The first example that springs to mind is one that I unfortunately can't remember the name of. x_X This is a game where the story is told entirely through the art. There is no combat or much other gameplay. Initially the screens are all covered with black pixels, and you have to walk and jump to remove all the black pixels from the screen, revealing the picture and thus the story. The story is that humanity has been destroyed in an apocalypse - you deduce this from walking around the broken abandoned city. There are several screens like this, which you access by discovering a door in the previous screen and going through it. When you have revealed all the screens the whole story has been told and the game is over. I'm not entirely sure it qualifies as a game since there is no score, no way to win or lose.

Aha, someone figure out which game this was for me, it is called Small Worlds.

I think right now there are these important parts to the thread:

1) Philosophy - The part about the intention of the design. Now I think that this part is fundamentally important because it tells what the words are meant to mean.
2) Design Placement - The part about the object being designed compare to other objects
3) Composition Variations - The part about variations of composition


[Philosophy]

Peace as a Choice

When you think about peace between two countries, you imagine the situation where they are not at war. That situation, hardly seems like a choice of one country. When you think about peace between two people, you imagine the situation where they are not fighting or arguring. That situation also hardly seems like a choice of an individual. When you think about peace within oneself, you imagine the situation where the person free from troubles and gets to do what he wants. This situation is hardly a choice of the individual. He is just lucky isn't he?

The person with peace within, is in a state of acceptance. He has no longing for what he doesn't have, and no restraint to give what he does have. He has peace within, not because he has never been troubled by conflict, but because he has earned the wisdom to realize that the situations that he once saw as conflicts, are irrelevant.

To this person, peace is no longer a situation can only be attained by changing the surrounding, through effort or struggles. Peace is a choice.

The story begins when this person has already realized that he got the peace within. He knows that this is only the beginning, because although he doesn't know what is yet to come, he knows that that every step he takes thereafter will be extraordinary -- for he has already walked pass the ordinary.



[Design Placement]

Story x Conflict Matrix

Suppose you could roughly dissect games in two dimensions. In the first dimension, you separate games with explicit stories and those without. In the second dimension, you separate games with conflict <b>in gameplay*<b> and those without. Then games are partitioned roughly into four regions:

[SC] With both explicit story and conflict: Examples include the typical RPG or narrated RTS, FPS, with plots, missions, dialogs, characterization, etc.

[_C] Without explicit story but has conflict: Examples include Small World (re: sunandshadow), Pokemon Snap (re: DontBotherNone), and also those with no story at all such as Tennis, Racing, Hunting, tic-tac-toe, rock-paper-scissors-lizard-spock, etc.

[__] Without explicit story and no conflict: This type requires you to accept the concept that some games don't have conflict. This is part of the earlier discussion. For me this roughly means interactions where the player can fail an assigned goal, but the player is not going against any agent trying to make you lose. Examples include: MasterMind, Single-player Billard, un-undoable maze, MineSweeper etc.

[S_] With explicit story but no conflict: Examples include: Monkey Island, branching story games, detective/mystery multiple choices games, some resource management games etc. This is the intented placement of the design.

* Emphasizes that thus far, the main topic is about conflict in story, not conflict in gameplay, but this particular section is about conflict in gameplay.

** For completeness, the following are activities that aren't games but exercises, simulations, toys, tools, etc. Note that you could always add rules to them to turn them into games, therefore I am just mentioning those that aren't games if you don't apply additional rules: Shooting hoops, team rowing (crew), Jigsaw puzzle, sokoban, sodoku, crossword puzzle, Sims, Flight Sims, Computer assisted creations, interactive educational modules.


From a story with conflict to one without

In the following I try to show what the story would be like with conflict-less story for some games mentioned in the [S_] type above. For this section to make sense you need to have a concept that a story could exist without a conflict. Due to the changes in the story structure, the meaning of the original story is not preserved.

Monkey Island:

Simplifed story with conflict: MC wants to get from A to B, but must please various inhabitants to get tools to get to B.

Possible Story without conflict: MC is at location A, he frees various inhabitants, who give MC tools in turn. Using those tools, MC finds himself at B. (Re: Chaucer's Canterbury Tales)


Branching Story Game:

Hypothetical story with conflict: MC needs to choose between marrying A or B.

Story without conflict: MC gets to know A and B and evolves into true love.


FPS:
(Re: DontBotherNone)

Hypothetical story with conflict with gameplay conflict ([SC]): MC is a solider with the mission to eliminate the enemies.

Story without conflict with conflict-less gamplay ([S_]): MC is a soldier with the mission to identify and tag as many structural damages and resources over a disaster zone.



[Composition Variations]

Conflict vs Contrast

Conflict is not the only type of content that gives structure to a story (if you agree that a story can have other structures). Conflict is a type of situation. Contrast is a type of inclusion scheme. Since the two are not classification of the same domain, you could create a four partition matrix showing the four cases, where a composition has both conflict and contrast, has conflict but no contrast, etc. However in this section, I just want to give an example to show that there is a difference.

Composition with conflict with <i>contrasting choices</i>*:

Mr. X works very hard every day. Every day he goes to work, he sees the poor neighborhood. When he gets his paycheck, he wonders whether he should move out or stay and help the neighborhood. One day while he is going to work, he dies in an accident.

Composition with contrast but no conflict**:

Mr. A works very hard every day. Seeing how poor the neighborhood is, he saves up and takes his time to buy a house in a good neighborhood. One day while he is going to work, he dies in an accident. Mr. B works very hard every day. Seeing how poor the neighborhood is, he spends his money and time to improve it. One day while he is going to work, he dies in an accident.


* Contrasting choices: Examples: hot vs cold, big vs small, stay vs leave, etc.
Non-contrasting choices: Examples: medium vs rare, scrambled vs boiled, pinch vs slap, etc.

** When you try to schedule two appointments in the same time slot, you definitely call that a conflict. When you try to schedule two appointments at two different open slots, you don't call that a conflict even though you have a goal (to schedule the appointments), the current state isn't what you want (the appointments are not scheduled) and it takes action (you need to click on the calendar type some text and save it). It is in this sense that neither Mr. A nor Mr. B sees any conflict in their situations. Both Mr. A and Mr. B are doing what they want without feeling any opposition, just like making an appointment in an open slot.

When you think about peace between two countries, you imagine the situation where they are not at war. That situation, hardly seems like a choice of one country. When you think about peace between two people, you imagine the situation where they are not fighting or arguing. That situation also hardly seems like a choice of an individual. When you think about peace within oneself, you imagine the situation where the person free from troubles and gets to do what he wants. This situation is hardly a choice of the individual. He is just lucky isn't he?

The person with peace within, is in a state of acceptance. He has no longing for what he doesn't have, and no restraint to give what he does have. He has peace within, not because he has never been troubled by conflict, but because he has earned the wisdom to realize that the situations that he once saw as conflicts, are irrelevant.

To this person, peace is no longer a situation can only be attained by changing the surrounding, through effort or struggles. Peace is a choice.

I've heard this idea described in Eastern philosophy. I will try to work with it in this thread, but it's not the way I think. When I see two countries at peace, I don't see a null relationship, I see the two countries constantly struggling over trade, taxes, laws, and customs. It's a non-violent struggle, but the conflict between two arguing politicians or two competing businesses is as real as that between two men with swords. The same is true of two people who are friends - there are still small struggles like who is going to pay for lunch when they eat together, where they are going to eat when they are hungry for different things, what they are going to eat and why if one is a vegetarian and the other is not, which one gets to eat the last piece if they share a pizza, and many non-food issues. Friendship is an economy where the two people negotiate trade agreements for favors and acts of affection, and trust each other to keep their bargains. That's why I see peace as a balance; it is a decision, but actually it's a constant stream of decisions about how to balance the desires and moods of the self against the desires and moods of the other. Sometimes you need to be selfless, otherwise you have no value as a friend. But sometimes you need to stand up for your own wants and needs, otherwise you are a doormat. People don't consider a doormat a friend, it's just an object to be taken for granted. To be friends people or countries need to respect each other, and that includes respecting the other's ability to cause big problems if one breaks one's bargains. That's my philosophy anyway.

But, as I said I'll try to work with your definition for the purpose of the thread.

** For completeness, the following are activities that aren't games but exercises, simulations, toys, tools, etc. Note that you could always add rules to them to turn them into games, therefore I am just mentioning those that aren't games if you don't apply additional rules: Shooting hoops, team rowing (crew), Jigsaw puzzle, sokoban, sodoku, crossword puzzle, Sims, Flight Sims, Computer assisted creations, interactive educational modules.
I think most sims which are sold are games rather than toys. They usually have either a loss condition (your sim dies, your airplane crashes, you run out of money and can't get any more) or a victory condition (usually obtaining some in-game object or set of objects). But, this is an unimportant point, I only mention it because I play a lot of sims and have an interest in designing them.

[__] Without explicit story and no conflict: This type requires you to accept the concept that some games don't have conflict. This is part of the earlier discussion. For me this roughly means interactions where the player can fail an assigned goal, but the player is not going against any agent trying to make you lose. Examples include: MasterMind, Single-player Billard, un-undoable maze, MineSweeper etc.
I think you are wrong here. I assume you are familiar with the idea of the three basic conflicts: man vs. man, man vs. self, and man vs. nature. Games like minesweeper absolutely have man vs. nature conflict. The player uncovering all the safe squares is directly comparable to an explorer trying to climb Mt. Everest despite dangerous weather and possible rockfalls or avalanches. You could consider the agents either the bombs or the game itself. There are many players who see the game itself as the opponent they are in conflict with and trying to defeat (as well as the world or 'nature' they are acting within).

BTW Small Worlds does not have conflict in the gameplay and I would place it in the toy category since no choices at all are made in the game and it is impossible to lose.

[S_] With explicit story but no conflict: Examples include: Monkey Island, branching story games, detective/mystery multiple choices games, some resource management games etc. This is the intended placement of the design.
Oh, you want to design a game with no conflict in the gameplay either, that's very important to know. Ok. Monkey island is an adventure game. The puzzles in adventure games are also what I would consider to be man vs. nature conflict. So, by your definition man vs. nature conflict is allowed? That would make the problem easy. Does an adventure game with a story about escaping from a sinking ship, scaling a mountain, or establishing a colony on a hazardous alien world satisfy the design requirements?

Monkey Island:

Simplifed story with conflict: MC wants to get from A to B, but must please various inhabitants to get tools to get to B.

Possible Story without conflict: MC is at location A, he frees various inhabitants, who give MC tools in turn. Using those tools, MC finds himself at B. (Re: Chaucer's Canterbury Tales) Isn't the difference between these two only in the player's mind, over which the game has little control? Any gamer knows that NPCs standing around in need of help will give useful and possibly necessary rewards when you help them. Any gamer knows there is a point B they are supposed to work their way towards.

Branching Story Game:

Hypothetical story with conflict: MC needs to choose between marrying A or B.

Story without conflict: MC gets to know A and B and evolves into true love.
This is where I have difficulty applying your definition of peace, since to me relationship development is made out of conflict, or rather successfully converting a series of conflicts into compromises. The same applies to the monkey island example - how is it possible to create NPCs who are realistic and interesting people if the NPCs don't have conflicting desires and can't form bargains with the player?

[Composition Variations]

Conflict vs Contrast

Conflict is not the only type of content that gives structure to a story (if you agree that a story can have other structures). [snip]

Composition with contrast but no conflict**:

Mr. A works very hard every day. Seeing how poor the neighborhood is, he saves up and takes his time to buy a house in a good neighborhood. One day while he is going to work, he dies in an accident. Mr. B works very hard every day. Seeing how poor the neighborhood is, he spends his money and time to improve it. One day while he is going to work, he dies in an accident.
Personally I think this is a failure of story structure. There is no non-deterministic consequence of either choice. The end is not teleologically related to anything else in the story. There is no meaning, at least in this summary. The player is not likely to be satisfied at the end.

Discussion Status Code

The following describes some situations about misunderstand during a discussion with two parties.

Code 0 - Both parties misunderstand each other and believe that the other is wrong.
Code 1 - One party misunderstands the other and believes that the other is wrong.
Code 2 - One party misunderstands the other, but is aware that there is a misunderstanding.
Code 3 - Both parties understand each other, but only one party contributes to the discussion.
Code 4 - Both parties understand each other and both contribute to the discussion.

For the discussion about definitions, the status is Code 1. If you think that I said something wrong, it is not a cue for you to show where I went wrong, but a cue telling you that you read it wrong. The situation is lopsided because this thread is written from a perspective that is unexpected.

Consider me an explorer who had ventured to a hilltop overlooking a village that you are in. I tell you that the entire village is sitting on the shell of a huge turtle. You are entitled to your disbelief, but it does not change the reality that I have no reason to distort the observations. If you think that I said something wrong, it is not because I am wrong, but that my descriptions are based on a perspective that is uncommon to the people in the village.


We use the Perspective of Design

Design is different from creation. The difference lies in the conscious use of knowledge to consider options and to make decisions that brings the object of design into existence. As a conscious activity, design requires assets in the form of information, knowledge, and decision logic. In terms of knowledge, the most important areas are:

Form: The understanding of the form of the object that needs to be designed
Options: The knowledge of the options for each component of the object form
Values: The knowledge required to judge the object when its options are decided.

Suppose a house sandwich must have two pieces of bread with a piece of vegetable, a piece of meat, and a piece of cheese in between and is prepared using the house special process. If I ask you to design a sandwich for me, I am asking you to choose the ingredients so that the overall sandwich is valuable (e.g. tasty) to me. [ Diagram (png) ]

Results of design are not intrinsically superior to results of creation. A randomly compiled sandwich could taste unexpectedly good. However, for this thread the discussion is done in the perspective of design because it implies knowledge, which is objective and transferable. By using this perspective, we aim to discover, articulate, and share the knowledge used for design.


Game Story without Conflict is the Design Object

The object being designed is a story that exists in a game. 'Game story' is the form. 'Without conflict' is the abstract that summaries the value definitions. Therefore, this leaves options as the main discussion topic. What is the range of options that satisfy both the form and the values?


The End Product of this Discussion is a Map of Design Options

In an actual design, the goal is to complete the design. The goal of this discussion is different. The goal is not to complete a design, but to expand the knowledge required for such design. The purpose is to map out the entire landscape, so that a person can use it as a reference regardless where they want to go. The end product of this discussion is a map that shows all possible options a designer could consider to satisfy the form and the values.

The ToDo List

First, we want to identify the form and its required components. So far, we know that the required components are:

Game Story \ Mode of Existence (Concerns how the story exists in the game)
Game Story \ Composition (Concerns what the story contains)

For the Mode of Existence, I mentioned 5 options, but we did not provide any scheme to label or classify those options. We should analyze them so that we can give meaningful labels to them.

For the Composition, I mentioned the Truth Layer and the Story Layer. The two are renamed and considered as required components:

Game Story \ Composition \ Fact (Concerns the reality of the story world)
Game Story \ Composition \ Presentation (Concerns what and how the author shows the player)

The following is a partial list of known optional components in Facts. Under each component is a list of options. The options marked with 'x' are the ones I want to do without. I mark them in hope that it makes it easier to identify the value system (in terms of what is valued and what isn't). After reading the list, think about what options are valuable to the player.

... \ Fact \ Entity \ Attitude \
o Casual,
x Do or Die,
o Obsessed,
o Reluctant, etc...

... \ Fact \ Entity \ Intention \
o None,
o To accept something
o To create something
o To discover something
o To save something

... \ Fact \ Situation \ Outcome \
x Win-lose
x Lose-win
x Lose-Lose
o Win-Win

... \ Fact \ Relation \ Relation between two intentions \
x Conflict
o Cooperation

... \ Fact \ Entity \ Action \ Style \
x Violent
o Non-violent

... \ Fact \ Entity \ Composure \
o Peaceful
x Disturbed

... \ Fact \ Entity \ Action \ Cause of Initiation \
o Choice
x Compulsion
o Reflex

... \ Fact \ Entity \ Perspective \ Friend \ Definition \
x Someone that helps you
x Someone that does not harm you
x Someone that does not intend to harm you
x Someone that does not intend to harm you more than help you
x Someone that you trust
x Someone that you can trust
x Someone that can form an agreement with you
x Someone that makes plans for you
x Someone that needs your help
o Someone that makes plans with you
o Someone that respects you
x Someone that likes what you have
x Someone that likes what you give
o Someone that likes you for who you are
o Someone that enjoys your company
x Someone that forgives you
o Someone that cares about you more than your benefit to them
o Anyone
o Someone that you are willing to help

... \ Fact \ Relationship \ Cause of Development \
x Resolving conflict
x Compromising
x Negotiation
o Increase in understanding
o Increase in understanding by seeing the other in new roles / situations


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Conflict vs Contrast

We know that if we were to compare an story using conflict to a story using contrast, we would do so using stories with similar level of complexity. If we say that the story using contrast seems to have no meaning, we would first make sure that our comparison, the story using conflict, has significantly more meaning. Otherwise, we understand that it only shows that at the comparable level of complexity, neither story has a strong meaning.


Re: The Absence of 'Meaning' in the Objective Definition of Story

We understand that the use of 'meaning' in determining whether a composition is a story is not permitted for an objective definition. The problem is demonstrated by the composition with the Trains, showing the sequence 1, 2, 3, 7. If this sequence is meaningful to some but not to others, and we rely on the detection of such meaning to tell whether a composition is a story, then by the lack of an objective method to detect meaning, the definition fails to be objective. Further, there is evidence that meaning is not a common quality that qualities a composition as a story, and that the classification of a composition as a story is independent to an audience. The evidence includes:

Evidence 1: There are many stories that are written to amuse. These stories contain no meaning, although they do have a purpose (to amuse the audience). To understand this as evidence, you need to understand this: Suppose I give you an example of a story that is written to amuse, you have two general approaches to disprove my claim. 1) you could show that the story contains a meaning, and that the meaning is the partial reason that the example is a story. 2) you could show that the example is not a story because it lacks a meaning to you and that I claim that it has no meaning. Knowing that you have these two approaches to disprove my claim, the example that I am going to pick will be well-known compositions that are widely regarded as stories. However, for me to do so successfully, you will need to first come up with an objective way to detect meaning in a story. Otherwise, even though I give an example, you could always claim that it has a meaning to you. So far, there is no evidence that you are able to define objectively how to detect meaning from a composition. In your description, you used the word 'teleology'. At this moment it only sounds like it has meaning, to show that it has an objective meaning, you need to do this: define the term, and give an example where meaning is detected based on the definition, and another example where the definition shows that it is impossible for the composition to have any meaning. If you cannot objectively define each term in your definition, you know that your definition isn't objective. That is the objective way to tell whether a definition is objective (I don't need to tell you that it is wrong, you are supposed to know that it is wrong, if you don't know, the only reason should be negligence--that you were lazy and didn't try.). Do not see this as a challenge, because the evidence points to a reality that people do not use the existence of meaning to detect whether a composition is a story. The hypothesis that stories must have meaning does not hold water.

Evidence 2: The sentence: "What does this story mean?" would become illogical. If a composition is a story only if the audience understands its meaning, then it is invalid for the asker to ask such question since, to the asker, the composition isn't a story. However, this question makes sense because the asker understands that a story is a story even if they don't understand its meaning themselves. Therefore, the assumption that a composition is a story only if the audience understands does not model the reality of how the word is used.

Evidence 3: We don't hear people say, "Well, it is a story to you, but not to me." We don't hear this because we believe that stories can be defined objectively. Note that if for we have always understood that stories are only defined subjectively, the phrase would be as common as "Well, it is a threat to you, but not to me." or "Well, it is a piece of cake to you, but not to me." This is not a statistical coincident. This is evidence that the word 'story' is never subjectively defined as a noun. Also consider the absence of this phrase in usage: "Well, it is a clue to you, but not to me." Here, while 'clue' is related to meaning, the absence of this phrase also shows that 'clue' is used as an objectively-defined noun: a clue is a clue, regardless whether the speaker understands it. A person can fail to see that a piece of information is a clue, but the piece of information is still a clue*.

Evidence 4: When people go watch a Hollywood movie, they accept that the movie they watch shows a story. Most would consider the movie a story even if they don't believe that the movie has a 'meaning'. They consider the movie a story regardless whether it has a meaning. This is evidence that meaning is irrelevant in the definition of story.

Evidence 5: An anecdote is a story. An anecdote by itself may only communicates an experience.

Evidence 6: A story without resolution is still a story. These are the type of stories where the audience is left 'hanging there'. In some situation, since the audience does not know the ending, and the ending holds the truth crucial to the meaning of the events, the story ends in a condition that deliberately denied the audience of not only the meaning but also the resolution. However, those compositions are considered stories. Therefore both meaning and resolution are irrelevant in people's brains when they decide to call something a story. This is evidence that a definition where meaning is required is artificial and does not reflect the reality. Another word that expresses "does not reflect reality" is 'wrong.'

* Objective definition of Clue:
A clue is an artifact of an action. (In this definition, clue and hint have different meaning.)


Re: Composition vs Player Interpretation

S1: "Simplifed story with conflict: MC wants to get from A to B, but must please various inhabitants to get tools to get to B."
S2: "Possible story without conflict: MC is at location A, he frees various inhabitants, who give MC tools in turn. Using those tools, MC finds himself at B"

We understand that if S1 and S2 are presented in a narration, they would be like this:

S1: "I am at A. I want to get to B, because B is a wonderful place. But to do that, I must first get tools from people here at A, but they won't give unless I please them..."
S2: "While I was at A, I saw some people trapped so I freed them. To thank me they gave me a digolo. Before I knew it, I was at B. B is a wonderful place."

Based on the narration, we see that S1 describes two intentions:
o Intention 1: Narrator wants to get tools to go to B
o Intention 2: People don't want to give tools to narrator.
Because these intentions lead to two states that can't coexist, S1 has a conflict.

For S2, we see these intentions:
o Narrator wants to free people
o People wants to thank narrator
Because these intentions don't lead to two states that can't coexist, S2 has no conflict.

This judgement has nothing to do with user perception. It is purely based on the content of the story. Therefore the distinction is objective. We understand there are different modes that a story can exist in a game. We recognize the difference between a player controlling a defined character vs a player controlling his own avatar. When the player is controlling a character with defined objectives, those objectives belong to the story. They are not a matter of player interpretation.


Re: Man vs Nature

In our definition, Man vs Nature is not necessarily a conflict. First, we understand when life is hard, people call that hardship, not conflict. During times of hardship, a person may struggle. During times of conflict, a person may also struggle. Therefore, we see that struggle also does not imply conflict. Man vs Nature is a conflict when Nature is a sentient entity. An example is wilderness survival when you face a bear and the bear wants to eat you. That becomes a conflict because it fits the objective definition. A person dying of thrist in a desert is not a conflict. It's tough, it sucks, but it isn't a conflict. However, if the person feels that it is so tough that on one hand he wants to find water, but on the other hand he just want to die, then there is a conflict, but that is not Man vs Nature, but Man vs Self.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An important question to consider

If a table leg is a part of a table, then what is the table to the table leg?

Try fill in the blank:

A table leg is _part_ of a table, therefore the table is _____ of the table leg.