Moving from Conflict to Discovery

[Rei_Jin]

I've been playing on Arelith for a few years, and there's been something that been irritating me, like a grain of sand in your sock.

It's this idea, that we need conflict to drive narratives. That without conflict, we cannot tell stories.

Brian and Scott examine this idea on the website for their comic, Atomic Robo (https://www.atomic-robo.com/), in regards to how they approach storytelling. I thought it worth raising here for exploration and discussion.

The last two entries on their blog are quoted below, so you can see what I'm talking about.

You’re probably familiar with Three Act Structure since it’s the foundation of most literature in the West. Briefly, it goes like this...

(1) Introduction.​ You’re establishing your main characters, their status quos, their goal(s), and the first sparks of (some of) these characters coming into conflict with one another.

(2) Rising Action. ​This is going to be the bulk of your story where most of the conflict occurs as your main characters make their decisions, take their actions, suffer their setbacks, and learn their lessons while attempting to attain their goal(s).

(3) Resolution.​ We hit the final conflict you’ve been building toward from word one. Victory is achieved, the dust settles, and a new status quo emerges.

We’re told stories are about their conflicts — Man vs Man, Man vs Self, Man vs Nature, etc. You’ve seen the list and probably a couple memes.

I’m not a fan of this framing!

If conflict ​itself​ is the prime mover of stories, then stories become fundamentally about​ domination. This is worrisome insofar as our minds operate in stories. Seems to me that if we understand ​conflict​ to be the basic building block of all narrative, and if we understand reality through the ​lens​ of narrative, then making conflict and domination the center of our stories vastly narrows our imagination. A population taught to understand the world in terms of All vs All is less able to cooperate to improve their world.

Meanwhile, the familiar image of a lone genius/hero standing in opposition to the rest of the ugly/stupid world is why every billionaire is convinced they’re ​the​ hero of all reality even though this delusion is a major contributor to the capitalist psychosis that made them billionaires by rapidly destroying the Earth’s capacity to support human life.

It’s not great!

And the cracks are showing. Our culture is built upon stories about Man dominating foes/reality through sheer force of heroic will, yet here we are in the twenty-first century where rhetoric seems to have no effect on the ravages of a virus killing hundreds of people every day while the biosphere continues to ​quite inconveniently​ obey the laws of physics.

Maybe it's time to think about stories that are ​not​ centered on conflict? What would those look like?

Let's look at another kind of narrative structure. One employed by classic Chinese poetry. It goes like this...

(1) Qiju, 起句​, or "bringing into being": Introduce a scene.

(2) Chengju, 承句​, or "understanding": Add details about the scene.

(3) Zhuanju, 転句​, or "changing": Alter our perspective on the scene to reveal new or unexpected details.

(4) Jueju, 結句​, or "drawing together": Assimilate our preconceived notions of the scene as originally depicted with our newfound knowledge to learn a greater truth.

Each of these would represent one line of your poem, but there's no reason each one can't support a whole act of your story. And, as it turns out, I’d been writing ​ATOMIC ROBO stories roughly in this vein for years without knowing it.

(1) Issues 1 and 2:​ “Bringing into Being” / Introduce the Conspiracy, Discover the Conspiracy.

(2) Issue 3:​ “Understanding” / Chase the Conspiracy.

(3) Issue 4:​ “Changing” / Destroyed by the Conspiracy.

(4) Issue 5:​ “Drawing Together” / Triumph over the Conspiracy .

What I like about this approach is​ that it centers discovery as the indivisible unit of narrative instead of ​conflict.​ These stories can still ​have conflict of course. Hell, over a thousand years of wuxia stories follow this structure and they’re filled to the brim with conflicts. ​ATOMIC ROBO​ is an action comic and boy oh boy there are conflicts!

“But I thought you hated conflict?!?!”

No, I’m suspicious of a system of thought that centers conflict. I have no problem with conflict in stories when conflict ​in and of itself is not the engine of the narrative. Conflicts in this Four Act structure are instead ​among​ the events that happen as a consequence of what is discovered. Whereas the Three Act structure we're all taught as the foundation of Western literature is centered on domination, this Four Act structure is centered on revelation.

Oh, fun fact. This is also how mystery novels work!

(1) Discover a Murder.

(2) Chase the Murderer.

(3) Perplexed by the Murderer.

(4) Triumph over the Murderer.

Neat.

Imagine that; discovery as the centre of a story, rather than conflict.

What I appreciate about their stories, and about this approach, is that because it's not centred on conflict, but rather, discovery, it allows for there to be triumph and tragedy, winners and losers, without someone having to be completely dominated (unless they are unwilling to let go/bend/adapt, because some times, folks just refuse to accept an outcome). There's definitely a place for conflict, but it doesn't need to be the main driving force.

It's this sort of approach that can help storytellers to tell more collaborative stories that result in a richer thread overall, or at least, in my opinion.

What do others think?

[Griefmaker]

I think if players embraced the above more, Arelith's RP would improve 100 fold.

With that being said, conflict is not bad in itself. Conflict is the primary driver of many wonderful stories. Arelith's conflict however has been evolving into modern real-life conflict of "my way or the highway" without any give or take. As mentioned above, that leads to nothing more than domination...both literal and metaphorical, which in turn leads to very one-dimensional stories/RP.

[Khorvale]

I know it's not a popular analysis but it's a culture-issue. Generally in (western) storytelling and specifically in Arelith. And culture perpetuates itself. It would likely require a concerted and prolonged effort, supported by both DMs and veterans, to shift the narrative culture away from winner/loser and towards a more collaborative mentality. And even then you'll likely not managed to get rid of the MMO "circle grind" mentality that is pretty prevalent everywhere these days.

Honestly, my best non-conflict experience is playing something that can solo PvE content reliably because then I engage with that at my own pace and leisure instead of having to go through the whole, (mostly) extremely banal "looking-for-group" play, which is often quite superficial and only lasts until you hit the dungeon. Not having to engage in grind-mentality is actually quite liberating and feels like it informs more interesting RP considerations from myself

[Party in the forest at midnight]

These things are still forms of conflict. The thing is people are too narrow minded to think about what conflict can be. The very act of having an opinion and standing up to what you believe is conflict. Trying to change everyone else's opinions is conflict. Uncovering a conspiracy was the primary conflict of my first character here.

An issue with the server is too many people rely on pvp as conflict, both "good" and "evil" people. IMO it's weak storytelling, the best conflicts are ones where a story is allowed to grow instead of people going "I am alignment, therefore I kill".

[In Sorrow We Trust]

You can also have conflict with yourself, your faith, the loss of someone you care about, or your lot in life.

[Rei_Jin]

But in these sorts of situations, the conflict isn't the focus; it's about discovering something and working through how to respond to it.

You discover something about your faith that you didn't know or realise before. Will you accept it, or challenge it? In either case, what happens for you?

Someone you love dies, and you have to deal with how that makes you feel. That's not necessarily conflict, but it IS grief, and it can be a pathway towards discovery and growth.

[Hazard]

People are having conflict with these definitions of conflict.

[Dreams]

I think what OP brings up is only really appropriate for a single storyteller, and Arelith is many storytellers all telling different stories. Conflict comes up naturally just because of the way the setting is and how people want to do their own thing.

[Lexx]

Bravo, thread poster. I honestly couldn't agree more with you. One of the many strings to the bow of good storytelling.

[Edens_Fall]

Humans generally follow the path of least resistance based on thier own experience. For example if your running a settlement and uncover a plot #47 where bad guy group #13 has planted a mole in the city guard do you follow the thread and let the story play out over time or do you confront the spy and exile them so you can move on to the next issue on your list without having to worry over drama and OOC headache?

I think it really boils down to the individual players, a pinch of OOC consent, and what everyone is willing to allow of another party. If there's no base agreement most use PvP to settle the matter or force a narrative on another.

Though such a discovery type of story might do well in a non-settlement setting. Like hiding a. Trial of clever fixtures around the server that lead to a hidden truth?that sound sound and doable.

[Amateur Hour]

There's two aspects to this thought process that gives me pause. Edens_Fell incidentally lands on part of it:

Humans generally follow the path of least resistance based on thier own experience. For example if your running a settlement and uncover a plot #47 where bad guy group #13 has planted a mole in the city guard do you follow the thread and let the story play out over time or do you confront the spy and exile them so you can move on to the next issue on your list without having to worry over drama and OOC headache?

That is: once you're finished with your discovery arc, now what? In a mystery novel, the plot tends to conveniently end just as the discovery is over, but a persistent world persists. You have to deal with the loose ends that the plot created in the way an author of a book doesn't.

The other aspect here is the fact that in a persistent world, every player character is perceiving their own plots from their own perspective. Take the mole in the guard example: to the mole, their discovery plot has just begun, but to the settlement leader, it's already completed - they found the mole, they know the group, etc. From then on it's conflict.

[Xerah]

Humans generally follow the path of least resistance based on thier own experience. For example if your running a settlement and uncover a plot #47 where bad guy group #13 has planted a mole in the city guard do you follow the thread and let the story play out over time or do you confront the spy and exile them so you can move on to the next issue on your list without having to worry over drama and OOC headache?

Having gone through that exact situation with multiple moles, I let the story play out until it comes to a good point before confronting them or tossing them weird curveballs (like here's a promotion, go rule Castle Gloom instead)

[Marsi]

For example if your running a settlement and uncover a plot #47 where bad guy group #13 has planted a mole in the city guard do you follow the thread and let the story play out over time or do you confront the spy and exile them so you can move on to the next issue on your list without having to worry over drama and OOC headache?

I think it really boils down to the individual players, a pinch of OOC consent, and what everyone is willing to allow of another party. If there's no base agreement most use PvP to settle the matter or force a narrative on another.

I'd be livid if I'd gone through the effort of planting a mole in another faction, or was the mole myself, only to be slapped with an exile and no ongoing roleplay. I know you're just reaching for an example there, but it reads all too familiar.

Discourse around "bad conflict" always fixates itself on PvP. But there are other more normalised and less violent ways to neutralise the roleplay of others.

[magistrasa]

It's this idea, that we need conflict to drive narratives. That without conflict, we cannot tell stories. [...] Imagine that; discovery as the centre of a story, rather than conflict.

What I appreciate about [...] this approach, is that because it's not centred on conflict, but rather, discovery, it allows for there to be triumph and tragedy, winners and losers, without someone having to be completely dominated (unless they are unwilling to let go/bend/adapt, because some times, folks just refuse to accept an outcome). There's definitely a place for conflict, but it doesn't need to be the main driving force.

I've been sitting on these ideas for a hot minute and thinking through this thread because while I definitely think there's an interesting and valuable perspective here, I can't help but feel like it's been applied to Arelith from the wrong angle. (Or maybe the point is just diluted by a sense of absurdity in the fact that the original post is describing a "superior form of storytelling" that claims to focus on something other than conflict, while still centering conflict as its primary narrative axis - so the entire premise can be reduced to a semantic debate, but I promise I'm not going to get into it.)

Ultimately, we have very little control over the ways a storyline might develop on Arelith. We simply don't have the ability to play architect for the pacing and specific story beats. We each perform our roles in accordance to the dispositions of our characters, although some are more mindful than others when it comes to weighing the broader consequences of our characters' actions. The stories we tell typically don't have themes or allegory or any of the traditional elements of narrative design. There's hardly ever a "design" at all. Our stories aren't exactly "conflict-driven," they're character-driven. So it's hard to recognize and validate the truth within the original post, because it sets itself up in opposition to an idea that's not wholly accurate to Arelith's reality. We can't base our stories around "discovery," because we individually have so little broad control over any of our stories at all. So how do we apply what's being presented?

Well, the one thing we have complete narrative control over is our own characters. And that, I think, is where the concept can best be applied. Ignore the examples of character interactions with Mole #57 and Faction War #7836, and just focus on the character you are constructing and exploring. Oftentimes I find players create characters with specific goals in mind: Promote Religion X; Show other people how to actually exemplify Paladin Oath Y; Become the lord of Merchant Empire Z; etc etc. Sometimes those goals evolve over the course of a character's life on Arelith, but it's usually still going to remain foundational to the character's DNA. Setting goals based on material gain or ideological victory is typically going to result in a conflict-prone character. There is a built-in drive to assert one's presence in a world that is simply too small to accommodate all demands for prestige and attention. Efforts to promote Religion X will inevitably run up against the presently popular local faith. Exemplifying your "correct" image of Paladin Oath Y is going to create ideological friction with those who have interpreted the oath "incorrectly" - whom you must assume exist, and must seek out to do battle with on the moral stage, for that is the crux of the character's premise. The process of constructing Merchant Empire Z will mean the undermining of existing businesses and monopolizing both talent and trade for a particular area, placing yourself as an obstacle to whomever else might seek to control these resources.

The alternative, then, is to create characters whose central motivation is instead based on discovery. Adherent to Religion A is experiencing a crisis of faith and must spiritually reconnect with their deity, or perhaps find a new path to walk. Paladin of Oath B follows a code of compassion, seeking not to bend others into ideological conformity, but to see and listen and understand their perspectives. Aspiring Merchant C pursues the mastery of their trade, pushing themselves to find new ways to craft and lend artistic descriptions to their creations that will resonate with their clients through experimentation and experience. To contrast against the previous examples, these concepts don't inherently require the attention or adherence of other players, but can exist in their own microcosm that allows for outside interaction to influence the outcome of each character's journey. Additionally, these are concepts that can be played out again and again over different characters and builds and alignments without ever turning out in quite the same manner, because they each leave room to be influenced by their environment. The exact same character premise can be unique and alive and engaging in each their own way.

The same can apply to traditionally antagonistic roles as well. You can play a Lolthite Drow who hates elves and wants to raid the surface and master the world at the end of a barbed whip - or, you might consider playing a Lolthite Drow as more of an exploration into how Lolthite ideology would realistically affect a character's psychological development, and what the consequences of that outlook would play out as. The purpose of the character, the discovery, is in the examination of what evil actually means, what it looks like, what it does to people. Chances are the activities these two characters engage in would all be quite similar, or exactly the same, but the character intended as an answer to a question will interact with their adversaries much differently. The point of that character isn't necessarily to "win," but more to observe how their foundational ideas interact with the rest of the world. And this will naturally affect how the player conducts themselves in scenarios of conflict.

Slight tangent, but still related to the topic at hand:
There's a general consensus that UD roleplay plays out at a higher quality than in other areas of the server. Ironically, I think this idea is a key component of that dynamic. In the UD, I find that players are generally much more comfortable with experiencing ignorance and failure, and relish the opportunity to be surprised by the unexpected. They don't meet disguised characters with overt suspicion or shut them out of roleplay due to the understanding that they could present a vulnerability - behaviors which are far too common on the surface. There's the implicit understanding that the UD are the bad guys, and the bad guys are supposed to lose. There's no future in which the Drow can make a surface settlement, or Cordor will be destroyed by a conjured meteor shower. There, you're most likely to find characters who are willing to say, "I don't know," in answer to a question that other places in the server will quickly search the wiki for. In fact, being bad at things is kinda cool, actually. UD players are thrilled to press people's buttons, just to see what happens as a result. It's not a perfect example of it across the board - especially where raiding parties are involved (but let's be honest, group roleplay and big events are pretty terrible 98% of the time no matter who's running it) - but I'd still say the UD has historically been an environment that values "discovery" as the primary axis of storytelling and character development. Conflict is omnipresent, yes, but the way it often plays out is VERY different from anywhere else on the server.

In summary: The way I imagine OP's ideas can best be incorporated into one's roleplay is by centering "discovery" - and, necessarily, vulnerability - as a key aspect of the character's creation. Think of your character as the living answer to a question, and it will change the way you interact with the world of Arelith and the players within it.

[Bazelgeuse]

Personal experience speaking here, but I feel like the general nature of conflict on Arelith is very zero-sum. Someone wins, someone loses. One person gets their way, the other person has to give. There's not much collaboration or compromise. Taking the most obvious conflict for example, PVP, it's just "one side kills the other, the other side dies" And now with the memory loss on PVP death rule, there's not really much for the losing side to do afterwards. They don't remember what happened other than "I was going to <area> and then I don't remember what happened and now I'm here"

There's the slave system, but that's kinda UD or evil only. There's the prisoner/shackles system but I haven't really gotten the chance to see it used much because people generally go straight to turn subdual off, kill other guy, take trophy, leave. Maybe I'm an odd duck but I feel like that sequence of events just sends the narrative crashing off a cliff into "... Okay, what now?" Even if my side's the victor, it goes from the climax of the storytelling straight off into nothingness. There's no denouement.

On top of that I've noticed there's some pretty weird OOC attitutes when it comes to defeat, like shaming the losing side for losing or IC accusations of "<Character> is a spy/traitor because their player wants <outcome>" Idk really how to fix that and I imagine it might be a huge turn off for anyone who's willing to make their character vulnerable or accept defeat and what might come next.

[Babylon System is the Vampire]

This game needs story driven conflict to survive and be worth playing. If you just want to go around collecting stuff and telling your own story, there are a lot of better games for that. If you just want to go around getting into pvp fights, there are a lot of better games for that. What makes a place like arelith still potentially fun after all these years is the opportunity to tell collaborative stories.

Unfortunately, more and more I am beginning to feel like Arelith will never reach that level of enlightenment again, if it ever actually did in the first place.

Now there's definitely a few things I think the administrative side of things drops the ball on. I think the PvP rules play a role in the way people view pvp, because they are hazy at best on most things making it scary for someone who is afraid of doing something wrong thus giving the advantage to the people who believe apologizing later is better than worrying about permission now, and the things they are clear on force people to make the most powerful build possible because if two warriors have an honorable standoff the better warrior is always going to win. And that's not even getting into little oddities that make the game feel counter intuitive like how getting exiled is a major thing that needs to be taken with care and feeling despite there being multiple settlements, but randomly killing someone after a few words is perfectly fine because the player can just start playing again tomorrow.

But while all that could be fixed with some reasonable debate and open minds, it's not going to change the fact that Arelith now has two camps that are louder than the majority in the middle that find themselves constantly being dragged in one direction or another. I get it, there are definitely people who are way too quick to pvp. There are also people who take losing way too personal and overreact with whatever tool they can via rp, be that ignoring the antagonist all together, or using the tools in game like exile to impose their will.

Look, we have to come to a place where everyone playing areltih is in the same chapter at least, even if the same page is an unreasonable expectation. I'm not sure how we get there, but I am certain we are going to have to try if we want to see Areltih still thriving five, ten, or even twenty years down the line. And it can't be done by just beating the other side into submission. Eventually that will just push the server into one of the extremes, heavy pvp vs conflict free sims style rp, and not only will the losing side be gone but all the folks like me in the middle will also eventually go because the game has become too one dimensional.

To conclude, I will go back to my initial point. The game needs Story driven conflict to survive. I wish people that were quick to pvp understood why they are detrimental to that themselves, because random pvp is not story driven, but the topic of the thread "Moving from Conflict to Discovery". And my response is we cannot without killing the game entirely.

[Eyeliner]

I think some of it is the same (or at least similar) plots keep getting recycled. If you've played a while you lose patience when the same thing happens for the umpteenth time. That's one reason I think people are quick to exile someone suspicious for example, they see what's coming and they aren't interested in playing it out again.

But the thing is... Repetition isn't really the fault of whoever is trying that narrative. Maybe it's the first time THEY tried it. It's on us as veteran players to have patience when we've already been-there, done that... Or step aside and let someone who hasn't had that experience before take over.

[Rei_Jin]

Thanks to all those who have engaged with this so far.

I understand that this idea, of making discovery the motivating factor, can be difficult for folks to get their head around.

The reason for me that it's so important, is that it moves us away from a zero sum game, towards one where we can have conflict that is healthier as one's victory or loss is not actually the central issue to be resolved.

Yes, there will be story driven conflict. Of course there will be. And it's needed.

But that conflict is not the centre of the story, it's merely part of it.

There can be PvP, and there can be exiles issued, and they're NOT a complete win/loss state, they're merely part of the story that is unfolding as we "discover" things about our characters and our world.

I, for one, am here to tell collaborative stories, and to learn more about Arelith and the characters in it, and conflict will be part of that, but it's far from being my primary motivator. It's just an unavoidable aspect of life where things are imperfect, and it is in striving to make life around these challenges, that we can discover more about our world, other people, and ourselves.

The ideas that one should completely avoid conflict, or that everything should be about conflict, are both reductive and unhelpful.

If folks want to play the Sims? Then play the Sims.
If folks want to play a PvP game? Then play Counterstrike.

If folks want to play in an RP world with a bit of both? Then let's play together in Arelith.