News:

Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.

Main Menu

The essential conflict

Started by Tomas HVM, December 03, 2003, 09:09:15 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Tomas HVM

I've enjoyed reading the start of "Silmenume"s thread on simulationism immensely. Thanks to "Silmenume" for his writings. One of his points promped me to comment, and I have chosen to extract it, as my comment is somewhat on the side of his main discussion:

Quote from: SilmenumeConflict is not something that flows from within the game, rather conflict is the source from which all exploration flows!
...

Conflict + Character + Situation = The Exploratory action that is Sim.
I prefer to look at conflict through a general formula like this:

Character action + conflict reaction = exploration

This simple formula comes with several premises:

1 - There is always conflict in roleplaying games, and anything may pose a conflict (a locked door, a fighter, a young girl asking the character to dance, etc.). Any "situation" is conflict in some way, subtle or overt (and as such "situation" is covered by "conflict" in the formula).

2 - Conflict is something that flows with the game, and changes as the game proceeds, according to the characters interaction with it, and the inherent dynamics of the conflict itself (given in NPCs, physical laws of the fictional universe, the GMs motivations, etc.).

3 - Exploration is the players ongoing relation to the conflicts of the game, and reflection upon them. It is the gist of the gaming experience, and makes it possible to make real experiences out of fictious matter (possible, not necessary).

4 - How we, the players, relate to the conflict reaction distinguish us as players; being gamist (experience it with a "win/loose"-mindset), narrativist (experience it with a "drama"-mindset), or simulationist (experience it with a "coherence"-mindset). Our mindset colours the gaming experience, of course.

5 - Immersionism (basically an "in-game" stance) may be a strong part of any player mindset, being it gamist, narrativist or simulationist. The ability to identify with your character is inherent in all players (more or less so), and may be prominent in any gaming experience. This is the premise which reflects that playing with character, also called "roleplaying" (and at work in the seemingly broader term of "exploration"), is the core of any roleplaying experience.

Any action taken in a roleplaying game, by any player, with any mindset, is an action of such exploration.
Tomas HVM
writer, storyteller, games designer
www.fabula.no

Mike Holmes

Eh, I don't buy it. I mean Conflict is definitely one form of exploration. But I think that quite a bit of RPG play isn't about conflict. It's about establishing color. That is, if I describe the saunter of my character as he walks along the boulevard, I'm exploring the character, but not facing any conflict. If the GM says that I'm passing a huge and ornate temple, we're exploring the setting, but there is no conflict.

I'd agree that Conflict is what drives exploration. Without it, I don't think that most people would play. But it's not the totality of exploration.

Mike
Member of Indie Netgaming
-Get your indie game fix online.

Ron Edwards

Hello,

I think that what you're calling Conflict, I call "protagonism." It'll be presented pretty thoroughly in my upcoming essay.

Probably the most difficult aspect of this dialogue, in this thread, is the use of "exploration." It is very prone to being interpreted however anyone wants to interpret it, so I need to know whether you're using it in the strict sense of the model, or in a different sense. Your definition above, frankly, resembles Creative Agenda more than it does Exploration, in the model.

Best,
Ron

Tomas HVM

Hmm... Mike and Ron on my back again! :)

First of all; I use the term "conflict" in a very wide sense, but I don't use it to define any and all things going on in RPGs. Still the game will have conflict either way you see it, always.

Conflicts may be so base that the temple in Mike's example is indeed the source of a conflict; should we go in, or pass it? Any and all scenes where the players have to make choices on behalf of their roles, is some kind of conflict. Any choice made is irreversible; it will influence the flow of the game, and ultimately the destiny of the characters (given a GM who don't ignore the players).

In viewing these points of decision as "conflicts" we focus on the game in a way which give great possibilities to our gameplay. Any small choice made by active players is important, and treated seriously by the GM/players, as it is always part of the greater fiction.

By relating to conflicts in this way we also focus on the main force in a good RPG; the conflict, all scenes demanding or fascilitating an active player choice. We make the decision-making the "flow" of the game. Good focus is essential to flow in the game, and how you relate to conflicts is at the core of this.

On "exploration" though, my thoughts are quite different. I use this term instead of "play", which I find more than adequate to describe how we relate to RPGs, also covering the exploratory bits of it. The inherent exploration embedded in our play with the elements of the RPG, is one sideeffect of our playfulness. However; "play" is a term associated with children, and as such a troublesome term to use. Many roleplayers have a strong urge to be considered adults, and react to such "childish" explanations of their hobby.

So yes; I do have my own way of using the term "exploration", more like the way we would use "play", if we had a normal attitude towards it.

I do not like all the terms used in the GNS-model, and find that I have to reflect this view as I comment on parts of it, even though I have only done so in a very limited way so far.

The reason is that I hold the terms we choose to define our world, or the way we view it. The terms we use have a power of their own, steering our thoughts in subtle ways, installing us with certains ideas, and blocking others.

I will have to write a longer essay on this, eventually. But until so happens, Ron will have to be patient with my fringe comments, with little or no arguments to support them.
Tomas HVM
writer, storyteller, games designer
www.fabula.no

Tomas HVM

I've been messaged by a friendly soul, telling me that the point of "play" being thouchy for roleplayers, as stated in my last post, is not true. I think the point is false, yes, due to a language problem. I'm sorry for that. Here's a clarification on the subject.

The english word "play" is in fact slightly different to the Norwegian word I had in mind, and so my meaning, when expressed in English, is not quite true to my thoughts. The Norwegian word I had in mind; "lek", may be translated into english through the phrase "childrens play", but you really don't have a good, single word for it in english.

The Norwegian word "lek" is not solely linked to childrens activities. However; is is very much seen as such by many roleplayers over here, and that stance hinders them in seeing the many positive connotations within the term, and how it applies to their roleplaying.

I chose to translate it with the word "play", as this is close in meaning, and functional in this context. Play is not imbued with quite the same connotations as "lek", but it is quite sufficient for the main point of my post, and more suitable than "exploration" as a central term in any broader model on RPGs.

Hope this clarifies it for you.

On the terms used in the essay;
- Character and color (c+c); system, setting and situation (s+s+s); is this a set of phrases chosen partly because of the first-letters in the words? Seriously; I do this a lot myself.
- All the terms are defined within the text, and as such are functional, but still I feel that two of them needs to be replaced, and two of them needs to be merged.
- Character is OK.
- Color should be part of setting.
- System is too narrow a term for the things we do and the tools we use when playing. "Method" is better suited.
- Setting is OK, but needs to swallow the "color"-term to be a fully functional term.
- Situation needs to be replaced, both because it is too similar to setting, and because it needs to make place for the more poignant "conflict".

I propose to use four set of terms, each one focussed on one level within the roleplaying-media. These sets of terms are meant to offer alternate viewpoints to the creation, discussion and practise of RPGs. They are meant to augment eachother, not to compete for supremacy. The first set is meant to replace the terms used by Ron in his essay:

Game level:
- Character
- Setting
- Method
- Conflict (relates strongly to the personal level)

Personal level:
- Engagement
- Play
- Catharsis

Artistic level:
- Designer (creator(s) of the game)
- Vision (what the game is meant to produce, and how the designer conveys his ideas, this term relates to the sum of all terms in the first set)
- Elements (the elements designed to make up the game, which the players use to build the fiction)
- Player (participant(s) in the game)
- Fiction (what the game actually produce, how the players "add it up", this term relates to the sum of all terms in the first set)

Social level:
- Social context (how the players gather, talk, eat, organise, socialise)
- Gameplay (how the players use the game, how they enjoy it, and what kind of standing the game has in the group)
- Reflection (what experiences the game offers, how it reflects our lives, how it influences our talks and thoughts, and how it changes us)

You may consider this a skeleton for dissecting and discussing RPGs. I'd like to develop it into an essay or book on the subject, but would like to have some comments on the skeleton.

Comments and critique are appreciated!
Tomas HVM
writer, storyteller, games designer
www.fabula.no

Walt Freitag

Hi Tomas,

Could you clarify something for me? It appears that you're in the process of formulating your own comprehensive theory of role playing games. It also appears to me that this theory has very little relationship to GNS, except for a few inevitable overlaps in terms (inevitable because they refer to fundamental aspects of role playing games that one would expect any analysis of role playing games to address, such as "character" and "setting.") There's nothing at all wrong with that. I look forward to discussing your theory once you have it laid out in full.

(There's not much I can say about the theory in its current presentation as a list of terms, though. Sure, all these terms refer to aspects of role playing games. They have designers. They have players/participants. There is gameplay. There are characters and setting. There is a social context. And so on. But I'm waiting to see what your theory has to say about those things.)

What's confusing me is that you tend to phrase things in such a way as to suggest that you're requesting changes to be made in Ron's GNS theory, when what you're really doing, I believe, is describing your own entirely unrelated theory. For instance, when you say "Color should be part of setting" (emphasis added), you could mean:

1. "In my theory, color is part of setting, in contrast to Ron's theory in which it is separate."

2. "Ron's theory is wrong because he says color is separate from setting but it should be part of setting instead."

If what you mean is #1, then there's no problem except that your wording sometimes makes it sound like you're saying #2. There's no need to set your new theory in opposition to GNS or any other theory. Pointing out the differences (as sentence #1) can be helpful in understanding how it differs from other theories, GNS in particular, but you're under no obligation to show that GNS or any other theory is "wrong" in order to promote your own theory. Eventually, your theory will succeed or fail, or be accepted or not, based on how useful it is in improving understanding, designing, and/or playing of role playing games.

But if #2 is what you actually mean, then you're making a different kind of claim that puts more burden on you to back it up right away. If what you're doing is looking at specific terms or statements of GNS and saying "that's wrong, that's wrong, this other thing is wrong," then there's a problem because you're not backing these assertions up with any real arguments, you're just expressing one personal opinion after another. Why should Ron change his theory in the ways that you're demanding? Given that in discussing GNS we've talked about many examples of color that applies to characters, for instance, what argument can you offer that GNS is wrong about that?

Do you see the difference between #1 and #2, and do you see why I'm a little uncertain about which of these two types of statement you're trying to make? Since I see no resemblance in overall structure between your theory and GNS, I believe that what you're trying to say is closer to #1, but your actual phrasing suggests otherwise. So, can you clear that up for me before we proceed?

- Walt
Wandering in the diasporosphere

Tomas HVM

Yes, Walt, I'm in the process of formulating my own ideas on RPgs, and have been som for some years now. I will try to write more cohesive on it this winter.

While I do this, I engage in discussions, sometimes without being able to hold my "grand schemes" back.

This is one such instance, and I interpret it like this: I must be ready to write a serious, broad and detailed article/essay/book on RPGs now.

So Walt; you are quite right; I'm not good at keeping my tongue, and should have posted my "skeleton for a new understanding of RPGs" on the theory-forum, and not here. It is not directly related to the GNS-model.

However; even when my thoughts mutate, they may blossom...
Tomas HVM
writer, storyteller, games designer
www.fabula.no

Walt Freitag

Tomas, I'm not trying to silence you. Just the opposite! I want to see you develop your ideas further. Making it clear that you're talking about an alternate model that stands on its own, rather than a refutation or attempted "correction" of the GNS Model, should get you better feedback here (whether in this forum, or the theory forum).

- Walt
Wandering in the diasporosphere

Tomas HVM

Walt,

I don't think you're trying to silence me. Your comments are appropriate, and I appreciate them.

I will not post my "skeleton" on the theory-forum now, as I have had some feedback at other forums, and reckon central members of the Forge to have read it here, without commenting.
Tomas HVM
writer, storyteller, games designer
www.fabula.no

Ron Edwards

Hello,

Tomas, I see you playing three games in this thread.

Game #1 is, "If I don't get a fast response, then I can be as obnoxious as I want to." You are skilled at being obnoxious while using formal language, such as referring to the person you're speaking to in the third person, or saying "thank you" insincerely. In this case, your reference to others not commenting is another example. Language like that is merely a hypocritical way of saying, "Fuck you, you asshole."

Game #2 is, "I don't have to understand or compare my ideas to anyone else's." Walt's question is correct, and you have not answered it in your reply to him. Do you or don't you want to discover the points of similarity between your ideas and my model? Mike's and my replies provide some of them. Those replies indicate respect for your post. The reason you're not seeing more replies is due to your extreme lack of respect for what you've received so far.

Game #3 is, "Terms are more important than the concepts and connections among them." I disagree with you profoundly. Either we have to arrive at a compromise position in order to understand one another, or we aren't going to be able to communicate. I'm willing to work on such a compromise, but there's no sign that you are.

I don't have time or energy to play any of these games with you. Whatever insights or ideas you have to offer about role-playing - and who knows? they may be brilliant - are not worth it.

So, I'll lay it down for you in strict and straightforward terms. Find some more respectful way to express disagreement. Be patient while awaiting replies. Stop playing the games.

There's really no point to posting here if you can't accord with these points. Now you have a choice. Either you can interpret this post as saying "Shut up, be silent," or you can interpret it as an attempt to reach some actual discourse with you. It's up to you.

Best,
Ron

Tomas HVM

Quote from: Ron EdwardsHello,

Tomas, I see you playing three games in this thread.
No, sincerely; I'm not playing any kind of games. When I write "thank you", I mean it. I have not dismissed your answer to my post here, nor Mike's ("Mike and Ron on my back" was a joke, a well meant banter). When referring to "central members" of the Forge not responding, that is an observation, not a litany of "nobody cares about me", and it does not pertain to the people actually responding, of cource. Neither does it imply that I or my writings have any claim to be answered.

Quote from: Ron EdwardsGame #1 is, "If I don't get a fast response, then I can be as obnoxious as I want to." You are skilled at being obnoxious while using formal language, such as referring to the person you're speaking to in the third person, or saying "thank you" insincerely.
Third person use is normal in the kind of debates I have been used to participate in, and is not in any way intended as insults. I have problems with this use, though, seeing that most people in the forums I am now posting in prefer to write in first person. I'm sorry that this has been misconstrued.

I may come forward as arrogant, and I do not make much effort to take such claims into consideration. I rather try to be substantial and matter of fact'ly in my writings, trusting readers to see that I am sincere in my efforts to discuss the issue. I am not a sarcastic person, and take pride in my sincerety. My good father gave me a good upbringing in this respect, so you (Ron) thouch on one of the very foundations of my selfrespect when stating that I am insincere. I hope you will be man enough to take this back.

Quote from: Ron EdwardsGame #2 is, "I don't have to understand or compare my ideas to anyone else's." Walt's question is correct, and you have not answered it in your reply to him.
I believe the implication of his question was fully acknowledged by me in my answer. If I failed to communicate this properly, I am sorry.

I am certainly comparing my ideas to the ideas of others. That's the reason I posted here in the first place; I have read your essay, and have read comments on it, and have compared both the essay and the comments to my ideas, ideas I have developed through years of active discussion, and reflection on roleplaying games and the theories pertaining to them.

Moreover; I have tried to signal that I have not been ready to give your essay the lenghty and serious comment I believe it deserves, and that has been a sincere and respectful comment from me, on the importance of your essay. If your essay was of less significance to me; if its content was of no relevance; I would not take the effort to read such a huge document, and would certainly not state in a public forum, that I feel a strong need to comment on it, eventually.

Quote from: Ron EdwardsGame #3 is, "Terms are more important than the concepts and connections among them." I disagree with you profoundly.
Ron, you are reading volumes into my writing, and those volumes are not there! Could you please do me the favor of reading my writings as is, with no sarcasm or irony in them. There is no need to make such interpretations of "my real agenda". It is all there, in writing.

I have written on the importance of the terms we use. You may disagree with me in this, but I have not implied that concepts or connections are insignificant, and I have not said a thing to the effect of terms being "more important than" anything.

I am not playing games when discussing here, Ron. My participation here is serious and sincere business from start to end. I need such forums for discussion, and thrive on them. I am not out to get enemies here. On the other hand; I am not out to get friends either. Some observations or arguments of mine may be provocative, but I always strive to keep my writings on the issue. The greater issue of roleplaying games drives me, and I am true to that motivation.

I am deeply committed to roleplaying games, and their significance to people playing them. I am a gamewright, and the only one of my kind in Norway. My struggle with and on behalf of this form in Norway, is something you may not begin to understand. It has cost me more than anyone would deem sane, but still I am glad for my commitment. I consider it a great achievement to be a strong advocate for RPGs, and to have the support of my family in this highly uncommercial and demanding task.

I am not playing a character here, Ron. I am me, and utterly sincere. If you want to understand my writings; read them as is.
Tomas HVM
writer, storyteller, games designer
www.fabula.no

Ron Edwards

Hi Tomas,

Wow! Thank you. I appreciate this post a lot, and I now have a better idea of the real-you. That's important to me.

Let's do this right, then.

I think your presentation, in the first post, is very solid. Do you think, as I do, that your "exploration" is very much like my "protagonism," and that your "conflict" is very much like my "Situation"?

It's quite likely that we have independently arrived at some of the same things.

1. Am I reading you correctly that the social interactions that give rise to the presence of your "conflict" and "exploration" must have a certain set of features?

This may be a geographic difference, but here in the States, many role-playing groups are conducted in what I consider to be very badly-conceived social circumstances. ("conceived" meaning "originated" as well as "understood") I spend so much time discussing Social Contract and Social Context due to this phenomenon being so common.

So I'm interested in what social features you consider most necessary for functional play (engaging conflicts, rewarding exploration) to occur.

2. Is there an equivalent term or concept to my Techniques level in your framework? I'm not seeing one, but I'm very interested how you might state this concept.

Now, as far as the terms specifically are concerned, I respectfully disagree with you regarding the role that terms play in thought in general. But I don't think that our disagreement is a deal-breaker; we can probably live with the difference and still manage to work out a good dialogue. For what it's worth, I consider all of my terms to be labile, subject to change through debate ... but I consider that to be a final step in the process of working out terms' meaning, and that to engage in that debate prematurely tends to bleed a discussion dry before it concludes anything.

Best,
Ron