Are You Not Entertained?: On Conflict and Larp

I will always argue that larp needs at least two things to function: agency or the illusion there of, and conflict. As nice as it would be if we all got along all of the time, it doesn’t make for a very interesting game. When I say conflict I don’t mean violence necessarily (though violence *is* a form of conflict), but rather any sort of disagreement or tension. The reason why you need conflict is simple: without any sort of problem there is nothing for the players to do. Disagreements, no matter how small, give opportunity for roleplay and are the basis of plot. This post will seek to discuss conflict in all its forms as well as how to ferment it in your player base.

Types of Conflict

Player vs Player (PvP) — When players are in conflict with each other.

Player vs Monster (PvM) — When players are in conflict with NPCs or Monsters. Almost all larps have some element of PvM

Violent — This is the most obvious type of conflict, normally involves weaponry. Generally most violent conflict is PvM. If your system has any type of combat mechanic, chances are there will be *some* violent conflict. If violent conflict is the only type of conflict in your game you run the risk of your game feeling like a dungeon grind (which may or may not be your goal). Adding violent conflict into your game is easy, PvM fights are easy to set up. If you are trying to add violent PvP to your game you should think about 1) your combat system 2) how to incentivise it (things such as gods demanding sacrifces or mutually exclusive goals are good for this)

Ideological — When there is a disagreement over what the right thing is. Ideological conflict is normally PvP, but not always.

Example: Player A thinks that magic is evil and that the party should use mundane methods to find the magic maguffinite while Player B thinks that magic is the best way to find it. They argue.

Ideological conflict is normally a result of players having the same general goal but disagreeing on the best way to get there. Writing culture briefs that having differing ideas about what is right/honorable/ect is a good way to make sure the players have some ideological disagreements. Ideological conflict is good because it can range the full spectrum of violent extreme pvp to civilized discussion about what to do next depending on the setting and characters involved. It is however worth noting that it is difficult to get players to buy into ideologies that are completely unsympathetic (re: unambiguously evil).

Ideological combat is very good for adding additional roleplay opportunities to your players, and giving them plot in which there is no obvious answer is an excellent way to capitalize on that.

Social — A non violent form of PvP that revolves around rumors and personal squabbles. Most social conflict will happen organically without the organizer having to do much, but it is worth putting in some mutually exclusive goals to push people towards it. If you are running a game with ref designed characters remember to make sure there are some social fractures in the group, if everyone is best friends forever with no disagreements then they wont have alot to talk about in uptime.

Political — A blend of Social and Ideological conflict. Political conflict is all about who is in charge and making power plays. Political conflict is again almost always PvP. As an organizer the best way to ferment political conflict is to have some sort of political game open to your players. If left to their own devices players (in my experience anyway) tend to always revert to democracy. There is nothing wrong with that, but it should be kept in mind.

Why we cant all be friends:

Or why low-key nonviolent conflict is important in every game (from your lovely tea party to your lethal survival horror).

People don’t agree on everything all the time. That is a simple fact of life. Even if they agree on board stroke issues (Necromancy is bad kids) they don’t always agree on the solutions to problems (kill all necromancers! or we could reeducate them…). Roleplay wise this gives players something to talk about, to bounce off of. A very small number of larpers can roleplay in a vacuum. the rest of us need something to work with. Disagreement causes roleplay. If plot is simple, and all the players have exactly the same word view and trust each other absolutely, you won’t have much of a game. Conflict is the spark that sets your game ablaze, and PvP, especially of the non violent sort, allows players to create their own game, thus supplementing whatever plot you’ve provided. Without any player driven conflict the refs need to provide *all* of the game for players, which quite frankly is not possible if you have even a mid sized game. Remember, even if everyone is friends, they will disagree on some points. This is good. Encourage it.

TL:DR

• Not all conflict is violent. Even completely non-com games should have some sort of conflict.
• Conflict creates roleplay
• PvP is not the enemy.