Conflict in RPGing

[pemerton]

In another recent thread, @Campbell pointed to this blog post: Walk, Don’t Run To Conflict

Here is what I think is the key passage:

play can be about “driving to conflict” without every single scene having a conflict in it. Indeed, for conflict to occur characters must have things over which they conflict. . . . {In] good solid story building role-playing . . . the scenes without conflicts point towards what conflicts will arise later. These non-conflict scenes establish key beliefs, priorities, loyalties, and passions which later elements of the narrative will threaten. With out scenes that first establish and then later update and develop these character elements “conflict” is essentially a meaningless term.

When you let go of the “must have conflict NOW” urge then play progresses much more smoothly and much more naturally. Establishing scenes becomes more about feeding curiosity, “I’d like to see how X and Y interact” or follow up action, “Given what’s just happened I’d like my character to do X.” The play skill involved becomes about identifying conflicts when they occur.​

How long should these establishing aspects of a RPG take, in play? Also, in the absence of conflict, how do we show (eg) what a character's key loyalty is? In a film this might be done via scenes that show the character engaging with the thing they care about in an everyday fashion. But how do we do this in RPGing? Do we play through these "establishing" scenes? Or do we imply them - eg in the way that is done via statements of Beliefs and Instincts in Burning Wheel. I think one relevant consideration is that in a novel or film the audience has to be introduced to the protagonist(s), whereas in RPGing each player knows at least one of the protagonists rather intimately.

I think my default approach is to use subordinate/orthogonal conflicts and obstacles to do the establishing, gradually building up to the "real" action.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

How long should these establishing aspects of a RPG take, in play? Also, in the absence of conflict, how do we show (eg) what a character's key loyalty is? In a film this might be done via scenes that show the character engaging with the thing they care about in an everyday fashion. But how do we do this in RPGing? Do we play through these "establishing" scenes? Or do we imply them - eg in the way that is done via statements of Beliefs and Instincts in Burning Wheel. I think one relevant consideration is that in a novel or film the audience has to be introduced to the protagonist(s), whereas in RPGing each player knows at least one of the protagonists rather intimately.

Brindlewood Bay handles this in an interesting way, by having players do "cozy" scenes--usually engaging in their character's main hobby in whatever location they've chosen as their cozy place--in order to clear negative conditions they've taken. Those scenes aren't front-loaded, the way establishing scenes in a movie or book might be, but they happen regularly throughout a campaign.

But the game's other relevant mechanic (that I like even more) is when you put on a "Crown of the Queen," meaning increase your success level on a roll by picking from a list of flashbacks that you narrate, such as "A flashback of your fondest memory with one of your children" or "A scene in the present day showing a burgeoning romance." These are non-conflict scenes, usually unrelated to the current investigation, intended solely to flesh out your character. That they happen as the game progresses, often as a way to avoid failures or consequences, seems pretty ingenious to me.

Also important--there are 7 of those flashbacks to pick from, and you check them off as you go. So at some point your character is essentially done being established, probably around the time you hit the end of the campaign, which is also where you're suddenly more likely to die, or at least go from cozy mysteries to a Mythos (or similar) encounter.

 

[Fenris-77]

The Between uses very similar mechanics (as you might expect since it's Carved in Brindlewood and by the same author). I really like the way it folds unveiling backstory and connecting PCs into the structure of play. There's a mechanical reason to engage in the scenes, which is necessary, but the real benefits (IMO) are on the roleplaying side.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

The Between uses very similar mechanics (as you might expect since it's Carved in Brindlewood and by the same author). I really like the way it folds unveiling backstory and connecting PCs into the structure of play. There's a mechanical reason to engage in the scenes, which is necessary, but the real benefits (IMO) are on the roleplaying side.

I really need to pick up The Between, especially after hearing Cordova on the What Would The Smart Party Do podcast talking about how he started The Between first, but then stopped and wrote Brindlewood as a way to work out the investigation mechanic. I think I'm less interested in the premise because of its total faithfulness to Penny Dreadful (which I liked until I really didn't), but I'm sure it's worth playing.

And since I'm already on a pointless tangent here, I might as well take it all the way--on that same podcast episode he announced that they're planning to do a Brindlewood Kickstarter in January, for hardcovers of the two current books, plus an in-game cookbook with a mystery scrawled in the margins. I'm excited to see how that goes.

EDIT: To try to make this post slightly on-topic, I'd add that The Between modifies Brindlewood's approach to establishing scenes/flashbacks by stating that players shouldn't reveal anything about their back stories to other players, or to the GM, except during those flashbacks. It's meant to reinforce the prestige TV (and again, maybe even specifically Penny Dreadful) feel and pacing, where the main characters are ostensibly working together but suspicious and withholding.

 

[pemerton]

Brindlewood Bay handles this in an interesting way, by having players do "cozy" scenes--usually engaging in their character's main hobby in whatever location they've chosen as their cozy place--in order to clear negative conditions they've taken. Those scenes aren't front-loaded, the way establishing scenes in a movie or book might be, but they happen regularly throughout a campaign.

But the game's other relevant mechanic (that I like even more) is when you put on a "Crown of the Queen," meaning increase your success level on a roll by picking from a list of flashbacks that you narrate, such as "A flashback of your fondest memory with one of your children" or "A scene in the present day showing a burgeoning romance." These are non-conflict scenes, usually unrelated to the current investigation, intended solely to flesh out your character. That they happen as the game progresses, often as a way to avoid failures or consequences, seems pretty ingenious to me.

Also important--there are 7 of those flashbacks to pick from, and you check them off as you go. So at some point your character is essentially done being established, probably around the time you hit the end of the campaign, which is also where you're suddenly more likely to die, or at least go from cozy mysteries to a Mythos (or similar) encounter.

In Agon, during the voyage phase (ie the end-of-session phase, when the PCs leave one island and sail to another), each player (as their hero) has to answer a personal question posed by another player (as their hero).

I don't think it's a huge success, as this character stuff doesn't really fold back into the core of play.

 

[Fenris-77]

The Penny Dreadful bit isn't as limiting as it might seem. The game does Victorian monster hunting and paranormal whatnot quite well without that particular faithfulness. Even just some poetic license with the playbooks in terms of character framing moves you away from that, and with some of the other available playbooks you can sidestep it completely.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

In Agon, during the voyage phase (ie the end-of-session phase, when the PCs leave one island and sail to another), each player (as their hero) has to answer a personal question posed by another player (as their hero).

I don't think it's a huge success, as this character stuff doesn't really fold back into the core of play.

Stonetop, a PbtA fantasy game that Kickstarted a little while ago, but is still in development (and that's really cool, IMO), has an activity that players can do during expeditions called Keeping Company, and asking each other questions is one of the choices.

I loved it as a way of capturing that sense of sitting around campfires and being both bored but also maybe bonding through oversharing, etc. But as far as I could tell there was no mechanical component, so no real incentive to do it.

In the Shadowrun 5th edition game I'm currently running that's veered into a quest into a fantasy-style plane (long story, not the actual SR setting) I decided to adopt Keeping Company, but turn it into a way for PCs to recover Edge points--SR5's metacurrency or rerolling or adding extra dice to tests--while camping in a dangerous wilderness setting. Normally you get a Edge back for every full night of sleep, but I got all GM pushy and said that a bunch of New Yorkers taking watches and sleeping on bedrolls in monster-filled woods did not constitute a restorative night of sleep. So players could choose to get one Edge back per night if their character told a revealing story (a secret or similar) about themselves before bedding down.

It was awkward at first--we're still a very trad group in most ways--but they got into it pretty quickly, and it's helped them flesh out backstories, including inventing formative scenes and details on the spot, but in a confessional way, that (I hope) makes sense in the context of trying relieve stress and regain confidence after harrowing travel encounters. And some have since said it's their favorite house rule, because of the way it opens up the narrative.

Anyway, this is an overly long way of agreeing that, without some sort of mechanical teeth, enforced (or even just encouraged) sharing or establishing scenes don't feel as effective.

 

[pemerton]

Anyway, this is an overly long way of agreeing that, without some sort of mechanical teeth, enforced (or even just encouraged) sharing or establishing scenes don't feel as effective.

In Agon, that Fellowship phase does have a mechanical consequence - each of the asking and answering heroes gets a bond with the other; and at the end of the phase all heroes regain their lost Pathos (combined hit points and action points, kind-of).

But the answers given don't feed into anything else. Compared to, say, a BW relationship which supports framing, or establishing Hx in AW which provides material for the GM to work with in making their moves.

This is because the action in Agon happens on Odyssey-style islands, and so the personal histories and hopes of the PCs really don't make a big difference.

 

[Tun Kai Poh]

I'm quite fond of allowing my players copious personal plot time in the Downtime phases of my Blades in the Dark game. These sometimes result in my players' favourite sessions.

And games like Delta Green and Cthulhu Deep Green also have "at home" scenes to let players show their characters at rest with loved ones. Sometimes it's good to just let players take their time and let them vibe with a cozy scene.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I’ve come to really appreciate when games have some manner of design around these kinds of scenes. Not that they must have mechanical impact in some way, although they may, but when there is a proper place during the cycle of play for these to take place.

So the Downtime/Freeplay phase for Blades in the Dark, or the way The Between handles Flashbacks, or Anchor Scenes in Tales From the Loop. I feel like just that bit of established procedure tends to help focus those scenes so that you get to the meat of it quickly, with the intent that this will inform play going forward.

Without that procedure, I feel like people try and find places for these kinds of scenes, which can disrupt other modes of play. They also tend to be a lit less focused.