PDA

View Full Version : Without conflict



Totally Guy
2012-01-22, 09:30 AM
Would you play a game without conflict? What would such a game look like?

I believe that conflict is an essential ingredient to an interesting story and by extension roleplaying games.

Conflict can come in many forms, other characters, environments, society, from within etc.

Eldan
2012-01-22, 09:43 AM
I honestly can't see how that would be possible. A discussion is a conflict. A game of cards is a conflict. Pretty much every thing we do is a kind of conflict.

Raum
2012-01-22, 09:56 AM
Would you play a game without conflict? What would such a game look like?Wushu might be a possibility...depending on whether or not you want the game mechanics to be about resolving conflict. There is typically conflict in Wushu but the game mechanics are primarily about pacing the conflict to see how long it lasts and who finally resolves it. Resolution is pretty much a given.

But in general I think you're correct. Without some sort of contest, conflict, or risk, a game wouldn't be very interesting.

Morty
2012-01-22, 09:57 AM
There is no story without a conflict. As a role playing game is a story, it too can't exist without a conflict. It might take a myriad forms, but it needs to be there.

erikun
2012-01-22, 10:19 AM
I suppose it could be possible to avoid conflict between players and between the players and the Game Master. This would not eliminate conflict in the game, but rather, relate it only to self-produced conflict on the part of the player, with others perhaps providing aid to one side or another.

That's probably about as conflict-free as I could think up. I mean, even farming would involve conflict, between time and space and the weather, to prevent a character from their goals.

Eldan
2012-01-22, 10:20 AM
Person A wants to walk across the street. Person B wants to drive his car to location X as quickly as possible. One of them has to stop and let the other go first, or there will be an accident.
Conflict of interests. You can't avoid it.

Eldan
2012-01-22, 10:21 AM
Person A wants to walk across the street. Person B wants to drive his car to location X as quickly as possible. One of them has to stop and let the other go first, or there will be an accident.
Conflict of interests. You can't avoid it.

Xefas
2012-01-22, 10:34 AM
Well, it does certainly depend on your definition of 'game'. Some people define it as simply 'a leisure activity', or maybe as 'a series of decisions' or 'a series of interesting decisions' or what-have-you.

But I can show you exactly what a "roleplaying game" without conflict would look like. There are plenty over on rpol.net. I played in a few many years ago.

Basically, you have no system. The GM puts forth a premise. Everyone designs a character with a backstory and a short outline of a personality and then drops them into the situation. They then go about describing things in ludicrous detail and completely avoiding any conflict like the plague (because it's a huge annoyance with no conflict resolution mechanic).

So, for instance, in a Star Wars game, you might have 4-5 Jedi on a transport vessel headed off to some nebulous but obviously dangerous mission on some backwater world that needs a little justice. Each Jedi is likely to have pages of backstory detailing their many heroic exploits, all of their particular skills, strengths, weaknesses, and so on. You might then spend 8 months of real-time on that transport having lengthy philosophical discussions, emotional inner monologues, etc, and then the game will naturally run its course and end before any conflict happens. Before the transport ever lands.

Despite the fact that I would define this as an 'activity', rather than a 'game', the folks over there seem to like that particular parlance.

(I'm not saying all the games on rpol are like this, just that I've played in 7-8 of them, and I doubt that I played in the only 7-8 that were ever like that.)

Eldan
2012-01-22, 10:37 AM
Even in that situation, I can see conflict.

You discuss philosophy? What if one of you is arguing relativism, while the other is arguing absolutism? Now you have differing opinions and are likely to convince the other of your viewpoint. Conflict.

Xefas
2012-01-22, 10:54 AM
You discuss philosophy? What if one of you is arguing relativism, while the other is arguing absolutism? Now you have differing opinions and are likely to convince the other of your viewpoint. Conflict.

If we're playing Burning Wheel maybe.

I was describing a game I was actually in. I was all for the militarization of the Jedi Order. The guy sitting on the crate next to me wanted us all to become secluded contemplative monks. We talked for a bit and then the moment something resembling an Duel of Wits might've started, we agreed to disagree because having an argument would've probably been the death of the game.

Eldan
2012-01-22, 11:04 AM
The game mechanics don't matter here. I'm not arguing this from the direction of game mechanics. There don't have to be any dice rolled in order to have a conflict, or cards drawn, or points spent.
But you differing opinions, and then decided, mutually not to argue any further. That means that you had a conflict, and decided to de-escalate. It still took place. You resolved your conflict with words, instead of mechanics, but it was resolved.

Xefas
2012-01-22, 11:10 AM
I don't think agreeing to peacefully not have a conflict is a conflict.

Belril Duskwalk
2012-01-22, 11:38 AM
I don't think agreeing to peacefully not have a conflict is a conflict.

By expressing differing points of view, there was conflict. The fact that you chose to peacefully avoid escalating the conflict does not change the fact that conflict existed in the first place.


I would have to say that in a very real way almost nothing happens without conflict. Even a simple act of creation opposes the continuance of the status quo.

Yora
2012-01-22, 11:47 AM
You could have a story about solving a completely impersonal problem. Like an avalanche has blocked the road.
So you could make an adventure about finding a different route or finding a way to remove the rubble. But if every person you interact with is completely compliant with anything you suggest, where's the point?

Fri
2012-01-22, 11:48 AM
You can play a game without battles or wars or fights, but I don't really think you can play a game without conflict.

An interesting example, is one of my favourite sci-fi series, Sector General.

It starts like this. The author want to make a thrilling and interesting sci-fi story with conflicts and such, but he dislike military or war. So he makes a series about an interplanetary hospital. And it works. It doesn't have any battles or war scene. But it have interesting conflicts, like how the staffs are trying to safe people's life, or the conflicts between staffs from completely different species, and such.

Another example is david morgan mar from darths and droids and irregular webcomic's campaign. It's a sci-fi campaign about space traders, except that in this universe, putting a gun in your interplanetary transport is like putting a machinegun in your truck. Completely ridiculous and illegal. So obviously, battles are not in this game. IT's honestly just about space trade.

But apparently, it's a successful, interesting, and long running campaign, and is the base for the 'space' story in the irrgular webcomic. You can read the comic in there, and I think there's campaign logs of it in his site somewhere.

The Dark Fiddler
2012-01-22, 11:59 AM
You could have a story about solving a completely impersonal problem. Like an avalanche has blocked the road.
So you could make an adventure about finding a different route or finding a way to remove the rubble. But if every person you interact with is completely compliant with anything you suggest, where's the point?

That's still a conflict though, between nature and you.

Xefas
2012-01-22, 11:59 AM
By expressing differing points of view, there was conflict. The fact that you chose to peacefully avoid escalating the conflict does not change the fact that conflict existed in the first place.

I think such a definition of conflict is valid. But I think in this situation that such a broad definition is largely unhelpful. Maybe nailing down what the OP defines as 'conflict' would be helpful.

Jay R
2012-01-22, 12:02 PM
Monopoly.
Solitaire.
Bridge.
Dominoes.
Careers.
Empire Builder.
Trivial Pursuit.
Clue.
Chutes and Ladders.
Any race.
Gymnastics competitions.
Figure skating.
Hunting Easter eggs.

There are lots of forms of competition that have no conflict.

Yora
2012-01-22, 12:06 PM
Monopoly is whithout conflict? I most certainly disagree. :smallbiggrin:

Which goes for all the other listed things that I know about, except solitaire.

RandomLunatic
2012-01-22, 01:44 PM
"Conflict", at least in the literary sense, does nto require violent altercations, just two forces in opposition to each other.

I suppose you could write a story without conflict, I can garuntee that it would be an exercise in ennui. Imagine...

The PCs have finally tracked down the location of the McGuffin of Plotiness, in a vault guarded by a creature of legend that no mortal has ever seen and lived to tell the tale. We join our intrepid heroes...

PC1: "At long last, the McGuffin is almost at hand! Gather your courage-"
Guardian: "Oh, you're here for the McGuffin? Why didn't you just say so? Down that hallway, second door on the left. Combination to the vault is 16-24-22."
PC2: "And you're not going to stop us?"
Guardian: "Why would I? It's not like I was using it."
PC3: "..."
Guardian: "Oh look! Tea time! Care to join me? It gets dreadfully lonely down here."

Now imagine a whole campaign like that.

tensai_oni
2012-01-22, 01:50 PM
Conflict is inevitable. Even if it's My Little Pony, even if it's a Cute Girls Doing Cute Things slice of life (think Lucky Star or k-on), even if it's a one-shot with just one character working against the environment. As soon as someone acts to achieve a goal and does not have this goal immediately reached, because another character or outside circumstances prevented it. This is conflict.

Conflict is too broad of a concept to not exist in a game. Sooner you'd have a game without communication of any kind.

Eldan
2012-01-22, 02:03 PM
"Conflict", at least in the literary sense, does nto require violent altercations, just two forces in opposition to each other.

I suppose you could write a story without conflict, I can garuntee that it would be an exercise in ennui. Imagine...

The PCs have finally tracked down the location of the McGuffin of Plotiness, in a vault guarded by a creature of legend that no mortal has ever seen and lived to tell the tale. We join our intrepid heroes...

PC1: "At long last, the McGuffin is almost at hand! Gather your courage-"
Guardian: "Oh, you're here for the McGuffin? Why didn't you just say so? Down that hallway, second door on the left. Combination to the vault is 16-24-22."
PC2: "And you're not going to stop us?"
Guardian: "Why would I? It's not like I was using it."
PC3: "..."
Guardian: "Oh look! Tea time! Care to join me? It gets dreadfully lonely down here."

Now imagine a whole campaign like that.

My god! Internal conflict! Do I accept the invitation to tea, or take the McGuffin right away? Oh, the decisions!

:smalltongue:

Jay R
2012-01-22, 04:06 PM
If you make the word "conflict" broad enough, you can change the meaning of the question every time somebody gives an answer, and we're just playing an elaborate game of "Who's on First (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6ogFYWUlgA)", with the word "conflict" in the role of the first baseman.

If the OP will tell us what he intended with his question, we can have try to answer it. Until then, we're not getting anywhere.

The Dark Fiddler
2012-01-22, 04:08 PM
Monopoly is whithout conflict? I most certainly disagree. :smallbiggrin:

Which goes for all the other listed things that I know about, except solitaire.

Solitaire would be conflict between you and luck/the cards/yourself, I'd imagine.

STsinderman
2012-01-22, 04:21 PM
Unfortunately the notion of conflict is so broad that anything that requires work to achieve is deened as conflict. At any point were the characters to not get exactly what they want when they want. Conflict is far too integral to the workings of life as we know it for a game that emulates it to go without.

Totally Guy
2012-01-22, 05:31 PM
Lets go with this: Wikipedia: Conflict (Narrative) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_(narrative))

I'd say that the 2+ player games on Jay R's list are all conflicts because the players objective of winning would be mutually incompatible with the other players. That is unless a player does not care about winning. The intent matters. I hope that's evident.

I'd agree with the dark fiddler on the solitaire. That is assuming the player is trying to win and not trying to pass the time.

In Xefas' example where both people walk away from a conflict then it is no longer a conflict. Neither intended to pursue their objective past a point that made the other uncomfortable. It could become a conflict later if one pursued their objectives on the other in the future.


This is a pretty broad concept. I wanted to see if anybody had done sessions where they just roleplayed a session of going on a long car journey and talking with the other characters or sitting in the pub and roleplaying out a whole evening of chatter.

You can still have legitimate choices. I mean, the players might opt to go to the pub or go bowling. Is bowling a conflict? In my opinion it is, but only if a player wants to win (and another player doesn't want that player to win). If not it's pure scenery.

I spoke to a GM recently who asked me for advice because his players did this over following plot hooks. But I'm not really one for his kind of games anyway. So I am looking for a more fundamental level of understanding that behaviour.

Belril Duskwalk
2012-01-22, 06:46 PM
This is a pretty broad concept. I wanted to see if anybody had done sessions where they just roleplayed a session of going on a long car journey and talking with the other characters or sitting in the pub and roleplaying out a whole evening of chatter.

You can still have legitimate choices. I mean, the players might opt to go to the pub or go bowling. Is bowling a conflict? In my opinion it is, but only if a player wants to win (and another player doesn't want that player to win). If not it's pure scenery.

I spoke to a GM recently who asked me for advice because his players did this over following plot hooks. But I'm not really one for his kind of games anyway. So I am looking for a more fundamental level of understanding that behaviour.

Okay, that's a slightly more specific question. I have done something like this in a game session before. On our way into a new region we bumped into an adventuring company. The members of the company invited us to come by a tavern and have a drink, which we accepted. Most of the rest of the session was spent with us sitting around a table discussing the country we were in, the quality of local ales and wines, the state of affairs and politics in the country, etc. Possibly one of the most seamless bits of exposition I've ever seen in a game. Quite a lot of fun for most of us, though one of the players was getting itchy to go throttle some monsters before the end. So yes, for a time you can roleplay without having any major degree of conflict. Whether or not this is desirable is player dependent.

HMS Invincible
2012-01-22, 08:28 PM
Our current campaign has that too, though it's filled with tension. One of the players landed himself a small Dukedom under the overarching control of a God-king. The dukedom is a lawless land where the nobles are staying in the walled city while the peasants eke out a miserable subsistence existence. There's no magicmart, no institutions, and nobody to fight.( Everybody is really weak compared to us, so there's no point slaughtering everybody)
Well, this doesn't count, there's tension and political intrigue everywhere.

We were once stuck on an island where for 5 real life hours, I was stuck on a boat, listening to the DM explain how that yes, it's still stormy, and dark. And no, "I dont know how long before we reach land". When we finally reach land, we're not at our destination, and I end up at some hedonistic pleasure island. 2 weeks of debauchery later...we leave on another boat for our original destination. I hated it so much and was so bored, I almost fell asleep. If the DM ever pulls that crap again, I'm just going to leave the session and come back next week.
To sum up, sessions where the DM describes the surroundings while nothing of importance ever happens is a terrible game.

Jay R
2012-01-22, 09:59 PM
Lets go with this: Wikipedia: Conflict (Narrative) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_(narrative))

Let's get past the red herring, and then answer your specific question. By that definition, if I'm trying to do anything, and there are any obstacles, then there is conflict. I can't imagine a game without that.


This is a pretty broad concept. I wanted to see if anybody had done sessions where they just roleplayed a session of going on a long car journey and talking with the other characters or sitting in the pub and roleplaying out a whole evening of chatter.

You can still have legitimate choices. I mean, the players might opt to go to the pub or go bowling. Is bowling a conflict? In my opinion it is, but only if a player wants to win (and another player doesn't want that player to win). If not it's pure scenery.

If there is anyone in line ahead of them, that's conflict. If one wants to bowl and the other wants to go to the pub, that's conflict. Without narrative conflict, it's just a pleasant daydream where nothing is different from what you want.

Now let's move on to the real question:


I spoke to a GM recently who asked me for advice because his players did this over following plot hooks. But I'm not really one for his kind of games anyway. So I am looking for a more fundamental level of understanding that behaviour.

If they aren't biting on the plot hooks, then there is narrative conflict between the DM and the players. This sounds like either passive-aggressive conflict, or players that don't know why they're there.

The gaming solution is to have a plot hook bite them. The DM in a game I'm playing in now set up a circumstantial evidence that we might be guilty of a murderer, to get us to investigate it.

erikun
2012-01-23, 12:42 AM
Monopoly.
Solitaire.
Bridge.
Dominoes.
Careers.
Empire Builder.
Trivial Pursuit.
Clue.
Chutes and Ladders.
Any race.
Gymnastics competitions.
Figure skating.
Hunting Easter eggs.

There are lots of forms of competition that have no conflict.

Monopoly is whithout conflict? I most certainly disagree. :smallbiggrin:

Which goes for all the other listed things that I know about, except solitaire.
Chutes and Ladders isn't much conflict, since one player's moves don't really affect any of the others. Gymnastics and figure skating wouldn't involve much conflict either, unless you wanted to deal with a character's inner conflicts about performing well and meeting expectations.

Others, however, would be pretty conflict-heavy. Empire building would likely run into conflicts at every turn. Something like a race is basically pure conflict with everyone else.

Yora
2012-01-23, 07:19 AM
If I remember correctly, chutes and ladders doesn't allow you do affect your own moves.

Tyndmyr
2012-01-23, 09:40 AM
Monopoly.
Solitaire.
Bridge.
Dominoes.
Careers.
Empire Builder.
Trivial Pursuit.
Clue.
Chutes and Ladders.
Any race.
Gymnastics competitions.
Figure skating.
Hunting Easter eggs.

There are lots of forms of competition that have no conflict.

Monopoly, your goals conflict. Ditto bride, Dominos, Trivial Pursuit, Clue, Chutes and Ladders(despite being a terrible game), races, any competitions...hell, even when hunting easter eggs, the "find it before the others" is a conflict. You are competing for a prize, even if the competition is a friendly one, and the prize is minimal.

Yeah, basically everything but solitaire on that list has conflict.

Zorg
2012-01-23, 09:56 AM
This is a pretty broad concept. I wanted to see if anybody had done sessions where they just roleplayed a session of going on a long car journey and talking with the other characters or sitting in the pub and roleplaying out a whole evening of chatter.

I played in a campaign that was about half that. We once spent a session sitting around a sauna. Then the next one was going to a festival. Then the next one we spet just hanging around at home.
Now, it wasn't devoid of plot or character development - we were learning about each other's characters, learning about the world and learning about the NPCs. It wasn't big 'oh, and Lord Evilclese has invaded' information, but it made the world feel much more real when stuff started happening.



I spoke to a GM recently who asked me for advice because his players did this over following plot hooks. But I'm not really one for his kind of games anyway. So I am looking for a more fundamental level of understanding that behaviour.

Tell him to stop making such interesting NPCs to talk to :smallwink:
That's only semi-silly advice - if the players are more interested in talking to his NPCs, make the plots involve the NPCs. One of them gets kidnapped, one of them owes someone money, one of them says 'could you do me a favour since [dregs up something they talked about before]'.

There's no real understanding to it I don't think, it's just a way some people like to play.

Tyndmyr
2012-01-23, 10:05 AM
If I remember correctly, chutes and ladders doesn't allow you do affect your own moves.

That is correct. It is still a competition of sorts, in that one person wins, and the rest do not...but it is a very choiceless competition, much as betting money on the roll of a die would be.

gkathellar
2012-01-23, 10:53 AM
Everything in the world is either conflict or resolution (which often leads immediately to other conflicts). My chair is uncomfortable? That's a conflict with the external world, albeit one only a master of prose could make interesting at all. I regret a poor decision I made? That's a conflict with myself, potentially resulting from the resolution of a conflict with the external world (I lit my chair on fire and now I regret it, for instance). I sit down with a friend who agrees with me on almost everything besides terminology, and we spend four hours talking semantics? That's a conflict with my friend, even if it's not a very significant one.

Literally nothing that involves being alive is without conflict. Let's see if any of the examples of a story without conflict in this thread don't fit at least one of the four basic types of conflict: Man vs. Nature, vs. Self, vs. Society or vs. Man.


I don't think agreeing to peacefully not have a conflict is a conflict.

That would be the resolution of a conflict. The fact that you have to have such a disagreement in the first place is your conflict. So, Man vs. Man. Probably also vs. Society since we're talking about a debate on ethics here.


You could have a story about solving a completely impersonal problem. Like an avalanche has blocked the road.
So you could make an adventure about finding a different route or finding a way to remove the rubble.

Your conflict is with the avalanche, as well as the difficulties of finding another route or with removing the rubble. Man vs. Nature, potentially Man vs. Society if the avalanche or the resulting problems relate to human negligence.


Monopoly.
Bridge.
Trivial Pursuit.
Clue.
Any race.
Gymnastics competitions.
Figure skating.
Careers.

Conflict with the the other players/participants. Not only do you have to do well, you have to do better than them, meaning Man vs. Self and Man vs. Man. A couple of those have judges or records or general expectations attached, which amounts to Man vs. Society.


Solitaire.
Dominoes.
Empire Builder.
Chutes and Ladders.
Hunting Easter eggs.

Conflict with the game itself. The difficulty of participating successfully, such as it were. Potentially this amounts to Man vs. Man, and also Man vs. Nature in games where chance plays a heavy role in the possibility of victory.


PC1: "At long last, the McGuffin is almost at hand! Gather your courage-"
Guardian: "Oh, you're here for the McGuffin? Why didn't you just say so? Down that hallway, second door on the left. Combination to the vault is 16-24-22."
PC2: "And you're not going to stop us?"
Guardian: "Why would I? It's not like I was using it."
PC3: "..."
Guardian: "Oh look! Tea time! Care to join me? It gets dreadfully lonely down here."

Man vs. Self for ennui, Man vs. Society or Man vs. Man for conflicting expectations. See Waiting for Godot.


In Xefas' example where both people walk away from a conflict then it is no longer a conflict. Neither intended to pursue their objective past a point that made the other uncomfortable. It could become a conflict later if one pursued their objectives on the other in the future.

Again, they walk away as the resolution of the conflict. Conflicts do have those.

horseboy
2012-01-23, 03:55 PM
You can still have legitimate choices. I mean, the players might opt to go to the pub or go bowling. Is bowling a conflict? In my opinion it is, but only if a player wants to win (and another player doesn't want that player to win). If not it's pure scenery.

I spoke to a GM recently who asked me for advice because his players did this over following plot hooks. But I'm not really one for his kind of games anyway. So I am looking for a more fundamental level of understanding that behaviour.

I played in an entire oWoD campaign like that. We described what we did that day, how we got dressed up then went to a night club and "hung out" all night. The only conflict I engaged in was my constant hitting on the Toreador.

Did a week long festival that lasted like two-two and a half sessions. The biggest conflict was the Dwile Flonking competitions. My MMO player was pulling his hair out, but everyone else was having fun meeting their pet-NPC's new boyfriend.

Literally nothing that involves being alive is without conflict. Let's see if any of the examples of a story without conflict in this thread don't fit at least one of the four basic types of conflict: Man vs. Nature, vs. Self, vs. Society or vs. Man.
:smallconfused: Did they take out Man vs the Supernatural?

Siegel
2012-01-23, 04:02 PM
I played in an entire oWoD campaign like that. We described what we did that day, how we got dressed up then went to a night club and "hung out" all night. The only conflict I engaged in was my constant hitting on the Toreador.


And how was that fun? Why did you need the system for that? Why did you need a GM for that?
If i would be the GM i would have pulled my hair out.
I probarly would have used all that time you gave me to make another group of vampires set up a plan to take all of your stuff away.
If you don't take action to protect your stuff or make an advancement than you are completly open to opposition. Would you have been angry if i did that?

horseboy
2012-01-23, 04:16 PM
And how was that fun? Why did you need the system for that? Why did you need a GM for that?
If i would be the GM i would have pulled my hair out.
I probarly would have used all that time you gave me to make another group of vampires set up a plan to take all of your stuff away.
If you don't take action to protect your stuff or make an advancement than you are completly open to opposition. Would you have been angry if i did that?

It was fun because we got crazy, stupid creative.
We needed a system to 1 get people interested (there were like 15 players by the second session) 2 provide a framework from us to work around.
The GM loved it because he didn't have to do anything. He controlled weather, and provided the NPC's (like other hot chicks, the DJ, the Bartender, people to be impressed by the other players epeen waving)
The only "stuff" I had was my wardrobe and my porn stash, and that was in my Umbral Lair.

Pisha
2012-01-23, 04:59 PM
*grins* We call it "soft RP" or "social games," and while I'm not sure it would be fun as the ONLY aspect of a game, it's plenty fun as a way to add to it.

Example: I'm in a long-running Mage game. Now, most of our games (in person and online) have specific conflicts to solve. In between games, we're still working on solving those concepts. But then sometimes... sometimes we just want to have some conflict-free roleplay. So we had one scene that consisted just of hanging out and decorating the Christmas tree in our base - helping one of the character's little girl cut out and decorate ornaments, and just chatting about our (characters') favorite carols and holiday memories. Or another example - sometimes a group will just go out to a bar or club together, in character, just to chat and hang out. It's also a feature of immersion larp games - games set to last for an extended period of time, like an entire weekend. Yes, those games have plot and conflict (both internal and provided by the ST), but they also allow for social stuff like just sitting around a firebowl talking, or watching a movie or playing poker in-character.

How well it goes over depends on how immersive the group likes to be when it comes to character development (vs. straight action) and also how often it's used. It also depends on the game. A lot of WOD games (Vampire, Mage, Changeling) lend themselves to deep character development and intricate relationship ties, and sometimes it's helpful to the game itself to spend time just building those IC relationships. For games like D&D, though, in MY experience (which obviously, it'll be different for everyone) much more of the focus and appeal of the game is on battle and problem-solving. So while we'll have a LITTLE bit of these conflict-free rp sessions, they're not nearly as frequent or in-depth. (Mostly on the level of hanging out and talking in-character after games.)

I honestly can't conceive of a game consisting of NOTHING but this, though. I mean, I suppose there is some appeal to just creating a different personality to interact with your friends, just as an exercise or a change of pace, but I'm not sure I'd call it a "game." The social games are important precisely because they're a change of pace from the "OMG MUST SAVE THE WORLD NOW" plots, and let our characters catch their breath and remember what they're fighting for. If we had an entire game where it was nothing but social, I think after a while we'd stop dressing up and going IC, and just go out for drinks or something as ourselves.

valadil
2012-01-23, 06:58 PM
No. As soon as I've rolled a PC, the game has conflict in it.