At the heart of every great story is a great conflict. Many exceptional characters are defined by their rivalries and the lengths they go to to succeed. In a live-action roleplaying (LARP) experience, conflict can be character-defining as well, providing a vehicle for players to find themselves as their values and their mettle are tested. For this reason, it is possible to take a measure of a character—and even an entire game—by the way conflicts are presented, handled, and resolved.
Games that are high in struggle and strife or competitive between players create a different atmosphere than games that take a more casual approach. Here we are going to explore a system that seeks a balance between the two styles, offering a means to pursue conflict cooperatively, as well as a means of furthering stories through narration beyond the scope of a single scenario. Fundamentals of Cooperative Conflict Conflict as part of a game’s storyline (often called plot) is frequently simple; antagonists are clearly defined with morals and objectives in direct contrast to the players’, and pursing these antagonists typically results in few or no social consequences from other players.
Conflict between player-characters can be a bit more complicated. Characters will have goals not necessarily in opposition to other characters, and taking action against them may result in social consequences or retaliation. Such conflicts also have a tendency to escalate quickly, with character death a common occurance, resulting in an unsatisfying conclusion for one party. Conflicts that degenerate to this level can also lead to blunt or uncreative gameplay tangents, without outcomes decided by mass combats.
Also, when character conflict becomes too intense, it carries a high risk of bleed, where immersive feelings linger beyond the session. But just as LARP is an experience in cooperative storytelling, so too can a rival be handled cooperatively, and for that, we can look to an unlikely. As a means of entertainment, professional wrestling is all about showcasing conflict. Every match, promo, and interview centers on conflict, with an occasional mcguffin of a championship belt thrown in.
Writers must handle challenges of talent rotating in and out, establishing the identity of a character in a very short time. In preparation for premium events, rivalries are built, which must appear both interesting and believable enough for an audience, all for the purpose of creating a grand spectacle of a finale. Cooperative conflict is different from most clashes in LARP. As opposed to being competitive, the purpose of cooperative conflict is to tell a story, rather than pit skills of one character against another.
With the competitive aspect removed (or at the very least, kept to a manageable level), all participants gain the benefit of becoming collaborators as opposed to competitors. Working together, they can tell the story of their rivalry, giving one another ample time to shine. Entering into this sort of agreement is optional, of course. Neither party is obligated to pursue a prolonged rivalry with one another, nor are they obliged to adhere to a structure as part of creating their characters’ stories.
Rather, this method is for those who seek an amicable means of exploring a conflict that involves boundaries and collaboration. Work Out an Understanding To begin this process, it is necessary to form some kind of out-of-character understanding between the involved parties. This step is important, as the process will involve some amount of give and take, as well as some degree of pacing. This negotiation may be easiest when characters are starting a new game and craft a rivalry for one another Cooperative Conflict and Advanced Narration: Expert Tools for Story Creation Reckitt “The art of living is more like wrestling than dancing.” — Marcus Aurelius in their backstories, but it can also certainly be worked out between game sessions.
Don’t Rush It In professional wrestling, the outcome of a good rivalry is never rushed. During weekly shows, wrestlers will fume and circle around each other, participating in small matches or fighting to no conclusion, all for the sake of selling a major event. Likewise, if players wish to have a conflict as part of their story, they should be in no hurry to see it resolved either. The conflict and the feelings that go with it are all about the experience. Give and expect ample time to react to the machinations of your rival before moving on to the counterstroke.
Bring your reactions into the shared environment, and let others see how it affects your character. Maintain Parity Perhaps most importantly, some degree of parity should be maintained. This balance involves keeping your conflict within the established range of the story, and not going overboard. If you and your rival are both Tremere acolytes vying for a coveted position, blowing up her haven would be a bit excessive. Likewise, selling her out to the Sabbat would be a bit much, though if you found out she was collaborating with the enemy, you would no doubt do your duty.
As part of a cooperative conflict, you should determine its desired severity. Once it is chosen, both you and your partner-rival should adhere to it, giving her outof-character notice if you feel the story has taken it in a different direction. This practice allows you to effectively trade blows without adding worry for your character’s survival. Degrees of Conflict For the purposes of codifying and managing degrees of cooperative conflict, let’s define three different tiers. Tier 1: Inconvenience/Skirmish At this tier, both parties are trying to inconvenience one another.
This conflict may be because one or both parties are petty or vindictive at heart, or have a relationship as frenemies. Both parties are likely on the same side with similar goals, and are possibly ostensible friends. This rivalry may take the form of acts of min- or aggression or dominance that inconvenience the other. If matters were to become physical, rarely would things escalate beyond a shove or a thrown fist or two. Tier 2: Embarrassment/Injury At the second tier, both parties are trying to embarrass one another.
This conflict may be because both are in competition for a position or for resources, or have divergent goals. Both parties are on the same side in some matters, but are unlikely to be friends. This rivalry manifests as undermining one another’s plans, typically with subtle, rather than overt means, and a willingness to see the other lose face. If it were to come to blows, fighting might get involved, but stop short of incapacitation or significant injury. Tier 3: Humiliation/Incapacitation At the third tier, both parties are united in their mutual disdain and seek the humiliation of one another.
They have very likely reached their limits, each bearing a history of reasons as to why they cannot abide the other’s presence in the same city, let alone the same room. Both parties might pretend at civility, but would gladly snipe at or undermine the other if given the opportunity. Each will seek to thwart the other in their goals, even if only for spite. Should a fight ensue, each would seek to cause the other as much injury as possible, stopping short of death. Conflicts that go above these tiers, perhaps seeking the death of either party, are not well suited for cooperative conflict.
While conflicts that result in the death of either party are certainly valid, their divisive nature and zero-sum nature mean they’re best resolved through competitive means, i.e., gameplay and mechanics. Advanced Narration There are times when, for the purpose of creating a better story, it may be better for one party to lose in a situation or challenge that would normally be determined by game mechanics. This situation often occurs when a win for the other party would make sense for a character’s concept, such as being a canny manipulator or a valiant fighter.
A character written as a CEO-turned-vampire would likely tend to succeed at business dealings, and a femme fatale would be particularly effective at seduction. By allowing a character to succeed in such a situation suited to its nature, its fundamental concept is reinforced, allowing it to become better defined and more iconic. It also takes a “yes, and…” approach to story, adding to the conflict and keeping momentum going. In wrestling, concessions are often made to help reinforce an up-and-coming character, where one wrestler will lose to the other (often in dramatic fashion) to help further the story.
Giving a good performance, even when it will result in a deliberate loss, is called “doing the job,” and it helps to establish featured performers. Though it can help advance story in a LARP situation, participants are often hesitant or unwilling to lose. Players who feel invested in a conflict are likely to be cautious of giving away any advantage, as small victories have a habit of building into larger ones. Personal pride may by a factor as well, as well as competitive feelings.
However, when it comes to cooperative conflicts in both wrestling and in LARP, the most entertainment can be had when both parties are at relative parity. It’s no fun if someone wins all the time, and if one party has been winning a lot, then the other party is certainly due a win or moment of triumph to keep things interesting. As part of managing a cooperative conflict, players can handle these situations by agreeing to relent or “do the job” in lieu of a mechanical resolution, in exchange for an advantage later on.
This exchange can be made as a resolution to a single incident, or as part of a protracted rivalry, using Advanced Narration. When this advantage is cashed in, the player who relented earlier can choose from a variety of story options depending on the severity of the concession given, which represent her character’s retaliation at a later time, and which must be accepted. The exact means are worked out with the Storyteller, likely constructed in accordance with the retaliating character’s concepts and proficiencies, and done unbeknownst to the player who received the win.
Additionally, the player whose character received the concession should agree to accept a reasonable degree of narration regarding how the retaliation took place. The Storyteller involved will ensure that the retaliation is within the bounds of the established parameters and appropriate for both stories. For the purpose of keeping the conflict at a managed level, both concession and retaliation should be kept proportional, drawing from the charts below. Additionally, the advantage should be cashed in within a reasonable timeframe, such as within three game sessions.
For this system to work, good faith must be maintained by both parties. For example, if the player of a Brujah to agrees to relent to the effects of a Chimestry challenge, she should take care to roleplay its effects. Likewise, if the Ravnos player who used Chimestry finds a group of police officers have raided the establishment of her criminal associates (representing the loss of a background), she should avoid jumping to the conclusion that her rival might have been behind it, remembering that the give-and-take agreement is entirely out-of-game.
Additionally, a player shouldn’t ask for or accept a concession of this sort if their intent is to escalate the conflict. For example, a Toreador seeks to use Dread Gaze on a bothersome Nosferatu. While this challenge seems to be an attempt to shoo her rival away, she shouldn’t ask for a concession if her friends are waiting outside to attack. Doing so would constitute an escalation of the conflict. Lastly and perhaps most importantly, if you’re on the receiving end of retaliation, you should roll with the scenario you’re given, as you’ve already had your moment to shine.
First Tier: Inconvenience/Skirmish Advanced Narration Chart Concession Given Retaliation Taken
• Relenting to a supernatural power challenge and roleplaying its effects during an inconvenient situation. The result is unlikely to cause a loss of status/renown or generate gossip, though it may frustrate the subject.
• Taking a premeditated loss in what amounts to a small scuffle, suffering 3 or fewer points of damage
• Loss of a background for a single evening
• Loss of a single downtime action
• Moderate difficulty feeding or travails that tax the target’s supernatural reserves; character begins next game at 2/3 of maximum Blood/Gnosis pool (round in favor of the player)
• Act of frustration that results in gaining a Beast Trait/ Derangement Trait/Seethe Trait
• Uncovering a min- or background secret, such as a 1-point flaw (with Storyteller permission) Concession Given Retaliation Taken
• Relenting to a supernatural power challenge and roleplaying its effects in an embarrassing situation. The result may cause a loss of status/renown or generate gossip if the subject is important enough.
• Taking a premeditated loss in what amounts to a major altercation, suffering between 4 and 6 points of damage
• Loss of up to 2 backgrounds for up to 2 game sessions
• Loss of 1 month of downtime actions or 2 total downtime actions, whichever is greater
• Significant difficulty feeding or travails that tax the target’s supernatural reserves; character begins next game at 1/2 of maximum Blood/Gnosis pool (round in favor of the player)
• An act of great frustration that results in gaining 2 Beast Traits/Derangement Traits/Seethe Traits
• Uncovering embarrassing background secrets, such as a 3-point flaw (with Storyteller permission) Concession Given Retaliation Taken
• Relenting to a supernatural power challenge and roleplaying its effects in a potentially humiliating situation. A loss of status/renown is probable, and the incident is likely fodder for horrendous gossip, even if the subject is relatively unknown.
• Taking a premeditated loss in what amounts to a serious conflict, suffering between 7 and 9 points of damage, and likely resulting in incapacitation and/or capture
• Long-term loss of a single background due to death or removal of connected NPCs
• Loss of 2 months’ downtime actions or 4 total downtime actions, whichever is greater
• Immense difficulty feeding or travails that tax the target’s supernatural reserves; character begins next game at 1/3 of maximum Blood/Gnosis pool (round in favor of the player)
• An act of immense frustration that results in gaining 3 Beast Traits/Derangement Traits/Seethe Traits
• Uncovering major background secrets, such as 3+ point flaws (with Storyteller permission) Second Tier: Embarrassment/Injury Third Tier: Humiliation/Incapacitation Advanced Narration: Steps to Resolution Step 1: Make an Agreement Prior to resolving a challenge, both parties should converse and offer reasons why one character would likely succeed in this situation. Both should agree on the degree of conflict (tier) this situation supports. Afterward, the players should make a Storyteller aware of their agreement and the advantage given to the relenting party. Step 2: Relent to the Challenge The condeding party “does the job” and relents to the challenge, accepting the consequences and roleplaying accordingly. Step 3: Chose a Method of Retaliation The relenting party meets with the Storyteller and picks an option from the right column of the appropriate chart above. While the relenting party is free to incorporate her character’s mechanical capabilities, the bar for achieving any of these effects should be relatively low. It is perfectly fine if disbelief needs to be suspended somewhat to achieve a desired outcome; the relenting player has already “earned” this outcome as part of her earlier cooperation. Step 4: Tell the Story The Storyteller informs the player who won the previous challenge of both the mechanical and narrative results of the subsequent retaliation. That player accepts the consequences and roleplays accordingly. Example 1: Hugo the Tremere is the ranking Archon at a conclave. During a recess, Levi the Anarch Malkavian approaches him with an exhaustive list of issues, demanding that the Anarchs be heard. Hugo suggests to Levi that a better idea might be to take the list outside and set it on fire, and the player informs the other that he wishes to use the Dominate power of Mesmerism on Levi. As success in this challenge would initiate a dramatic outcome, the player of Hugo proposes Advanced Narration. Both players are amicable, and agree that in exchange for the player of Levi relenting to the use of Dominate, the player of Hugo will agree to narration later on, effectively owing him one. Both parties also agree that the matter is an inconvenience for Levi. The second night of the conclave, the player of Levi approaches the Storyteller. As his character has connections with various gangs, he wants to send some of them after Hugo. The Storyteller agrees, and later notifies the player of Hugo that he is accosted by a group of thugs on his way to rejoin the conclave. While he dispatches the assailants with ease, he has some difficulty feeding. He enters play at 2/3 of his total Blood pool. The player of Hugo accepts the narration, as he has given his consent in exchange for the player of Levi relenting the night before. Example 2: Hazel the Assamite is a Black Hand operative who wishes to extract some information from a particularly recalcitrant Loyalist, Vinny the Lasombra. She finds him alone, and declares her intent to initiate combat, seeking to capture him. Hazel’s intentions are non-lethal, and her character is especially adept at ambushes, but her player realizes the scene could go either way. She proposes Advanced Narration. In exchange for agreeing to be captured, the player of Vinny asks for a concession later on, noting that being captured is at the third tier. Both parties agree, and begin a scene where Vinny is being held at a nearby warehouse. Vinny is released at the conclusion of the scene, and he has an axe to grind. He approaches the Storyteller, and mentions that he has some Allies in the Order of St. Blaise. He wants to make travel difficult for Hazel, to the point that if affects her downtime actions. The Storyteller agrees, and tells Hazel after game that her travel plans as a Black Hand operative have become immensely difficult, taking her much longer to get from point A to point B. She loses her next 4 downtime actions as a result. Although Hazel has some Influence pertaining to travel that she feels would normally come into play, as this is part of the agreement she made with the player of Vinny, she agrees to roll with it. When the Story Has Run its Course While a cooperative conflict can certainly be fulfilling, like all stories, it can be susceptible to a life cycle. When a conflict ceases to be entertaining, or no longer feels right, it may be best to abandon it. This resolution is often a simple matter if the conflict is cooperative. As part of the collaborative process, the participants could work out an outcome together, possibly escalating matters into a competitive scenario or a storyline where differences are resolved. Alternatively, circumstances within the game as a whole may have changed, possibly giving both parties bigger fish to fry. Conflict between characters is challenging and enriching, and in a cooperative conflict, it’s important that the cooperative story works for both participants. All parties should have the opportunity to shine, but also the right to go a different direction when it stops working. With a little cooperation from the right partner, it’s something that can be savored over the course of a storyline. Biography Some call him the Adonis Quarterback of LARP. Some call him the Gangster of Love. He has an unnatural love for bears. Jimmy Reckitt is a developer for Studios who’s worked on Mind’s Eye Theater Werewolf: The Apocalypse, MET: Pickering Lythe, and MET: Storyteller Secrets. A proud Chicagoan, Jimmy ran the Chicago One World by Night chronicle for a number of years as its head storyteller. When he’s not writing, Jimmy enjoys spending time at the gym and taking circus classes. He is currently trying to explain to his parents and coworkers just what exactly a LARP is after they heard about Werewolf.
Originally published in Mind’s Eye Theatre: Immersion Secrets by By Night Studios. Presented here under Resources for chronicles and live play.