My favourite author, John Le Carre, said about this that "The cat sat on the mat" is not a story but "The cat sat on the dog's mat" is.
He seems of the view that all stories are about the conflict between characters.
It would be interesting to see more games that are based on non-violent conflicts but I think removing all conflict removes the story.
Game story with no conflict
December 26, 2010 08:14 AM
On the Definition
Re: fireside7
Def 1: A Conflict is opposition between forces
Do I understand you correctly that a force need not be based on intention (thus gravity is also a force), but it is based on something in the story? So for a conflict to exist in a story, the story must have at least two forces in the story that opposes each other in some way.
According to your definition, do the other terms relate to Conflict like this:
Obstacle: A object in the story that provides the force Obstruction that opposes another force, such as the intention of a character to get from A to B. If we are talking in terms of physics, an obstacle on a path isn't a force until you run into it.
Problem: A problem in the story provides the force X (such as doubt) that opposes another force, such as the intention of a character to get from A to B.
Threat: A threat itself is a force that can oppose the intention of the player from doing something directly.
Crisis: A crisis is a type of conflict that is urgent.
Antagonist: An antagonist is something in the story that can exert an opposing force against the player's effort to progress.
Goal: A goal is something that affects the direction of a force.
Is this how you would define Conflict?
Under your definition, do you agree that if a story has no opposing forces among the objects in the story, then the story has no conflict?
In your reply, you said, "Removing conflict removes challenge", this statement is odd because challenge is an interaction not necessarily between objects in a story but it could also be between an object in the story and the player, or completely inside the player. Do you want to drop this statement, redefine conflict, or prove that it is correct?
Re: Aardvajk
If I tell you that "The cat sat on the mat to wait for its owner every day and contiued to do it for 8 years even after its owner had died," would that make the statement an evidence of a story? If so, what is the conflict of this story?
If not, does Hachi has a story? If Hachi has a story but Cat doesn't, what is the difference?
Re: fireside7
Def 1: A Conflict is opposition between forces
Do I understand you correctly that a force need not be based on intention (thus gravity is also a force), but it is based on something in the story? So for a conflict to exist in a story, the story must have at least two forces in the story that opposes each other in some way.
According to your definition, do the other terms relate to Conflict like this:
Obstacle: A object in the story that provides the force Obstruction that opposes another force, such as the intention of a character to get from A to B. If we are talking in terms of physics, an obstacle on a path isn't a force until you run into it.
Problem: A problem in the story provides the force X (such as doubt) that opposes another force, such as the intention of a character to get from A to B.
Threat: A threat itself is a force that can oppose the intention of the player from doing something directly.
Crisis: A crisis is a type of conflict that is urgent.
Antagonist: An antagonist is something in the story that can exert an opposing force against the player's effort to progress.
Goal: A goal is something that affects the direction of a force.
Is this how you would define Conflict?
Under your definition, do you agree that if a story has no opposing forces among the objects in the story, then the story has no conflict?
In your reply, you said, "Removing conflict removes challenge", this statement is odd because challenge is an interaction not necessarily between objects in a story but it could also be between an object in the story and the player, or completely inside the player. Do you want to drop this statement, redefine conflict, or prove that it is correct?
Re: Aardvajk
If I tell you that "The cat sat on the mat to wait for its owner every day and contiued to do it for 8 years even after its owner had died," would that make the statement an evidence of a story? If so, what is the conflict of this story?
If not, does Hachi has a story? If Hachi has a story but Cat doesn't, what is the difference?
December 26, 2010 10:57 AM
"Whether" vs "How"
When I started the thread, I was skeptical whether a story could have no conflict. I had some concept that it could happen, but was trying to seek confirmation from others. At this point, I think the evidence is pretty solid that a story does not need a conflict. With that I suppose I should switch the mode of the thread from "Whether" to "How".
I think at this point the switch is necessary because otherwise it would sound like I am trying to trap people by argument. By now the thread had led to evidence, the differences now may lie only on the semantics, therefore the gear must shift.
Semantics are still valuable to discuss but it seems that more important questions are:
o How do you make a playable story without a conflict?
o What do stories without conflict use to attract and hook an audience?
Questions that signal different responses
"What if ...?", "Is it possible that ...?", "What do you think about ...?"
These questions are usually asked when the evaluation of a concept is sought. The poster wants to know the other's opinion on whether a concept is valid, and expects people to express comment for or against the concept. This questions signal evaluation.
"How would you ...?"
This question is usually asked when a concept is well-defined and the poster is seeking ideas to implement the concept. This question signals brainstorm items and focuses on the development of the concept. This question signals construction.
Comment:
Often time in this part of the forum, people post story idea in the evaluation form, but they are in fact seeking constructive ideas. So if seeking constructive ideas is the true purpose of the thread, the question should be asked differently. Sometimes the poster originally was seeking evaluation, but as the concept develops, they grow out of evaluation mode, but fail to shift the discussion from evaluation to construction. When that happens, the thread usually degrade because it would sound like the poster is being stubborn about the idea.
When I started the thread, I was skeptical whether a story could have no conflict. I had some concept that it could happen, but was trying to seek confirmation from others. At this point, I think the evidence is pretty solid that a story does not need a conflict. With that I suppose I should switch the mode of the thread from "Whether" to "How".
I think at this point the switch is necessary because otherwise it would sound like I am trying to trap people by argument. By now the thread had led to evidence, the differences now may lie only on the semantics, therefore the gear must shift.
Semantics are still valuable to discuss but it seems that more important questions are:
o How do you make a playable story without a conflict?
o What do stories without conflict use to attract and hook an audience?
Questions that signal different responses
"What if ...?", "Is it possible that ...?", "What do you think about ...?"
These questions are usually asked when the evaluation of a concept is sought. The poster wants to know the other's opinion on whether a concept is valid, and expects people to express comment for or against the concept. This questions signal evaluation.
"How would you ...?"
This question is usually asked when a concept is well-defined and the poster is seeking ideas to implement the concept. This question signals brainstorm items and focuses on the development of the concept. This question signals construction.
Comment:
Often time in this part of the forum, people post story idea in the evaluation form, but they are in fact seeking constructive ideas. So if seeking constructive ideas is the true purpose of the thread, the question should be asked differently. Sometimes the poster originally was seeking evaluation, but as the concept develops, they grow out of evaluation mode, but fail to shift the discussion from evaluation to construction. When that happens, the thread usually degrade because it would sound like the poster is being stubborn about the idea.
213
December 26, 2010 12:01 PM
"Under your definition, do you agree that if a story has no opposing forces among the objects in the story, then the story has no conflict? "
Yes. I'm not interested in finding a case where a story has no conflict,however, because conflict is an important part of a story. It isn't just story, but games in general that need conflict, even games without story. The tower example wasn't an example of a story, but of a game. It's like saying, can a food have no flavor? Technically, yes, but why would I want it? I don't want to make stories less interesting or games less challenging. I think there are some games, such as construction games, that might be completely without conflict, however, further examination leads to an internal conflict. The player tries to make something which looks like something else or does something else, so it's still an order against chaos type challenge. As humans, we're hardwired for conflict, so even in our moments of relaxation we seek it out. Games become boring for me because the challenge becomes repetitive, and games reuse these same challenges. One game I've never gotten tired of is Free Cell. It's basically just reordering cards using a set of rules, but there are a vast number of different possibilities and it always remains challenging for me without becoming repetitive. Stories are only a smaller part of a game and can add interest but don't have a major influence on the game other than keeping a player at the game longer to see how the story turns out and also by adding empathy to the characters in the game, making the player feel more involved. However, stories also add a limitation to games. The challenges have to fit with what the story characters are trying to do.
[Edited by - fireside7 on December 26, 2010 12:01:02 PM]
Yes. I'm not interested in finding a case where a story has no conflict,however, because conflict is an important part of a story. It isn't just story, but games in general that need conflict, even games without story. The tower example wasn't an example of a story, but of a game. It's like saying, can a food have no flavor? Technically, yes, but why would I want it? I don't want to make stories less interesting or games less challenging. I think there are some games, such as construction games, that might be completely without conflict, however, further examination leads to an internal conflict. The player tries to make something which looks like something else or does something else, so it's still an order against chaos type challenge. As humans, we're hardwired for conflict, so even in our moments of relaxation we seek it out. Games become boring for me because the challenge becomes repetitive, and games reuse these same challenges. One game I've never gotten tired of is Free Cell. It's basically just reordering cards using a set of rules, but there are a vast number of different possibilities and it always remains challenging for me without becoming repetitive. Stories are only a smaller part of a game and can add interest but don't have a major influence on the game other than keeping a player at the game longer to see how the story turns out and also by adding empathy to the characters in the game, making the player feel more involved. However, stories also add a limitation to games. The challenges have to fit with what the story characters are trying to do.
[Edited by - fireside7 on December 26, 2010 12:01:02 PM]
December 26, 2010 04:35 PM
The difference between challenge and conflict (outside a story)
Re: fireside7
I think it is an argument of semantics. For example, Sudoku is a game where the player fill in number on a grid to satisfy some constraints. It is easy to say that the game requires a cognitive task, the game presents a challenge, but a "conflict"? In what sense does the exercise poses a conflict? Be careful that if you over generalize a definition, it becomes meaningless and becomes equivalent to "cause", which results in a semantic suicide (i.e. if you get to the point where two words mean the same thing, then one of them is redundant).
I use the word "interest" here because if you call that "internal conflict", it would imply that all forms of interest are different forms of conflict, which will cause a semantic tsunami:
Old Way: I read this book because I am interested in the subject.
Your Way: I read this book because I have an unresolved internal conflict: The opposing forces are: 1) My intention to read about the subject, and 2) the knowledge that the book has what I want to read about. Therefore, once I knew that the book exists, I am compelled to read it in order to resolve this internal conflict.
Is it better that the situation if framed as a conflict? How many more words would die because of it? And once they have died, how many would need to be re-constructed to label the different types of "internal conflicts"?
Re: fireside7
I think it is an argument of semantics. For example, Sudoku is a game where the player fill in number on a grid to satisfy some constraints. It is easy to say that the game requires a cognitive task, the game presents a challenge, but a "conflict"? In what sense does the exercise poses a conflict? Be careful that if you over generalize a definition, it becomes meaningless and becomes equivalent to "cause", which results in a semantic suicide (i.e. if you get to the point where two words mean the same thing, then one of them is redundant).
Quote: I think there are some games, such as construction games, that might be completely without conflict, however, further examination leads to an internal conflict.In this route, you agree that there are cases where an interest arises not because of a conflict on the negative, but in the player. It is in this sense that a story itself does not need a conflict, yet still capable to draw interest from the player.
I use the word "interest" here because if you call that "internal conflict", it would imply that all forms of interest are different forms of conflict, which will cause a semantic tsunami:
Old Way: I read this book because I am interested in the subject.
Your Way: I read this book because I have an unresolved internal conflict: The opposing forces are: 1) My intention to read about the subject, and 2) the knowledge that the book has what I want to read about. Therefore, once I knew that the book exists, I am compelled to read it in order to resolve this internal conflict.
Is it better that the situation if framed as a conflict? How many more words would die because of it? And once they have died, how many would need to be re-constructed to label the different types of "internal conflicts"?
213
December 26, 2010 07:21 PM
"The difference between challenge and conflict (outside a story)"
Well, I was probably stretching a little there, but a challenge may or may not be involved in a conflict and in the end, I don't think it matters. A game needs to present a challenge. A story doesn't necessarily need to present a challenge, but does generally need conflict in order to maintain interest. Perhaps you need to just drop the idea of a story? A game doesn't need it. Perhaps it's story that you find is becoming boring in a game. Games can be a very limiting factor for a story. You won't find a Moby Dick story in a game. It will be much more simple and built around the challenges in the game. Save the princess, quest for the missing shoe, whatever. Myself, I feel that a mystery story best works with a game. For me, finding clues and moving further and further into a story in that way keeps me interested, but it presents the problem that certain clues have to be found, so that makes restrictions on game play. Do you lock someone in a room until they discover a certain clue or possibly go crazy and quit, or do you make it so obvious they can't miss it?
[Edited by - fireside7 on December 26, 2010 7:21:53 PM]
Well, I was probably stretching a little there, but a challenge may or may not be involved in a conflict and in the end, I don't think it matters. A game needs to present a challenge. A story doesn't necessarily need to present a challenge, but does generally need conflict in order to maintain interest. Perhaps you need to just drop the idea of a story? A game doesn't need it. Perhaps it's story that you find is becoming boring in a game. Games can be a very limiting factor for a story. You won't find a Moby Dick story in a game. It will be much more simple and built around the challenges in the game. Save the princess, quest for the missing shoe, whatever. Myself, I feel that a mystery story best works with a game. For me, finding clues and moving further and further into a story in that way keeps me interested, but it presents the problem that certain clues have to be found, so that makes restrictions on game play. Do you lock someone in a room until they discover a certain clue or possibly go crazy and quit, or do you make it so obvious they can't miss it?
[Edited by - fireside7 on December 26, 2010 7:21:53 PM]
December 26, 2010 09:38 PM
Re:
It is a little off topic, but I can show you that a game doesn't even need challenge. Such a proof is done by first having you define what challenge is, then give you an example of a game that does not have a challenge. But since it is off topic, if you take my words that it can be proven that a game does not need challenge to be a good game, we could just leave it there.
However, it seems that there is one point that needs to be clarified. This thread isn't about creating something that is familiar, rather, something that is unusual. The purpose of the thread is to explore a different type of game story. So while it is true that game stories have conflicts in general, it adds nothing to the plate.
It would be like saying all of the swans I saw are white, therefore if you want to make a swan, you better make it white. So this thread is about imagining what other types of swan could be out there. One could say, "I made a red swan and it was not good. So just stick to white swans." But how do you know if they didn't do it right? How do you know whether the color is peripheral or principal to the design?
How do you know whether the conflict is peripheral or principal to a game story?
What about challenge? Knowing that they are prevalent proves nothing.
In this case, I was motivated to explore the alternatives because prevalence led to bordom. To step out of the zone of prevalence, the first question I asked was, "whether the prevalence quality is optional or required." If it is required, there would be nothing one could do to avoid it. If it is optional, then there is an avenue for exploration.
Q: What do stories without conflict use to hook a player?
Some terms to think about:
o Slice of life
o Contrast
o Parody
o Fantasy
o Imagination
o Ambition
o Mystery
o Reunion
o Surprise
o Amusement
o Unpredictability
o Unusual perspective
o Promise
o Paradox
o Metaphor
o Thought experiment
o Struggle
o ...
For each term, perhaps think about how a story could satisfy that term without featuring a conflict.
[Edited by - Wai on December 27, 2010 9:38:19 AM]
It is a little off topic, but I can show you that a game doesn't even need challenge. Such a proof is done by first having you define what challenge is, then give you an example of a game that does not have a challenge. But since it is off topic, if you take my words that it can be proven that a game does not need challenge to be a good game, we could just leave it there.
However, it seems that there is one point that needs to be clarified. This thread isn't about creating something that is familiar, rather, something that is unusual. The purpose of the thread is to explore a different type of game story. So while it is true that game stories have conflicts in general, it adds nothing to the plate.
It would be like saying all of the swans I saw are white, therefore if you want to make a swan, you better make it white. So this thread is about imagining what other types of swan could be out there. One could say, "I made a red swan and it was not good. So just stick to white swans." But how do you know if they didn't do it right? How do you know whether the color is peripheral or principal to the design?
How do you know whether the conflict is peripheral or principal to a game story?
What about challenge? Knowing that they are prevalent proves nothing.
In this case, I was motivated to explore the alternatives because prevalence led to bordom. To step out of the zone of prevalence, the first question I asked was, "whether the prevalence quality is optional or required." If it is required, there would be nothing one could do to avoid it. If it is optional, then there is an avenue for exploration.
Q: What do stories without conflict use to hook a player?
Some terms to think about:
o Slice of life
o Contrast
o Parody
o Fantasy
o Imagination
o Ambition
o Mystery
o Reunion
o Surprise
o Amusement
o Unpredictability
o Unusual perspective
o Promise
o Paradox
o Metaphor
o Thought experiment
o Struggle
o ...
For each term, perhaps think about how a story could satisfy that term without featuring a conflict.
[Edited by - Wai on December 27, 2010 9:38:19 AM]
117
December 27, 2010 12:21 PM
Is this an exercise? :p
A definition:
Conflict = a struggle between a goal and an osbtacle
Conflicts needs a obstacle.
Good obstacles create compelling problems.
Threat is the possibility to NOT resolve the problem (or avoid the osbatacle).
Crisis can be a problem, or the Zenith of a problem.
Antagonist is an obstacle, or, if you want to differentiate the words an antagonist could be a "sentient osbatcle".
The goal is what the sentient being want. To have a conflict we need at least one sentient being who have a desire, a goal. Otherwise there's no conflict, only events.
If we're talking about fictional story, yes. But a story without conflict is not compelling. Something has to go wrong to have a good story.
Yes. But surprise alone can't give enough motivation to experience the story.
Yes.
Yes.
That's difficult. Maybe.
No. At least not in the usual meaning of "antagonist".
Yes, conflict is a function while obstacle is a variable.
No. Without a conflict the story becomes boring really fast.
A and b. Because in a (external conflict) and b (internal conflicts) Alice wants something.
On the other are only events, because, we don't know what Alice wants.
A definition:
Conflict = a struggle between a goal and an osbtacle
How are the following related to one another?
o Conflict
o Obstacle
o Problem
o Threat
o Crisis
o Antagonist
o Goal
Conflicts needs a obstacle.
Good obstacles create compelling problems.
Threat is the possibility to NOT resolve the problem (or avoid the osbatacle).
Crisis can be a problem, or the Zenith of a problem.
Antagonist is an obstacle, or, if you want to differentiate the words an antagonist could be a "sentient osbatcle".
The goal is what the sentient being want. To have a conflict we need at least one sentient being who have a desire, a goal. Otherwise there's no conflict, only events.
o Can a story have a goal, but not a conflict?
If we're talking about fictional story, yes. But a story without conflict is not compelling. Something has to go wrong to have a good story.
o Can a story have surprise but not conflict?
Yes. But surprise alone can't give enough motivation to experience the story.
o Can the audience of a story learn something without encountering a conflict?
Yes.
o Can a story present an argument without presenting a conflict?
Yes.
o Must jokes have conflicts?
That's difficult. Maybe.
o Can a story has an antagonist without a conflict?
No. At least not in the usual meaning of "antagonist".
o Is there a difference between obstacle and conflict?
Yes, conflict is a function while obstacle is a variable.
o Can a story has a prolonged attraction force without a conflict?
No. Without a conflict the story becomes boring really fast.
Which of the following scenarios has a conflict to you?
a) Alice wants to go to the movies but Bob wants Alice to stay home
b) Alice wants to go to the movies but also wants to stay home with Bob
c) Alice goes to the movies but forgets to bring money for the ticket
d) Alice goes to the movies only to find that the tickets are sold out
e) Alice goes to the movies and meets old friends along the way
f) Alice goes to the movies and invites strangers along the way
g) Alice goes to the movies and has a day she didn't expect
A and b. Because in a (external conflict) and b (internal conflicts) Alice wants something.
On the other are only events, because, we don't know what Alice wants.
Perfection is only a limit to improvement - Fantasy Eydor
December 28, 2010 12:11 AM
Re: dr Jack
Do you want to provide your view as opinion or do you want to offer
it as a target of semantic examination with the prospect of better
clarity, but also the chance that some of your ideas may be disproven
as a casualty of clarity?
(i.e. May I question your definition to expose the truth?)
If a story has an antagonist that tries to harm the main character, but
the antagonist's action only helps the main character, is the antagonist
an antagonist? Is there a conflict?
Do you want to provide your view as opinion or do you want to offer
it as a target of semantic examination with the prospect of better
clarity, but also the chance that some of your ideas may be disproven
as a casualty of clarity?
(i.e. May I question your definition to expose the truth?)
If a story has an antagonist that tries to harm the main character, but
the antagonist's action only helps the main character, is the antagonist
an antagonist? Is there a conflict?
December 28, 2010 01:51 AM
My definition:
Conflict
Def 3: A conflict is a situation where two or more intentions lead to states that cannot coexist.
Analysis of an example of conflict:
You have $3 to buy ice-cream or sandwich, but you kind of want both.
Intention1: You want ice-cream
Intention2: You want sandwich
State1: You buy the ice-cream
State2: You buy the sandwich
Conflict: Intention1 makes you want State1 to occur, Intention2 makes you want State2 to occur, but State1 and State2 cannot coexist.
Comment:
In this definition, for a conflict to exist, there must be an entity that is capable of having an intention. Two entites that have a conflict are not necessarily in opposition: they aren't necessarily enemies, and they may not even know the existence of the other entity. If no intention is involved, the situation may be labeled by other words, such as "contradiction", "collision", as applicable.
Internal Conflict is a conflict where its component intentions belong to the same entity.
Conflict of a story is a conflict where its component intentions and states are in the story.
Antagonist is an entity with an intention to hinder the protagonist.
Obstacle is an object that blocks an otherwise viable path to a goal.
Motivational comment:
You could see that my definition for Conflict is pretty specific and restrictive, yet most of the game stories use it as its main situation. What else is there?
[Edited by - Wai on December 28, 2010 2:51:33 AM]
Conflict
Def 3: A conflict is a situation where two or more intentions lead to states that cannot coexist.
Analysis of an example of conflict:
You have $3 to buy ice-cream or sandwich, but you kind of want both.
Intention1: You want ice-cream
Intention2: You want sandwich
State1: You buy the ice-cream
State2: You buy the sandwich
Conflict: Intention1 makes you want State1 to occur, Intention2 makes you want State2 to occur, but State1 and State2 cannot coexist.
Comment:
In this definition, for a conflict to exist, there must be an entity that is capable of having an intention. Two entites that have a conflict are not necessarily in opposition: they aren't necessarily enemies, and they may not even know the existence of the other entity. If no intention is involved, the situation may be labeled by other words, such as "contradiction", "collision", as applicable.
Internal Conflict is a conflict where its component intentions belong to the same entity.
Conflict of a story is a conflict where its component intentions and states are in the story.
Antagonist is an entity with an intention to hinder the protagonist.
Obstacle is an object that blocks an otherwise viable path to a goal.
Motivational comment:
You could see that my definition for Conflict is pretty specific and restrictive, yet most of the game stories use it as its main situation. What else is there?
[Edited by - Wai on December 28, 2010 2:51:33 AM]
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
