A lil patriotic flare for those of you who know of or have seen the Why We Fight series on video or DVD (or possibly in person if you’re a WWII Vet). Yet I think in a sense its very poignant for what I am going to saying here.

First off this has been mulling in my head for a few months now and coming to fruition here and there until I read Ron’s Gamist Essay. Every time I read a new essay things become more and more clear and it helps me define new questions for my own design ideas. Especially the concepts I intend to expand on in a moment.

Second, although I am writing from general influences, both Forge and Non-Forge, as well my own ideas, if someone has espoused these ideas or concepts before, feel free to point me to it. Its not my intention to steal anyone’s glory or thunder (or is it?…. hmmm)

Finally forgive my style, I tend towards a bit of a rough written style, but the style is my own and not just simple laziness on my part. If you have a difficult time following along I apologize in advance.

So, the question is, Why We Fight? What do I mean by this? Well in essence it’s a question of Social Contract I think. Role Playing is a process that begins long before GNS becomes involved, though GNS can be involved in the initial decision making process, as an expectation of action. More on this later.

At some point in this decision, either before or after Role Playing is decided as the activity of choice, there arises an acceptance of Conflict. Conflict is often a dirty word and evokes images ranging from heated words to nuclear war. However, Conflict itself is almost inherent in everything that we do. Here is how Merriam-Webster Online defines Conflict:

2 a : competitive or opposing action of incompatibles : antagonistic state or action (as of divergent ideas, interests, or persons) b : mental struggle resulting from incompatible or opposing needs, drives, wishes, or external or internal demands
3 : the opposition of persons or forces that gives rise to the dramatic action in a drama or fiction

Interesting. Competition is inherent in Conflict, if we follow the above definitions. So how does Acceptance of Conflict affect Game Design? It affects it if you follow the normal assumption that the decision to Play is made based on the idea that is a fun, social activity. I would say that this is incorrect and that a game designed to be FUN FIRST as opposed to induce people to have a Conflict using it’s rules, may not be as effective.

However, the catch and the idea that relates to mode and GNS is that if the Conflict will be unsatisfactory, that is not fulfill the needs of the players, whatever those needs happen to be, the Conflict will not arise or be less likely to arise or be unsatisfactory.

The Role Playing Process or RPP- The Decision to Fight

The RPP or Role Playing Process begins with the barest decision by one or more persons to socialize. From this idea of socialization stems the invitation to socialize, which is extended to one or more other persons or perhaps just between the initial group. From here comes the Dance. People accept the invitation or negotiate their participation based on what the group activity is going to be.

“Well we can all have a weird orgy of Jolene Blaloc fans OR we can play Sorcerer.” Ok lets just assume that there are not that many fans of Jolene as opposed to fans of Sorcerer. So there is a conscious decision to play a game. So there is a conscious decision to enter into some competitive Conflict. In this case specifically the RPG Sorcerer. Why is that?

Well ultimately, all games use one or more of three modes of Conflict: Body, Mind, or Emotion (Spirit). Some of course can use more then one and some all three. Role Playing is primarily an Intellectual excersise though a case can also be made for Emotion or Spirit especially since creativity is so much involved. Such a competition immediately wades out a large number of people. Most RPGs require the ability to do simple math. The inability to simple math does not denote stupidity or un-creativity and in fact I know a number of very smart people who have trouble with 1d20+3 +3. Regardless, it’s a limiting factor and so already the Conflict has weeded out the “weak”.

So as a group, the decision has been made to test their minds against one another. In essence it’s a Step On Up BEFORE{/I] Step On Up, The Dream, or Story Now. (If I understand those correctly and used them correctly.) It could be that all Role Playing thus extends from a Pre-Gamist, Gamism or maybe Proto-Gamism.

Does it sound absurd? The idea that all Role Playing derives from the idea of and desire for, Conflict. We are dueling with our minds, putting our creativity to work against one another though the outcome is not necessarily meant to produce a clear-cut winner. As Ron mentioned, loss or gain of Esteem or some other intangible can be goals but this the Why before the What.

To me, GNS is the What and as such it has a big influence on Why, a backward influence or a circular influence. IF What does not promise satisfactory results, then the compulsion for Why or for that sort of Conflict becomes less pronounced. If we are enticed by a Narrative Conflict then we may decline to be engaged at all because for us its not fulfilling.

A very basic example would be if you’re the ruler of a nation. You can build more roads OR you can go to war. Ok well you can go to war against France but gawd EVERYONE attacks France (they are the D&D of world conquest). So you could attack Russia, but its winter and your short and being a short conqueror in Russia during the winter is bad. Ok lets attack the U.S. Ok so maybe we should just build roads.

None of the above possible Conflicts held much promise of a satisfactory outcome and thus you turn away from Conflict altogether. The same works in the world of RPGs. If none of the Play possibilities appeal to you, you will not play.

So how do we know what appeals? That’s a tougher question to answer and is in my opinion where a theory like GNS comes in. To judge What people want to play.

So how does Conflict = Fun? If a game is not fun, we will not play it. Well I think part of what I am saying is that we do not play for fun. I do not think I write or Role Play for fun and I am not sure I ever did. Role Playing CAN be fun and fun or enjoyment is a side effect of the Conflict, but the Conflict is the thing. Conflict produces Endorphins during football or Chess or Risk, why not during Role Playing? Why do some people get excited rolling dice? It gets them psyched up. So Conflict inherent in Role Playing is fun in the way that running a marathon is fun. A sense of accomplishment and competition.

Are Gamist ideals derived from this Conflict? I am not sure one can make the leap that Gamism is the most pure (in the sense of least diluted not best) form of Gaming and that the S & N are different flavors. I do think there is a relationship outside of Why and What but am not 100% sure of where that might lead.

So how can understanding this Conflict help us be better game designers? Well in the case of Game Design I think Why is very important. “I want to make a game that lets players imagine they are Space Pilots” is not as fundamental as “I want to make a game that challenges a player’s imagination. “ Understanding the Conflict allows one to better manipulate the Conflict and thus attract Players to your Game.

Thank you if you made it all the way through. Thanks to Ron for another great essay. I apologize if I wasted anyone’s or everyone’s time (including my own) and I hope this gives some food for thought.

Thanks

Sean

a) I'm not really sure that what sounds like miltaristic propaganda is likely to be of any use for anything. If the answer to "why we fight" is "for oil", then all this goes out the window.

b) Arguments based on dictionary defitintions are useless. At the very best they can be attacked as appeals to authority; at worst they are severely misused. I'm not sure that the use of "competition" in the above definition should be seen as technical rather than colloquial. all that said I think 'conflict' is a more useful term that 'competition'.

c) I cannot see any basis for asserting that the "weak" have been weeded out of our special arena of "competitition" becuase it is "intellectual". This smacks far too much of looking down our noses at non-RPGers. We should not allow mutual reinforcement to procede to this degree.

d) "So as a group, the decision has been made to test their minds against one another. ". I refute this for too many reasons to go into now. I will say however, that player-on-player comeptition in RPG has, in my experience, only been observed as a collpase of the social contract and does not IMo constitute a significant aspect of play.

e) At last, a counter-theory. ADG Boss says: "The idea that all Role Playing derives from the idea of and desire for, Conflict. " I say, yes sort of. I absolutely agree that a gamist player is looking to obtain some discrete achievement; I reject that this is necessarily characterised as conflict unless, like competition, the term is divorced of most of its common associations. YMMV; for me it seems more productive to observe that the world makes no effort to support us, and we strive constantly against its impassive disdain. "Imposing change", therefore, seems like a better capsule description from my position. This necessarily conveys that the default state is unsatisfactory or problematic and in need of change, and that this change is passively or actively resisted by the world as is.

I agree almost completely with Contracycle's well reasoned possition on this, with some small caveats.

contracycle wrote:
b) Arguments based on dictionary defitintions are useless.

e) At last, a counter-theory. ADG Boss says: "The idea that all Role Playing derives from the idea of and desire for, Conflict. " I say, yes sort of.

Ok one thing at a time...

contracycle wrote: a) I'm not really sure that what sounds like miltaristic propaganda is likely to be of any use for anything. If the answer to "why we fight" is "for oil", then all this goes out the window.

b) Arguments based on dictionary defitintions are useless. At the very best they can be attacked as appeals to authority; at worst they are severely misused. I'm not sure that the use of "competition" in the above definition should be seen as technical rather than colloquial. all that said I think 'conflict' is a more useful term that 'competition'.

c) I cannot see any basis for asserting that the "weak" have been weeded out of our special arena of "competitition" becuase it is "intellectual". This smacks far too much of looking down our noses at non-RPGers. We should not allow mutual reinforcement to procede to this degree.

d) "So as a group, the decision has been made to test their minds against one another. ". I refute this for too many reasons to go into now. I will say however, that player-on-player comeptition in RPG has, in my experience, only been observed as a collpase of the social contract and does not IMo constitute a significant aspect of play.

e) At last, a counter-theory. ADG Boss says: "The idea that all Role Playing derives from the idea of and desire for, Conflict. " I say, yes sort of. I absolutely agree that a gamist player is looking to obtain some discrete achievement; I reject that this is necessarily characterised as conflict unless, like competition, the term is divorced of most of its common associations. YMMV; for me it seems more productive to observe that the world makes no effort to support us, and we strive constantly against its impassive disdain. "Imposing change", therefore, seems like a better capsule description from my position. This necessarily conveys that the default state is unsatisfactory or problematic and in need of change, and that this change is passively or actively resisted by the world as is.

simon_hibbs wrote: I agree almost completely with Contracycle's well reasoned possition on this, with some small caveats.

contracycle wrote:
b) Arguments based on dictionary defitintions are useless.

I understand your point, but recourse to disctionaries can be useful when framing an argument or discussion, as part of the process of agreeing what the discussion is about.

e) At last, a counter-theory. ADG Boss says: "The idea that all Role Playing derives from the idea of and desire for, Conflict. " I say, yes sort of.

I would replace 'Conflict' with 'Catharsis' in the above statement.


Simon Hibbs

Hmm, actually I really like catharsis as a term. It's not quite what I had in mind, but I could make the argument and will do so tomorrow unless Simon beats me to it. Its a hell of a lot better than imposinbg change, which sucked.

I'm afraid I didn't have much time to post yesterday, but basicaly I think that conflict is not itself usualy a goal in roleplaying. Rather it is a means towards the goal of catharsis, and just happens to be the most common means used.

Simon Hibbs

simon_hibbs wrote: I'm afraid I didn't have much time to post yesterday, but basicaly I think that conflict is not itself usualy a goal in roleplaying. Rather it is a means towards the goal of catharsis, and just happens to be the most common means used.

WDFlores wrote:

simon_hibbs wrote: I'm afraid I didn't have much time to post yesterday, but basicaly I think that conflict is not itself usualy a goal in roleplaying. Rather it is a means towards the goal of catharsis, and just happens to be the most common means used.

I personally tend to agree with this. I like the term "catharsis" as well not because it sounds er... kewl, but rather that it implies a broader area of play -- that is, not does the term point to "the fight" but it also encompasses "the reason why we fight".

How about this definition, in a more psychotherapeautic vein: "catharsis is resolution through conflict". With that definition, the term "catharsis" becomes somewhat more N inclined, and "conflict" somewhat more S or G inclined.

Anyways, I was just thinking the above might add to the discussion. Questions like. "Whose resolution is achieved? The character's? The player's? Maybe both?" come to mind.

ADGBoss wrote: ...if the Mode of Conflict is undesirable i.e. the decision is made to Play and then when it comes to deciding WHAT the group choses N when you wanted S, then that actually will discourage that person from entering the fray altogether.

...Role Players are making a conscious OR unconscious choice to test their intellect and emotion in the arena of Role Playing, I am not sure that Catharsis is a better term then Conflict... while Catharsis may be part of the equation for some it may not be for everyone. I see Catharsis as a sort of healing or expunging process.

...ANY of the modes could be Catharsis or Challenger, I am not sure that it follows that Catharsis is more N or less S or G. A good Gamist or Simulationist session can be very Cathartic and a good N session can be full of challenge.

WDFlores wrote:
However, it seems to me, difficult to actually utilise this pre-existence of conflict when I'm actually making a game without going into the reasons of the conflict. To me, your "player's decision to fight" (whether by dueling with swords, emotions, etc.) just seems to be a another way to look at a "decision to play". Such a decision by itself doesn't say much.

Sometimes all a player decides is that he wants a thrill ride (conflict). However, the designer in my opinion has to think of what that ride will be about. It's more interesting for me, as a game designer (or wannabe-game designer, that is - hehe), to consider not merely the decision to fight, but the reasons for the decision. The "what" seems nothing more than a beginning of the ride; it's the "why" that helps you as the ride's head engineer to actually create the ride in the first place.

I do, however, see your point that the "proto-gamism" thing occurs, thus slanting a good many RPGs towards gamism in the first place. This does represent a challenge to the acceptance of Nar (or Sim) games. Why not take it a step further and simply say that an initial gamist decision has been made? That way you'll be able as a designer to see what problems might occur in your game.

I'm not sure if it sounds clear, but I hope that helps the discussion. :-)

- W.

Hmm. I think if it's Conflict (or Catharsis, or whatever), then you've just described why humans do everything that they do. Even relaxation is just a way to prepare for the next thing you have to do. Even if it's just getting something to drink. Which you do as a challenge in order to survive.

I'm not absolutely certain, but I think that you've just restated a principle that pertains to Ron's professional interests, that of Sociobiology. Life is a contest for survival, and everything we do is a reflection of that essential fact.

So, yes, I think that you're right. OTOH, I don't think that says a lot about Role-Playing particularly. Yes we have desires that arise from our basic natures. But what's interesting about man is how diverse those interests become in application. I can explain how Opera is an extension of the survival instinct, for example, despite it seeming improbable.

In that way, all the different motives that you can assign to people as to why they play can also be related back to the survival instinct, yes. But that doesn't mean that when the rubber hits the road, each different motive won't look extremely different, and have completely different requirements in terms of RPG rules to satisfy.

So, again, I agree, but I wonder where you intend to take the idea. Will it have any practical application to design, for example? Or does it really say anything about RPGs that it doesn't say about everything else?

On this:

Now I had not given much thought to the idea that the need for Conflict and Challenge would skew players towards Gamism.

Mike Holmes wrote: Hmm. I think if it's Conflict (or Catharsis, or whatever), then you've just described why humans do everything that they do. Even relaxation is just a way to prepare for the next thing you have to do. Even if it's just getting something to drink. Which you do as a challenge in order to survive.

I'm not absolutely certain, but I think that you've just restated a principle that pertains to Ron's professional interests, that of Sociobiology. Life is a contest for survival, and everything we do is a reflection of that essential fact.

So, yes, I think that you're right. OTOH, I don't think that says a lot about Role-Playing particularly. Yes we have desires that arise from our basic natures. But what's interesting about man is how diverse those interests become in application. I can explain how Opera is an extension of the survival instinct, for example, despite it seeming improbable.

In that way, all the different motives that you can assign to people as to why they play can also be related back to the survival instinct, yes. But that doesn't mean that when the rubber hits the road, each different motive won't look extremely different, and have completely different requirements in terms of RPG rules to satisfy.

So, again, I agree, but I wonder where you intend to take the idea. Will it have any practical application to design, for example? Or does it really say anything about RPGs that it doesn't say about everything else?

On this:

Now I had not given much thought to the idea that the need for Conflict and Challenge would skew players towards Gamism.

Ron has said that Gamism is sorta grabby. And I'd agree in that it's simply the most viceral and direct of lines that leads back to the survival instinct. I'd go so far and say that the male predilection with combat in RPGs and wargames, is in fact all about the survival instinct.

Mike

At the very least its about one upmanship which I would guess is related to the survival instinct.

Mike Holmes wrote:
So I think that making games more obviously about Conflict will work in terms of attracting the people who want that particular more direct link. But for others it won't. You have to instead emphasize the particulars that appeal to why they came.

Basically if Storytelling is a potential motive, for instance, talking about the Conflict of the game may not proove to be attractive to people with that motive (because they'll fail to see the relationship). But talking about the challenge of making a good story may. That's all advertising anyhow, in the end the game ought to deliver, too, if you want repeat attention to the game from that player.

Mike

At that point all you're saying is that "System Does Matter" and that we ought to make the best game, but not what that best game is. The closest thing I'm seeing is that one ought to build games that have strong Gamist elements to appeal to that most common and direct link. Which I can't really argue against, other than to say that for other designs that do not support Gamism there will still be an audience, if a somewhat smaller audience.