of typical days of ordinary
>characters. I think the idea was to get the feel of what it might be like to
>live in a culture and environment unlike one's own; it wasn't necessary for
>anything of significance to actually happen.
There's probably not a complete absence of conflict in such situations,
but it can be so little conflict, compared to a standard roleplaying
situation, as to be quite a different animal. I've been in situations
where the primary interest focus was simply figuring out how the PC
managed her everyday routine. The PC presumably had solved all
the basic problems involved years ago, but since her environment
was foreign to us, we found questions like "how does she get to work?"
interesting.
I couldn't personally make a steady diet of this work; to really find out
about a character I need to see her in crises as well as in quiet
moments. But it's something that I find fairly important to include
in games, because seeing characters only in crises gives too one-
sided a view for my tastes.
Carl Rigney used to intercut "the characters go shopping" scenes for
this purpose. Not shopping for rifles, just shopping. It's an
interesting way to find out something about character and setting.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
A.F. Simpson
> Huh? Name me a single day of your real life that has no conflict in it.
Today. Although it's not over yet, I suppose. There's always a chance
I may run into some orcs in Tesco and have to fight my way out wielding
only a bag of organic carrots and a box of Whiskas crunchies.
> Marc
love
Anna
Pete Darby
<sh...@caprica.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure in the idea at hand you'd _need_ a referee. Perhaps
> the
> whole GMing load would be diffuse, or perhaps all the normal GM
> role
> would be would be creative work setting up situations and creating
> NPCs.
That's beggining to sound horribly like the worst Alan Ayckbourn play
ever written... a hideous travesty of both drama and RPG's known as
Wildest Dreams.
I'd say that if you eliminate the GM, you're storytelling, not role
playing, as each player shoulders more of the burden for controlling
the world beyond the character.
It's fun, though!
Pete
I knew my 3rd class Drama & Philosophy degree would be useful one day...
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Amber, Dan, DARE, or Julie
Warren J. Dew wrote:
<snip>
> Actually, unless I misinterpreted, some posters here have previously mentioned
> enjoying roleplaying that seemed to me conflict free even on the character
> level. In particular, it was roleplaying of typical days of ordinary
> characters. I think the idea was to get the feel of what it might be like to
> live in a culture and environment unlike one's own; it wasn't necessary for
> anything of significance to actually happen.
I think I'm one of the posters you're thinking of; but this
low-conflict mode was an exception rather than a rule.
Normally, the "alien culture experience" was a backdrop to more
conventional play, and often that more conventional play intruded upon
such games(notably the "dragons"* campaign, which ended up very pulp).
But we did do one-off games and "pilots" that consisted of nothing but
everyday life. Much of it, as Mary Kuhner said, was about discovering
the characters' daily routines - especially in the pilots, where we
would then use that understanding in a more conventional campaign. But
much of it was also the recognition that conflict can be found in
everyday life; the "pixies"* campaign was largely about "office"
politics, for instance.
From the IC/immersive perspective, many significant things happened -
there were simply few external opponents, or even opponents who remained
opponents.
* In my group, these "alien culture experience" games were normally
named for the culture/species the PCs will play members of. Notably, the
"dragons" game was originally called "here there be dragons" :)
- DARE, GURPSist extraordinaire and plenipotentiary
* I should know better than to question my judgement.
* Hi! I'm a .sig virus! Join the fun and copy me into yours! :)
Wayne Shaw
>playing, as each player shoulders more of the burden for controlling
>the world beyond the character.
>
I think that's at best, a narrow definition of roleplaying. I'll
admit I'm not sure it's a roleplaying _game_ any more, but it's
certainly still roleplaying as the primary focus is still on one's own
character normally. At least that's the way it works on MUSHes.
Bryan J. Jonker
: I think largely it is the result of some people being willing to put
: more into the game than others (though, maybe not always). An active
: player will tend to exert more influence than a passive player, one
: who just sits back and watches without trying to get involved.
Actually, I believe it was more of the experience levels of the players
(the two of us who controlled the game more have about 15 years of
gaming experience, while the others range from 2-4 years). Plus, the two
of us are usually the GMs in the game, so we pick up on situations a bit
quicker.
One advantage I think of this type of conflict-less session is that the
players almost have to get involved in the game - if you are passive, the
game dies immediately. There's no GM prodding the players to do
something - that type of conflict I don't like in a game. The no-GM and
the LARP setting combine to make the players either get involved or quit
the game outright.
Again, not sure if I'd want a steady diet, but it was fun.
The Wraith
wrote:
Conflict does not have to be combat. Most normal conversation has an
element of conflict in it, for example. In fact, your response to
Marc's challenge is a form of conflict (and mine to yours is still
more conflict). So there you go - your day has had conflict in it.
The Wraith
Jonker) wrote:
>The Wraith (wra...@powerup.com.au) wrote:
>
>: I think largely it is the result of some people being willing to put
>: more into the game than others (though, maybe not always). An active
>: player will tend to exert more influence than a passive player, one
>: who just sits back and watches without trying to get involved.
>
>Actually, I believe it was more of the experience levels of the players
>(the two of us who controlled the game more have about 15 years of
>gaming experience, while the others range from 2-4 years). Plus, the two
>of us are usually the GMs in the game, so we pick up on situations a bit
>quicker.
These factors usually just cause a player to make himself more
involved in the game. The factors you cite cause the factor I cited
leading to the observed effect.
>One advantage I think of this type of conflict-less session is that the
>players almost have to get involved in the game - if you are passive, the
>game dies immediately. There's no GM prodding the players to do
>something - that type of conflict I don't like in a game. The no-GM and
>the LARP setting combine to make the players either get involved or quit
>the game outright.
That's not conflict-less gaming. That is just shifting the
responsibility of conflict initiation to the players, instead of the
GM, and in many cases shifting the nature of the conflict from PC/NPC
or PC/environment to PC/PC.
John R. Snead
: Carl Rigney used to intercut "the characters go shopping" scenes for
: this purpose. Not shopping for rifles, just shopping. It's an
: interesting way to find out something about character and setting.
It's nice to know that others do this. In my wife's game our PCs are
middle class, but exceptionally well connected, so they often up invited
to very fancy parties held by the ultra-rich. So far each party has been
prefaced by an exceptionally fun shopping sequence which has lasted up to
an hour before the party (and plot) actually begins. Such things help set
the mood, get the players in the right mindset for the actual party and
explicate the world.
Then again, the games we play (we these days including Sarah Kahn and
part of her household) are are paced at around 1 session = 1-2 game days
(at most, sometimes it's almost real-time). With that level of detail
daily life and low conflict portions are exceptionally common.
The interesting thing is that I've seen this level of detail in both
highly simulationist and highly dramatist games. At the risk of making
Yet Another Sweeping Generalization I think slower time scales and more
subtle conflicts are most common is folks who have been playing for many
years. However, low or subtle conflict games /= 0 conflict games. I
honestly can't see 0 conflict working as anything other than a short-term
experiment.
-John Snead jsn...@netcom.com
NadinB
larger context. For instance, after a long and grueling campaign the player
characters get a chance to go on leave, and those cna always be hilarious.
There may be conflict, or they may just go out and have fun in the town doing
things nobody does in real life...
Nadin
Games Editor
Bryan J. Jonker
: On Thu, 25 Nov 1999 03:53:53 GMT, jon...@prairienet.org (Bryan J.
: Jonker) wrote:
:
: >One advantage I think of this type of conflict-less session is that the
: >players almost have to get involved in the game - if you are passive, the
: >something - that type of conflict I don't like in a game. The no-GM and
: >the LARP setting combine to make the players either get involved or quit
: >the game outright.
:
: That's not conflict-less gaming. That is just shifting the
: responsibility of conflict initiation to the players, instead of the
: GM, and in many cases shifting the nature of the conflict from PC/NPC
: or PC/environment to PC/PC.
between GM and players". Sorry about the misunderstanding. I guess what I
was trying to set up was a session where the players start the conflict
instead of the GM introducing the conflict. Now, I realize that we
created the setting, so there's some GM input (even w/no traditional GM),
but it seemed to work.
A.F. Simpson
>
> On Wed, 24 Nov 1999 17:48:24 -0800, "A.F. Simpson" <AF...@le.ac.uk>
> wrote:
> >Marc Katt Lombart wrote:
> >
> >> Huh? Name me a single day of your real life that has no conflict in it.
> >
> >Today. Although it's not over yet, I suppose. There's always a chance
> >I may run into some orcs in Tesco and have to fight my way out wielding
> >only a bag of organic carrots and a box of Whiskas crunchies.
>
> Conflict does not have to be combat. Most normal conversation has an
> element of conflict in it, for example.
I think you can define conflict a bit too loosely. I suppose it depends
on how many conversations involve the participants wanting different
outcomes. Yesterday, not many, if any, of mine. Quiet day.
> In fact, your response to
> Marc's challenge is a form of conflict (and mine to yours is still
> more conflict). So there you go - your day has had conflict in it.
Actually, I didn't see your reply until today - and today has had _lots_
of conflict already, or at least lots of stress, which is more-or-less
the same thing.
> The Wraith
love
Anna
Boudewijn Rempt
> It's nice to know that others do this. In my wife's game our PCs are
> middle class, but exceptionally well connected, so they often up invited
> to very fancy parties held by the ultra-rich. So far each party has been
> prefaced by an exceptionally fun shopping sequence which has lasted up to
> an hour before the party (and plot) actually begins. Such things help set
> the mood, get the players in the right mindset for the actual party and
> explicate the world.
We do that too - the PC's often want to introduce new pupils or friends
to their acquintances, and before going to the court, they need to be
fitted out. And then there are the sessions where the PC's go back to
their parents for a few weeks of holiday between the adventures, and
those are often played out day for day, hour for hour. In contrast, the
great battle at which the rebel general Rhanion lost his head was
abstracted a great deal. (I thought the most interesting parts of the
war campaign were the training of the recruits, the finding of suitable
places for the soldiers after demobilisation and the psychological
reaction of my PC, Vurian, who had to captain the regiment, when he
came home.)
> The interesting thing is that I've seen this level of detail in both
> highly simulationist and highly dramatist games. At the risk of making
> Yet Another Sweeping Generalization I think slower time scales and more
> subtle conflicts are most common is folks who have been playing for many
> years. However, low or subtle conflict games /= 0 conflict games. I
> honestly can't see 0 conflict working as anything other than a short-term
> experiment.
I think you're right - Irina and I have been playing for about ten
years now, and it's starting to show. However, we've just gone back
to our roots and started a new Queeste campaign which is very, very
old-fashioned.
> -John Snead jsn...@netcom.com
--
Boudewijn Rempt | http://denden.conlang.org
Sea Wasp
>
> The Wraith wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 24 Nov 1999 17:48:24 -0800, "A.F. Simpson" <AF...@le.ac.uk>
> > wrote:
> > >Marc Katt Lombart wrote:
> > >
> > >> Huh? Name me a single day of your real life that has no conflict in it.
> > >
> > >Today. Although it's not over yet, I suppose. There's always a chance
> > >I may run into some orcs in Tesco and have to fight my way out wielding
> > >only a bag of organic carrots and a box of Whiskas crunchies.
> >
> > Conflict does not have to be combat. Most normal conversation has an
> > element of conflict in it, for example.
>
> I think you can define conflict a bit too loosely. I suppose it depends
> on how many conversations involve the participants wanting different
> outcomes. Yesterday, not many, if any, of mine. Quiet day.
Congratulations, Anna. You just engaged in conflict, arguing with
Wraith about whether you were involved in conflict.
--
Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
/^\
;;; _Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at
http://www.hyperbooks.com/catalog/20040.html
The Wraith
wrote:
>The Wraith wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 24 Nov 1999 17:48:24 -0800, "A.F. Simpson" <AF...@le.ac.uk>
>> wrote:
>> >Marc Katt Lombart wrote:
>> >
>> >> Huh? Name me a single day of your real life that has no conflict in it.
>> >
>> >Today. Although it's not over yet, I suppose. There's always a chance
>> >I may run into some orcs in Tesco and have to fight my way out wielding
>> >only a bag of organic carrots and a box of Whiskas crunchies.
>>
>> Conflict does not have to be combat. Most normal conversation has an
>> element of conflict in it, for example.
>
>I think you can define conflict a bit too loosely.
No, I am examining conflict - just not strong conflict, perhaps.
Conflict is what is generally needed to make a story interesting, but
there are interesting stories that involve nothing but conversation.
>I suppose it depends
>on how many conversations involve the participants wanting different
>outcomes. Yesterday, not many, if any, of mine. Quiet day.
You don't even have to want different outcomes - it could just be
having different information to start with, and both placing
expounding information above recieving it, or vice versa.
>> In fact, your response to
>> Marc's challenge is a form of conflict (and mine to yours is still
>> more conflict). So there you go - your day has had conflict in it.
>
>Actually, I didn't see your reply until today - and today has had _lots_
>of conflict already, or at least lots of stress, which is more-or-less
>the same thing.
Yes, but you replied to Marc's post on the same day that you claimed
lacked conflict, for you. In making that claim, you engaged in
conflict, on that day.
The Wraith
wrote:
>A.F. Simpson wrote:
>>
>> I think you can define conflict a bit too loosely. I suppose it depends
>> on how many conversations involve the participants wanting different
>> outcomes. Yesterday, not many, if any, of mine. Quiet day.
>
>Wraith about whether you were involved in conflict.
Isn't the irony of it wonderful?
The Wraith
<jsn...@netcom12.netcom.com> wrote:
>Mary K. Kuhner <mkku...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>
>: Carl Rigney used to intercut "the characters go shopping" scenes for
>: this purpose. Not shopping for rifles, just shopping. It's an
>: interesting way to find out something about character and setting.
>
>middle class, but exceptionally well connected, so they often up invited
>to very fancy parties held by the ultra-rich. So far each party has been
>prefaced by an exceptionally fun shopping sequence which has lasted up to
>an hour before the party (and plot) actually begins.
I once incorporated a "shopping scene" into a convention module based
in the Babylon 5 universe. Well, it wasn't necessarily a shopping
scene, but that was a common use for it. The basic plotline of the
module had the PCs arrive on Babylon 5, observe some interesting
aliens in the docking bay, visit Marcus Cole for a debrief (they were
Army of Light-ers, returning from a mission), and then... nothing.
Marcus said they should stick around for a few days, but he didn't
actually have a mission for them, so they had leave, basically. The
idea was to see how the characters responded to being presented with
everyday life, and how the players responded to a call for
characterisation *without* conflict. The responses varied, but it was
common to arrange quarters, then do a little shopping and/or
sightseeing, usually culminating in dinner - most dinner-eaters
specifically sought out either spoo or swedish meatballs. A number of
groups realised that three out of five PCs were equipped with
comm-links, and bought two more for the others - about the only
game-significant actions taken, and it showed they were paying
attention.
Most players seemed a little surprised at not being shot at, tempted
or scanned immediately upon arrival, but most took it in their stride,
and the scene has always worked pretty well. Besides, if players are
really put out by it, the GM can always say, "Nothing happens
until..."
A.F. Simpson
> A.F. Simpson wrote:
> > I think you can define conflict a bit too loosely. I suppose it depends
> > on how many conversations involve the participants wanting different
> > outcomes. Yesterday, not many, if any, of mine. Quiet day.
>
> Congratulations, Anna. You just engaged in conflict, arguing with
> Wraith about whether you were involved in conflict.
The quiet day was the day before yesterday. The argument day was
yesterday. Today seems to be working out as another conflict day
already :-)
love
Anna
A.F. Simpson
>
> On Thu, 25 Nov 1999 17:46:00 -0800, "A.F. Simpson" <AF...@le.ac.uk>
> wrote:
> >The Wraith wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 24 Nov 1999 17:48:24 -0800, "A.F. Simpson" <AF...@le.ac.uk>
> >> wrote:
> >> >Marc Katt Lombart wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Huh? Name me a single day of your real life that has no conflict in it.
> >> >
> >> >Today. Although it's not over yet, I suppose. There's always a chance
> >> >I may run into some orcs in Tesco and have to fight my way out wielding
> >> >only a bag of organic carrots and a box of Whiskas crunchies.
> >>
> >> Conflict does not have to be combat. Most normal conversation has an
> >> element of conflict in it, for example.
> >
>
> Conflict is what is generally needed to make a story interesting, but
> there are interesting stories that involve nothing but conversation.
But I think it's getting perilously close to becoming 'conflict is what
generally makes stories interesting, so everything that makes a story
interesting is conflict'. If you make the definition of conflict so
broad that it covers virtually every form of interaction with animate or
inanimate objects ("Ginger biscuit or bourbon? Conflict!") it becomes a
rather unhelpful term.
Can you have a conflict free game? Well, patently not, if you have such
a wide definition as to include shopping and, er, conversation as
conflict.
> >I suppose it depends
> >on how many conversations involve the participants wanting different
> >outcomes. Yesterday, not many, if any, of mine. Quiet day.
>
> You don't even have to want different outcomes - it could just be
> having different information to start with, and both placing
> expounding information above recieving it, or vice versa.
But not on Wednesday. Wednesday was a quiet day.
> Yes, but you replied to Marc's post on the same day that you claimed
> lacked conflict, for you. In making that claim, you engaged in
> conflict, on that day.
I was simply providing the information he asked for, to whit, naming a
day without any conflict in it :-)
> The Wraith
love
Anna
Marc Katt Lombart
>Today. Although it's not over yet, I suppose. There's always a chance
>I may run into some orcs in Tesco and have to fight my way out wielding
>
Well, you are just proven wrong. For I doubt very much your assertion.
Ergo creating conflict with you now.
Marc
Marc Katt Lombart
>
>I think you can define conflict a bit too loosely. I suppose it depends
>on how many conversations involve the participants wanting different
>outcomes. Yesterday, not many, if any, of mine. Quiet day.
>
Er, not.
Marc
Marc Katt Lombart
<383e461a....@nntp.powerup.com.au>:
>> Congratulations, Anna. You just engaged in conflict, arguing with
>>Wraith about whether you were involved in conflict.
>
>Isn't the irony of it wonderful?
>
Sometimes it's just too easy.
Marc
The Wraith
wrote:
>The Wraith wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Nov 1999 17:46:00 -0800, "A.F. Simpson" <AF...@le.ac.uk>
>> wrote:
>> >The Wraith wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Conflict does not have to be combat. Most normal conversation has an
>> >> element of conflict in it, for example.
>> >
>>
>> Conflict is what is generally needed to make a story interesting, but
>> there are interesting stories that involve nothing but conversation.
>
>But I think it's getting perilously close to becoming 'conflict is what
>generally makes stories interesting, so everything that makes a story
>interesting is conflict'.
I haven't come anywhere near saying that everything interesting is
conflict. In fact, some conflict can be intensely boring - take a look
at the average Usenet flame war. But there is a theory that a story
must involve conflict to be interesting, as we already know, and that
theory isn't easy to disprove. Now, if you care to give us an example
of an interesting story with no conflict, then great - but don't
expect a limited view as to what conflict is just so that you can
disprove that theory.
>If you make the definition of conflict so
>broad that it covers virtually every form of interaction with animate or
>inanimate objects ("Ginger biscuit or bourbon? Conflict!") it becomes a
>rather unhelpful term.
Yes, it would - but then, I have no intention of doing that. I don't
think indecision would generally count as conflict.
>Can you have a conflict free game? Well, patently not, if you have such
>a wide definition as to include shopping and, er, conversation as
>conflict.
I did not say that shopping and conversation *are* conflict. I said
that conversation could involve conflict - and it certainly can, and
does more often than not. As for shopping, I don't remember addressing
conflict as an element of shopping - but sometimes, shopping may
involve conflict, as when a salesman attempts to influence a buyer to
purchase something he otherwise might not.
(However, just walking into the supermarket, picking up a few food
items, and paying for them at the cash register is another matter. I
don't see any conflict there. It would make a pretty boring story,
though.)
>> Yes, but you replied to Marc's post on the same day that you claimed
>> lacked conflict, for you. In making that claim, you engaged in
>> conflict, on that day.
>
>I was simply providing the information he asked for, to whit, naming a
>day without any conflict in it :-)
He made a statement. You disagreed, and expressed that. That is
conflict, even though it was expressed obliquely.
PJS
players and the GM, and conflict in the sense of the PCs wanting to do
something, and NPCs not wanting them to do it and taking the appropriate
steps (or vice versa)?
---
Puritanism - the haunting fear that someone, somewhere
may be happy.
- H.L. Mencken
A.F. Simpson
> But there is a theory that a story
> must involve conflict to be interesting, as we already know, and that
> theory isn't easy to disprove.
> Now, if you care to give us an example
> of an interesting story with no conflict, then great - but don't
> expect a limited view as to what conflict is just so that you can
> disprove that theory.
I don't _think_ I ever said I was intending to disprove it.
> >I was simply providing the information he asked for, to whit, naming a
> >day without any conflict in it :-)
>
> He made a statement. You disagreed, and expressed that. That is
> conflict, even though it was expressed obliquely.
But is it the kind of conflict that would make an interesting RPG?
> The Wraith
love
Anna
Andrew Ducker
>The Wraith wrote:
>> He made a statement. You disagreed, and expressed that. That is
>> conflict, even though it was expressed obliquely.
>
>But is it the kind of conflict that would make an interesting RPG?
Absolutely. I've played (and run) numerous games in which a lot of the fun
came from verbal disagreements between the characters over how to do
something, whether they ought to be doing it at all and whose stupid fault
it was that they had to do it at all.
In the Kult game I ran, the characters would frequently fidn their
arguments curtailed with 'You realise you've arrived, you've been arguing
for longer than you realise' It became something of a catchphrase.....
Andy D
Warren J. Dew
But I think it's getting perilously close to becoming
'conflict is what generally makes stories interesting,
so everything that makes a story interesting is conflict'.
If you make the definition of conflict so broad that it
covers virtually every form of interaction with animate
or inanimate objects ("Ginger biscuit or bourbon?
Conflict!") it becomes a rather unhelpful term.
Yes.
Can you have a conflict free game? Well, patently not,
if you have such a wide definition as to include shopping
and, er, conversation as conflict.
Actually, even if you accept that anything that makes a story interesting is
conflict, you can still have a conflict free game. Roleplaying games don't
need to include interesting stories to be worthwhile.
I was simply providing the information he asked for, to
whit, naming a day without any conflict in it :-)
Maybe the conflict was between your helpful attitude and others' interpretation
of your helpfulness as an attack? No conflict in your day, lots of conflict in
theirs.
To your player, it was a conflict free gaming session. To those parts of the
audience expecting the usenet flamewar gaming genre, there is always conflict
to be found.
Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software
The Wraith
wrote:
>The Wraith wrote:
>
>> >I was simply providing the information he asked for, to whit, naming a
>> >day without any conflict in it :-)
>>
>> conflict, even though it was expressed obliquely.
>
>But is it the kind of conflict that would make an interesting RPG?
I didn't say that it was *interesting* conflict. (It's not.) The
theory is that all interesting stories involve conflict, not that all
stories with conflict are interesting.
John Mack
wrote:
>Conflict does not have to be combat. Most normal conversation has an
>element of conflict in it, for example. In fact, your response to
>Marc's challenge is a form of conflict (and mine to yours is still
>more conflict). So there you go - your day has had conflict in it.
He he he. I recently put my Vampire players through The Dinner Party
From Hell. Although the conflict never escalated above genteel
politeness, afterwards the players had their PCs out looking for
someone to kill, just to unwind.
John Mack
Role-Playing Games: Theory and Practice
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~tarim/rpg/rpgpage.htm
"I didn't play Dungeons and Dragons for all those years without learning something about courage".