I want to support the name of DontBotherNone.
I don't want too!
And, contrary on what said before, I think I'm understanding all the definitions said in this topic.

If you ask lay people who have never asked to define stories and conflicts, and you ask them, "could there be a story with no conflict?" The popular answer would be 'Yes'.
Isn't the popular answer a little too general?
We have so many definition within us, I hope we don't need to have infinite new ones taking from the "popular answers".
We're people (me at least a bit ) who studied fiction, and we are used with some terms and definitions. They are useful to communicate within us and to learn.
No problem changing them if we find a more useful definition (and this need to be proven yet).
But surely we need something to start with, and we can't change these defininition everytime we want.
So...

I am not assuming such. Are you assuming that? If that is just an assumption, what other assumptions do you have? Why not just talk about all of the possible assumptions at once instead of one at a time?
It's a long time since we started the thread.
Are we assuming something at least?

I don't even know which one of the four conflict definition we are using now.
Let's choose one for this topic. After that I think that all will become more simple.

Emphasis: The difference in definition is not just a 'simple' difference. It is a defect in the definition. If you ask lay people who have never asked to define stories and conflicts, and you ask them, "could there be a story with no conflict?" The popular answer would be 'Yes'. It is only to the ones that have somewhat studied stories that are crippled by the defective definition into calling something that isn't conflict a 'conflict', and reject compositions that are considered stories otherwise in order to satisfy a defective definition.

I never called it a "simple difference", though I won't insult you by pointing out the substantial difference in the words "simple" and "simply". Also, are you not committing a logical fallacy by using popular opinion to validate a claim? Especially when you're restricting the sample size to suit your needs (by only asking those who have not studied these things or been asked to define them). I could ask a group of racist, white individuals if other ethnic groups had less capacity for thought, and the popular answer could be "yes", too. But those neurologists who have been crippled by the study of the brain might disagree. Not to mention that you do not do anything to show - rather, to prove - that that the popular answer would be "yes". It could be "no". Or "leave me alone, I don't want to answer your question". That is not the precise logical efficacy you claim to seek.

Further, who is calling something that isn't a conflict a conflict? Who is rejecting compositions?

Emphasis: It is not difficult when you see consider the implication of your definition. According to which, a conflict exists only if there is an actor that acts toward a need. However you have the assumption that a need must exist for a story. That is another defect in the reasoning. What you see here is that the word 'conflict' as you are using it, is not used as a classification word but a placeholder.

Analogy:

x + 3 = 5

In the above, x is a placeholder for a number. 'x' represents a number but it itself is not a type of number (i.e. real, complex, integer, irrational, etc...). 'Conflict' is a classifier word that is being wrongfully used as a placeholder word. It is a definition defect, just as if you call 'x' 'an integer' instead of a 'variable'. I think the cause of this defect is that the people who analyzed stories had no foresight. Just as what would happen if 'x' was named when the world only knew about integers.
Emphasis: Sadly according to the same analogy, what you call 'literary merit' only amounts to the level of integer algebra; and people would say there is no other valid or interesting mathematical compositions, because "if math has no x, it would just be 3 = 5, and that is nonsense."


That is, until someone shows up and say, "what about infinite sums?" "That is preposterous, you can't write an infinitely long equation." "That's right, you can't--but you can still sum it."

Here I'm lost for a variety of reasons. The first is that I did not offer a definition of conflict, merely explained two examples. Nor did I say that a need must exist for a story. I also don't think you succeeded in fully fleshing out that analogy. An analogy is meant to draw parallels, yet you only offer a parallel between "x" and "conflict"? An appropriate analogy can show similarities or a comparison between a heart and a pump. But you cannot say a heart is like (or analogous to) an entire water distribution network, despite the fact that this system/entity includes a pump. Accordingly, what you offer is not an analogy (you do not complete the system in which "conflict" resides with respect to the mathematical system you strive to make analogous).

Because of this, your subsequent use of the "analogy" breaks down, which means what you wrote in the second "Emphasis" quoted above is operating on a defective analogy and not applicable.

I find issues with your whole notion of trying to make the word "story" analogous to an expression in mathematics, also, specifically in respect to your attempts to make stories with conflict comparable to only integer algebra. An indefinite integral, for example, represents a number but is not inherently any type of number (it could be natural, rational, whole, integer, irrational, etc.). So, by your own logic, why not create a mathematic expression in which the word "conflict", as you claim I define it despite the fact that I did not offer a definition, is analogous to an indefinite integral? Suddenly, stories with conflict are at least calculus level math. Further, you claim that "people would say there is no other valid...", but what of compositions of a more elementary level? Would 2 + 3 = 5 suddenly be dismissed, even if we never advanced past the concept of x + 3 = 5? Then again, this last paragraph is criticism of an argument that operates on an accepted analogy that is defunct, so I guess this criticism is unnecessary.

Emphasis 2: Game story without conflict is not a cutback--it is a change of design requirement.


Emphasis: If I ask whether shoes can have no shoelaces your answer would be that it is impossible because the shoe will fall off. When you think properly about this type of discussion, you cannot just think about what happens if you take an existing story and erase one of its component. You have to think about it from the ground up, how to construct it so that it can stand up without that component. The mindset you need to have is not to see 'without conflict' as a subtraction of feature (a cutback), but as a design requirement. You need to stop starting your thoughts with shoes with shoelaces.

This is another instance of unfounded assumption. I often wear shoes without shoelaces, in fact, so my answer certainly would not be that such a shoe was impossible. As for the rest of your claims, I realize(d) that. I never considered "without conflict" as subtraction, nor do I understand why you're assuming I did. All I stated in the portion you replied to is that designing a game without conflict could prove difficult and that most games are predicated on conflict. Are you telling me that you disagree with this?

Emphasis: I don't know how you feel about it, but as I post I just keep discovering the gap between the concept I equipped on myself for the discussion and what other posters had equipped on themselves. I use the word 'equip' because I don't believe that you don't know the concepts that I mentioned or listed. You already know them, you just didn't think of using it in this context. It is like going to a work party without bring hammers and tools but brought beer only. I can tell you that you need a hammer, and if you accept that it is the type of work party that needs hammer, you could get it and I would not need to explain what a hammer is (this was why I listed the concepts and asked whether an explanation is needed).

I hope that it sheds a little more light on what type of work party this is. This is not the type where you come with beer and hang out. You are here to design and make something. Can you identify the object that this work party is supposed to develop? If you think about it and realizes that you need a pencil and drafting paper, then you are on the right track.

Don't take this too seriously, but why would someone show up to a work party with a hammer and other tools? As far as I know, a work party is a party which takes place either at work or with people one works with, but does not include work (while I actually found one definition for "work party", which was merely "a group of workmen", which does not inherently include any partying). Was that your intent? In which case, you're admitting that there are multiple definitions of a work party? Just like there could be multiple definitions of a story? Because I don't recall anyone coming in here and challenging you by offering the claim "A story is only an entity with conflict"... Maybe that whole last part was just lost on me because I don't attend work parties, nor would I bring beer or tools to one if I did (though I would bring tools if I was asked to, but I would not buy beer for someone else's work party unless I was being compensated...)


-------------------

Hopefully I managed to argue points or what have you more inline with what you were expecting or wanting. However, I have to delve back into the realm of subjectivity for a moment, too.

I think there is something to be said in defense of "defective definitions". If I go to an auto repair shop and ask for a new windshield and they install concrete across the front of my vehicle, which is a "windshield" by definition (something with the properties to shield an object from wind), is it not reasonable for me to become angry? Or is it okay for them to have done so because I did not qualify, precisely, what kind of windshield I desired? By the same token, just because someone can write a story with no conflict, that doesn't inherently make it any more interesting, nor will it likely satisfy expectations. For example, if a publisher wants you to write a new short story, and you submit to them a piece entirely free of conflict about a man going about the humdrum activities of his daily life with absolutely no further semblance of subtext or anything, I don't think you're likely to get a positive response. Does different for the sake of different have merit besides being different?

Though, really, the point is that the term "story" works for us when we're describing something with conflict because it is still applicable in such a situation. Further, I don't know that anyone would argue that something without conflict isn't a story, as you seem to be implying people are doing at epidemic rates (though they might offer that it is not a very good or interesting story, which can't be objected to objectively). I mean, do you concede that some words have multiple definitions, depending on context? In which case, why can we not claim (not that I'm doing so) that a composition without conflict is not a story as we are contextually using the term (or maybe that's the matter at hand)? Does context matter so little to you in respect to linguistics and language? What we seem to be discussing is a case of exclusion (that is, you basically seem to think it incorrect for anyone to consider something free of conflict as a non-story, regardless of context), but what about cases of inclusion? Is it so terribly incorrect to contextually dismiss something like a story without conflict as a "story", but then accept "pizza" as a member of the group which "pie" describes or "guitar" as a member of which the group "ax" describes? Just curious about the reverse instances, I guess, but maybe I'm being too tangential (and not thinking out that last argument very clearly, either. Forgive me, it's late, and I feel this last paragraph is all too muddled and ineffective).

Again, all of this is more on the subjective side. Can you perhaps illuminate us with some examples of "compositions" across any medium that are completely devoid of conflict, yet still interesting? This is genuine curiosity and perhaps straying too far from your intent with this thread, but examples are equally helpful ways of getting your points across, so they may assist the rest of us in understanding your intent further more than hypothetical and theoretical claims. Again, just a thought. If this last part of my reply doesn't jive with the rest of the thread, feel free to dismiss it.

Re: sunandshadow

I think the surprise to you would anchor on this statement of yours:

If you assume that a climax is caused by the resolution of conflict, then a piece of narration without conflict would be an anecdote because the lack of conflict implies the lack of a climax.

I am not assuming such. Are you assuming that? If that is just an assumption, what other assumptions do you have? Why not just talk about all of the possible assumptions at once instead of one at a time?

If an assumption is like a point on a function (i.e. <x,y> such that f(x) = y), I think we are equipped to talk about the actual function (i.e. f(x)) all at once instead of pointwise.

I am assuming that, yes. I mentioned it as an assumption specifically because I thought you would disagree. I don't really see a point in discussing assumptions we agree about, because then we would just be defining "what is a proper story?" That's a simpler and more subjective question than you asked here. I say it is subjective because I've participated in a discussion on that topic more than once, and a group of professional writers did not agree about what was 'an official story' and what 'didn't count'. The majority of them did, however, think that a proper story required conflict. I do not think this is a result of being taught a faulty definition. If you asked the creators of Dramatica I think they would say it is the western mindset to measure accomplishment in terms of winning conflicts. I don't agree with that either. I'd personally say, without conflict it is very difficult to create and maintain a reader's interest, and a story which cannot hold a reader's interest for several pages or at least half an hour fails at being a story. People are naturally nosy gossips, they want to hear about other people having problems.

Re: dr Jack

And, contrary on what said before, I think I'm understanding all the definitions said in this topic.I also believe that you understand the definitions of conflicts in this topic. But I don't think that you understand the topic. I think you are at the stage where you understand what a hammer is, but not why you need to bring it.

No problem changing them if we find a more useful definition (and this need to be proven yet). I think one concept that needs to be emphasized is this: In your judgement, what makes a definition 'correct' ? So far I am explained how to tell if a definition is 'correct'. What about you? How do you make such a judgement? I am putting an emphasis to that because between two definitions that are correct, the choices is a matter of convenience (e.g. rectangular vs polar coordinates).

I don't even know which one of the four conflict definition we are using now.
Let's choose one for this topic. After that I think that all will become more simple.In this discussion so far, there is only one definition for 'conflict' that is objective and serves as a valid classifier. So there has been no other option. I have been discussing other definitions because the original question--about game stories with no conflict--applies is directed toward all situations where someone is going against something.

Def3: A conflict of a story is a situation in the story where intentions lead to states that cannot coexist.

As a valid classifier, it is necessary that there are situations that are conflicts and situations that are not conflicts. If you have a classifying definition but you can't tell when an object belongs to its classification, the definition is useless as a classifier.

Example of conflict: You want to buy ice-cream and also sandwich, but you only have money to buy either, but not both.
Example of non-conflict: You want to buy ice-cream and also sandwich. You have the money for both and you buy both.

Before going further, consider these two examples and determine whether they have conflicts according to Def3:

Title: Zebra's Party
Once upon a time the zebra has a party.
His first guest is the lion because the lion is the king of the safari.
His second guest is the elepant because the elephant is the biggest on the safari.
His third guest is the giraffe because it is the tallest on the safari.
Last but not least, the zebra's fourth guest is the lemur, because the lemur is his best friend.

Title: The Train
There is a train car with the number '1' printed on it. You see the car, you see the number, you are satisfied.
Then, a new train car is attached. You look at it, you see the number '2'. You are satisfied.
After that, another train car comes and gets attached. You look at it. You see the number '3'. You are satisfied.
After that, another train car comes and gets attached. You look at it. You see the number '7'. You are satisfied.

In summary, a valid classifying definition satisfies these:
o The domain of the classification can be defined. (i.e. is it classifying situation? action? personality? object? etc...)
o Within the domain, there exists at least one sample that belongs to the class
o Within the domain, there exists at least one sample that does not belong to the class
o If the definition term has an antonym, samples that belongs to the antonym do not belong to the class. (Note that a sample within the domain could belong to neither, because in terms of sets, an antonym of a term does not necessarily define its complement.)

Re: DontBotherNone

You said: "Without being presumptuous, I think the issue here is what users other than Wai regard as a story simply because of a different definition; that is, using the term "story" in a less than precise, but commonly accepted way."
I said: "Emphasis: The difference in definition is not just a 'simple' difference. It is a defect in the definition."
You said: "I never called it a "simple difference", though I won't insult you by pointing out the substantial difference in the words "simple" and "simply"."

Regardless whether I mis-attributed the term 'simple', do you agree, or disagree, that the difference in definition is a matter of preference or a matter of correctness? My point was that if you think that it is just a matter of preference, then my emphasis is that it is a matter of correctness.

You said: "Also, are you not committing a logical fallacy by using popular opinion to validate a claim? Especially when you're restricting the sample size to suit your needs"

According to you, there would be no logical fallacy if the sample size is bigger? Do you mean to say that the population of people who uses the institutionalized definition of 'Conflict' is larger than the population of people who use the term, the way they have learned from their mothers throughout history? You specifically meant that my sample size is smaller and biased, right? Isn't it the reality that your sample size is smaller and biased?

Also, that is not the a topic in the domain of logic but science. In terms of logic, the way to tell whether a definition (classifying definition) is valid is outlined in the post above, which I repeat here for convenience:

In summary, a valid classifying definition satisfies these:
o The domain of the classification can be defined. (i.e. is it classifying situation? action? personality? object? etc...)
o Within the domain, there exists at least one sample that belongs to the class
o Within the domain, there exists at least one sample that does not belong to the class
o If the definition term has an antonym, samples that belongs to the antonym do not belong to the class. (Note that a sample within the domain could belong to neither, because in terms of sets, an antonym of a term does not necessarily define its complement.)
This is not science. This is hard logic that concerns none of what people thinks, only the internal integrity of the definition itself. A definition that meets these criteria would not fall apart like the other definitions which appears to have a meaning but means nothing under scrutiny.

You said: "Further, who is calling something that isn't a conflict a conflict? Who is rejecting compositions?"

I was referring to those who are using the term 'Conflict' by associating it to Newton's laws. According to them, your open a door is called a conflict, regardless of intention, because you 'went against the inertia of the door.'

You said: "You can have a story - a recounting of events, or what have you - without conflict. Though I'd argue it could prove difficult, because it's easy to stretch something in order to consider it conflict. Something as simple as the weather outside could be construed as conflict (it was raining, therefore human versus nature). Heck, even a door. What is the purpose of a door? To open, to close, as we see it. But an object at rest stays at rest until acted upon by an external force. Therefore, the intent of a closed door is to remain closed. Then, we act on that door, overpowering it to suit our needs, fighting friction and physics."
I said: "Emphasis: It is not difficult when you see consider the implication of your definition. According to which, a conflict exists only if there is an actor that acts toward a need."
You said: "Here I'm lost for a variety of reasons. The first is that I did not offer a definition of conflict, merely explained two examples. Nor did I say that a need must exist for a story."

Since you did not offer your definition but accepted that whether a story has a conflict is a matter of interpretation, I assumed that your definition is similar to those that have been discussed in the thread. Since now you emphasize that you did not offer your definition of conflict, would you clarify what your definition is?

You said: "I think things actually get more dicey when returning back to your initial question of video game stories sans conflict. Even without getting overly analytical and semantical, it's hard to find a video game not predicated on conflict, namely because conflict seems to be the sole gameplay mechanic available. Not sure how you could handle a video game without conflict even in a less precise sense (ie games where you don't merely go around and kill or otherwise best things). Puzzle games?"
I said: "Emphasis 2: Game story without conflict is not a cutback--it is a change of design requirement."
You said: "As for the rest of your claims, I realize(d) that. I never considered "without conflict" as subtraction, nor do I understand why you're assuming I did. All I stated in the portion you replied to is that designing a game without conflict could prove difficult and that most games are predicated on conflict. Are you telling me that you disagree with this?"

I assumed because in your reply you only gave one game type--puzzle games--however, according to the design requirement mindset, there is no reason for you not to imagine that the game could very well be RPG, FPS, Action etc... basically any genre. There is no basis for you to assume that the variety in genre would shrink. Also, in your reply you are mixing two concepts:

1) Game with a conflict (I highlighted this above)
2) Game story with a conflict

Do you see the difference between these two things? So far this thread is talking about (2), which is about the story in a game, not the game itself. I understand that you could mean 'game without conflict (in its story).' But since you also mentioned 'conflict as a gameplay mechanic', I imagined that you were mixing two concepts.

You said: "I don't recall anyone coming in here and challenging you by offering the claim "A story is only an entity with conflict"

I think you missed some parts of this thread. But at this point it doesn't matter what others believe. Between you and me the only thing that needs to be clarified is what you believe, because you are saying that I misunderstood your claim.

You said: "By the same token, just because someone can write a story with no conflict, that doesn't inherently make it any more interesting, nor will it likely satisfy expectations. For example, if a publisher wants you to write a new short story, and you submit to them a piece entirely free of conflict about a man going about the humdrum activities of his daily life with absolutely no further semblance of subtext or anything, I don't think you're likely to get a positive response. Does different for the sake of different have merit besides being different?"

On one hand you claimed that I wrongfully made assumptions about your thoughts, on the other hand you are not giving me any evidence to make other assumptions. Here in this statement, you are making the same assumption that the absence of a feature is a cutback and you are not seeing it as a design requirement. I think your main misunderstanding is this:

When I say without conflict is a design requirement, I am not saying that it is the sole requirement. As previously expressed, the motivation of such requirement is that there exist an audience that is bored by 'conflict' as is defined in various ways. Therefore, if you consider the entire set of design requirements, it contains both 'without conflict' and 'satisfies the audience that is bored by conflict.' So your claim that this thread is about different for the sake of being different is not grounded. There is no basis to equate 'a requirement to have no conflict' to the belief that 'a story with no conflict is inherently more interesting."

Also, in this type of discussion, it is a typical practice to stress the constraint to the extreme. As the saying goes (although astronomically incorrect) "shoot for the moon, because if you miss, you will still be among the stars." This discussion follows the same spirit by attempting to create interesting story without conflict. Whatever knowledge you get out of this thread, is still applicable to a story that has conflict.

You said: "Further, I don't know that anyone would argue that something without conflict isn't a story, as you seem to be implying people are doing at epidemic rates (though they might offer that it is not a very good or interesting story, which can't be objected to objectively)."

I think there are actually people that are arguring such at first, some then backed down to say that a story could have no conflict, but won't be interesting. You see, at this point, the only ground they hold is the subjective realm. So do you clearly declare yourself as someone who:

o Believes that a story does not need to have a conflict.
o Believes that it is difficult to find an interesting story that has no conflict

Now, interest is a relative to the audience. Therefore to detect interest, an audience must be defined. I have already defined an audience because I am a member of that audience. In my perspective, the stories above Zebra's Party and The Train are interesting. Even if you disagree with it, you cannot disagree with the fact that there exist an audience that finds it interesting. Therefore, for the discussion about interest, the way I phrased the question is like this:

How can a game story without conflict attract and hook an audience?

It needed to be phrased like this because the answer to the question is an <audience, approach> pair. In that regard, the approaches that I have mentioned so far was a list that includes: contrast, parody, mystery, promise, slice of life, etc... It was a list perhaps a couple pages back.

You said: "I mean, do you concede that some words have multiple definitions, depending on context? In which case, why can we not claim (not that I'm doing so) that a composition without conflict is not a story as we are contextually using the term (or maybe that's the matter at hand)? Does context matter so little to you in respect to linguistics and language?"

In general, for this type of discussion, each keyword should have just one meaning that is invariant to the context. When a word can take multiple meaning, we consider it as two separate words that happen to have the same spelling. For this type of discussion, such word would have to be temporarily split and enumerated (e.g. conflict[1], conflict[2], conflict[3], ...) or have its other meanings replaced by other words.

In terms of conflict, the context is already set by the domain of classification. For example, for 'conflict', the domain I am using is situation. You could define other ways to use the term. In the previous post I outlined the requirements. So far the problem that happens in this thread is that people are unable to explain their definitions even if they try to have a definition.

You said: "Can you perhaps illuminate us with some examples of "compositions" across any medium that are completely devoid of conflict, yet still interesting? This is genuine curiosity and perhaps straying too far from your intent with this thread, but examples are equally helpful ways of getting your points across, so they may assist the rest of us in understanding your intent further more than hypothetical and theoretical claims."

I have been giving examples throughout. But the prerequisite is that the person who reads the examples must first accept that a story can exist without conflict. So far I am not getting replies about those stories, and I believe the reason is that people either don't want to public admit that stories can have no conflicts, or that those examples are stories. They don't want to say anything directly about those examples because they don't want to discuss what conflicts and stories are. They don't want to discuss because they are incapable of doing so in an objective way.

In your comment, you suggested that I have not been giving examples. I want you to acknowledge that I did give examples.
I also want you to acknowledge that while it is important to know that while desiging interesting stories is a goal of the discussion, the judgement of whether a story is interested is rooted in the player experience, which is subjective. Therefore, once there exists an audience that claims a story to be interesting, there is no way to disprove that claim. Hence, the only way to disqualify an example, is by either:

a) Show that the example has conflict
a2) Show that the example has conflict and conflict is what attracts the audience
B) Show that the example is not a story

In this discussion, both (a) and (B) belong to the objective domain. Because people are trying to disquality the examples, the thread sort of dwells on the definition of conflict and of story. However, to do so one needs objective definitions, but so far no one else had offered the objective definitions. (a2) belongs to the subjective domain unless the audience is modeled.

In terms of a2, consider a composition where the main attraction is not a conflict, but the story also contains conflict, such a story about a journey of 20 pages, where page 14 contains a conflict. In that case, the fact that the story contains a conflict should not be a reason to disqualify the example if the conflict does not contribute to the attraction. While I consider this an acceptable outcome (i.e. as long as there is something in the story that attracts the player that is bored by conflict), when I create the examples, I took the step to make the examples conflictless entirely. Since if a story has no conflict, than (a2) is impossible, thus that argument can be avoided.

Re: sunandshadow

Your mention of discussion with professional writers only shows that they do not have a consensus on the definition of story and proper story. What would be more useful is if you give an example of their definition of story, proper story, and conflict, so that we could see whether professional writers are discussing in terms of subjective definitions or objective definitions. According to what you posted, it seems that they are stuck because they did not take the step toward an objective definition. If that is the case, could you comment on why they do not take such a step?

I understand that you disagree, but from my perspective you are giving evidence to show that they are doing something wrong from the start. The definitions are faulty because they fail to be objective.

I'd personally say, without conflict it is very difficult to create and maintain a reader's interest, and a story which cannot hold a reader's interest for several pages or at least half an hour fails at being a story. People are naturally nosy gossips, they want to hear about other people having problems.I want to let you know that this comment isn't written in the proper mindset for the discussion. The following is not an argument. It is just there to show you the difference in the approach.

"People are naturally nosy gossips."

We know that the possible audiences is not a homogenous group. Therefore for this comment to be valid, you would have to claim that all people are nosy gossips whenever they want to read a story. At this point, you have to admit that this claim is false, that there exists people that read stories not because they are nosy gossips.

For instance, do you agree that a person could read a story because the story features a place that he has visited in real life, but had never understood its customs during his visit? If you admit that it is a possible reading scenario, then let's label this reader Mr. A. Given that Mr. A has an apriori interest in learning about the customs of the location through the story, is it possible that Mr. A is attracted to the story because he knows that the story contains explanations to his questions? Now, a custom can have many different origins, some are rooted in problems, some are not. But to Mr. A, whether the origin of the custom corresponds to a problem, is unimportant as long as there is an explanation. In this case, let's say that Mr. A is satisfied when he realizes that all of the customs are rooted in a creation story (a religious story of how the world was created). Here, is it a possible and valid claim to say that Mr. A is interested in the story not because of the problems that the story might introduce, but because of the knowledge he gets? Isn't it obvious that a story can be interesting to an audience even if it is long and has no conflict?

Now, consider a day 6000 years ago. Our Mr. A is a caveman. He is listening to a story being told by an elder. The content of the story was about all the strange things that happen in the world, like rain, wind, fire, lightning, etc... Mr. A is interested in the story because the story speaks of an almightly being that can do powerful things. Mr. A is interested because the story provides an explanation of the phenomenons around him. Is it possible and valid that Mr. A is so desperate to learn that he is interested in the story regardless whether the story contains conflict? If so, then what is conflict to Mr. A?


Climax

The following is about the concept of climax. First question: On what layer is 'climax' defined? Is it in the Truth Layer, the Story Layer, or the Experience Layer?

Do the following have conflict? Do they have climax? Are they stories?

Title: Zebra's Party
Once upon a time the zebra has a party.
His first guest is the lion because the lion is the king of the safari.
His second guest is the elepant because the elephant is the biggest on the safari.
His third guest is the giraffe because it is the tallest on the safari.
Last but not least, the zebra's fourth guest is the lemur, because the lemur is his best friend.

Title: The Train
There is a train car with the number '1' printed on it. You see the car, you see the number, you are satisfied.
Then, a new train car is attached. You look at it, you see the number '2'. You are satisfied.
After that, another train car comes and gets attached. You look at it. You see the number '3'. You are satisfied.
After that, another train car comes and gets attached. You look at it. You see the number '7'. You are satisfied.

I also believe that you understand the definitions of conflicts in this topic. But I don't think that you understand the topic. I think you are at the stage where you understand what a hammer is, but not why you need to bring it.
I tried to bring the topic back on where I think it's useful. Avoiding something such

i.e. May I question your definition to expose the truth?
or

If you ask lay people who have never asked to define stories and conflicts, and you ask them, "could there be a story with no conflict?" The popular answer would be 'Yes'."
Since I think anyone who studied something about communication (or also with only some common sense) can identify good questions from unnecessary questions and arguments.

Maybe I'm wrong, but this remains my opinion.

In this discussion so far, there is only one definition for 'conflict' that is objective and serves as a valid classifier.
Def3: A conflict of a story is a situation in the story where intentions lead to states that cannot coexist.
For me it isn't an useful defition of conflict, but who minds? I still have problems with hammers .
I surely can use your definition when I talk with you. And I can suggest stories without "conflict" that ca be used in games.

Every kind of natural "obstacles" can be used in stories and they have no conflict.
Every kind of economical "osbtacles" can be used in stories and they have no conflict. -> also Many kind of lack of resources "osbtacles" can be used in nice stories and they have no conflict. (but not the ones that create wars, since that create conflicting intentions).
Every kind of Technological "osbtacles" can be used in stories and they have no conflict.

I think internal struggle (using def3) has conflict, since there can be two conflict intentions within the same character.

If you don't like the word obstacle you can change it. I hope it can deliver the message.
With this I think I answered your initial question, does it?

Re: dr Jack

With this I think I answered your initial question, does it?It has partially answered it, because if you review the motivation and the examples I gave (i.e. The One-inch Tall Man, the Rabbit and the Turtle, Zebra's Party, The Train), the initial question was not only against conflict as described in Def3, but other types of struggle, obstacles. The reason is that in Def3, the word 'conflict' alone does not describe all the situations that this discussion deselects. Consider the example of Zebra's Party, it does not even have an obstacle. In this sense, your response did not answer the initial question fully.

Every kind of natural "obstacles" can be used in stories and they have no conflict.
Every kind of economical "obstacles" can be used in stories and they have no conflict. -> also Many kind of lack of resources "obstacles" can be used in nice stories and they have no conflict. (but not the ones that create wars, since that create conflicting intentions).
Every kind of Technological "obstacles" can be used in stories and they have no conflict.
Note that on page 1 of this thread I had already pointed out how to approach the question:

Variations of the "Method"
o Conflict
o Contrast
o Parody
o ...
And the list is expanded on Page 2. : Slice of life, Contrast, Parody, Fantasy, Imagination, Ambition, Mystery, Reunion, Surprise, Amusement, Unpredictability, Unusual perspective, Promise, Paradox, Metaphor, Thought experiment, Struggle...

The use of obstacles is not included because it is part of the initial distaste, although not labeled by 'conflict. Therefore, at this point the discussion already has a list of compositions that can attract a player with using conflict. The step being taken, is to construct example of each to show how they can be used in a game. There are already some examples given. At this point, do you agree that the terms of this list can be used to create story without conflict, and that these approaches are fundamentally different from the ones you have using obstacles?

To show you why they are fundamentally different, note that some of these terms do not classify a situation. For example, if the narrator gives the reader a promise, the promise may not pertain to what happens to the story, but it could pertain to the outcome of reading the story (e.g. "I am about to tell you a story that explains why elephants have large ears.") Here, we see that when 'promise' is objectively defined, a person could objectively determines whether a story makes any promise to the player. In this case, do you agree that it is valid for me to claim that the story uses a promise to hook the reader, and that this approach is possible regardless whether the story contains conflict or obstacle? Since it can be done independent to whether obstacles are used, it is fundamentally different from the approach of using obstacles.

-----
I must admit that I misread your intention, because I thought that you were being sarcastic in the following:

(i.e. May I question your definition to expose the truth?)
No thanks :P.
There's no problem to explore new definition. And I joined because I like them.
Only some question seems to me better than others. Like the one talking about jokes.
o Must jokes have conflicts?
The way I read it, you meant that you would rather talk about whether jokes must have conflict, but you acknowledge that that is a tangential question and that for this thread it is more relevant to discuss the definition of conflict, as you proceeded following that reply. But you seem to be ignoring something important:

In this discussion so far, there is only one definition for 'conflict' that is objective and serves as a valid classifier.
Def3: A conflict of a story is a situation in the story where intentions lead to states that cannot coexist.For me it isn't an useful defition of conflict, but who minds? I still have problems with hammers
If you believe that it isn't a useful definition of conflict for you, do you understand that it can be a necessary definition for the thread? The problem the thread faced was that without an objective definition of conflict, people who are discussing can't agree on whether a story contains a conflict. Therefore, to discuss whether a story can do without conflict, it is necessary that such a definition exists. The point here is not whether this definition of conflict is useful for you outside the thread, but that the other definitions so far are useless for this thread. That is the reason why people who are trying to discuss this topic should care about the definition, unless they agree that a story can have no conflict and is able to give an example.

In your last post, you used my definition of conflict and was able to give examples of stories without conflict (although with obstacles). Now try to do it again with your definition of conflict and give some examples of stories without. If you can do so, you see that your definition is both useful to you and valid for the discussion, in that case we might as well continue with your definition. However, if you can't do so, then in terms of this thread, the current question, "What can a story use to attract the player without using conflict?" would be nonsense, but that is a contradiction to the motivation:

Even if a person has a set of definitions that makes "What can a story use to attract the player without using conflict?" an invalid question, the person cannot dismiss the motivation that The target audience does not want to see 'conflict' in the game story, where the audience defines 'conflict' as .... Therefore, even if the person does not want to adopt the definition of 'conflict' as perceived by the target audience, the definition must stil exist for the thread to proceed. Regarding this necessity, it wouldn't matter if the person understands the question this way:

"What can a story use to attract the player without using SituationType142A?",

where SituationType142A is defined as cases where someone is trying to overcome something to get , where someone is motivated to act because of the existence of a villain, an adverse situation, or other situations where they are pitted against something; further description. For AudienceType1768, the use of SituationType142A is too commonplace in game story and fails to stimulate their interest. To cater to AudienceType1768, the objective of this discussion is to list design strategies to attract this audience type without using SituationType142A.

Examples of stories that fail to interest AudienceType1768 due to overexposure (i.e. they have seen these ideas too often):
o The hero's village is attacked, the hero must defeat the enemy and restore peace.
o A storm destroyed the hero's village, the hero must rebuild
o The hero is marooned and must find his way back
o The hero is troubled and must find a solution to free himself
o The hero's friend's birthday is approaching the hero must find a suitable gift
o The hero's friends are coming for dinner, the hero must prepare a great meal quickly
o ... (This list is not exhaustive)

Contents that AudienceType1768 is still interested in a story:
o Memorable characters, world building, society system
o Perspectives and approaches to life, the enjoyment of life
o The mindset of a character that acts not in order to satisfy desires, avoid troubles, or eliminate obstacles (not a goal-oriented mindset).
o Philosophy, thoughts, logic, insight, understanding of reality, intriguing meaning

Reasons that AudienceType1768 is still interested in a game:
o Games can provide an immersive experience
o Games can provide an opportunity of a shared experience
o Games can capture possibilities and keep track of non-linear or complex development
o Games can provide feedback
o Games can stimulate thoughts and imagination

When I describe it this way, you see clearly why the opinions that "Well, in general people are attracted by conflicts" is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because the the audience type is already defined on page 1. Also not that since 'conflict' in a story is different from 'conflict' in game, the description so far does not exclude the possibility that the game that the resulting game is an FPS. While the audience wants a story where the characters aren't goal-driven, the game itself could be. Similarly, the fact that a story does not contain a challenge doesn't mean that the game has no challenge to the player.

------------------------------

I think internal struggle (using def3) has conflict, since there can be two conflict intentions within the same character.I can confirm with you that in Def3, that type of internal struggle is a conflict, for the exact reason that one entity can have two intentions that lead to a conflict. I am emphasizing this point to confirm that with this definition, you can determine whether a situation is a conflict by a logical deduction.

Def3: A conflict of a story is a situation in the story where intentions lead to states that cannot coexist.
I wanted to point out that only one intention is required, as long as the intention leads to a state that cannot coexist with the present state.

Re: sunandshadow

Your mention of discussion with professional writers only shows that they do not have a consensus on the definition of story and proper story. What would be more useful is if you give an example of their definition of story, proper story, and conflict, so that we could see whether professional writers are discussing in terms of subjective definitions or objective definitions. According to what you posted, it seems that they are stuck because they did not take the step toward an objective definition. If that is the case, could you comment on why they do not take such a step?

I understand that you disagree, but from my perspective you are giving evidence to show that they are doing something wrong from the start. The definitions are faulty because they fail to be objective.

How am I to give an example of their definition when they did not agree on a definition? But I believe you will consider all of the possible definitions proposed to be subjective because an objective definition of a proper story would be at least several paragraphs long, while the writers whose goal was to teach students how to write fiction were looking for brief definitions in easy-to-understand everyday language. So that's why they don't try for a rigorous objective definition - it's not appropriate to their intended use of the definition. But okay, let's make an attempt at a minimal objective definition:

A proper story must include:
At least one character, who has at least one goal and takes at least one action, which has at least one consequence. The action and its consequence are Causality, the first essential properties of story. The consequence of the action must convey a message (moral, point) to the audience about the goal and action taken; this is Teleology, the second essential property of story. The story fails if it does not create compelling interest to see what happens next in the audience; this is Suspense, the third essential property of story. The story also fails if it does not signal its ending and satisfy the reader by ending that suspense; this is Resolution, the fourth essential property of story.

So there's my attempt at an objective definition: A story must contain a minimum of 5 elements (character, goal, action, consequence, meaning) which are related by four principles (causality, teleology, suspense, and resolution). Although this does not directly list conflict, the principle of suspense implies the existence of conflict within any story which succeeds at being suspenseful. Perhaps World, Obstacle, or both are also implied as elements, because something is required for the Action to act on or in and result in a non-deterministic consequence.

That's not how a writer normally thinks of a story, because in most cases a minimal story is not wanted, and it is convenient to think in more subjective complex terms like theme, character arc, plot, etc. I could write a much more intuitive 'verbal picture' of an archetypal story if I were trying to put this picture into the mind of a beginning or intermediate writer who was having difficulty writing a complete, balanced, proper story.

I'd personally say, without conflict it is very difficult to create and maintain a reader's interest, and a story which cannot hold a reader's interest for several pages or at least half an hour fails at being a story. People are naturally nosy gossips, they want to hear about other people having problems.I want to let you know that this comment isn't written in the proper mindset for the discussion. The following is not an argument. It is just there to show you the difference in the approach.

"People are naturally nosy gossips."

We know that the possible audiences is not a homogenous group. Therefore for this comment to be valid, you would have to claim that all people are nosy gossips whenever they want to read a story. At this point, you have to admit that this claim is false, that there exists people that read stories not because they are nosy gossips.
Not so. I am saying, audiences are homogenous in that they are all human beings. Statistically the average human being is a nosy gossip; some are more gossipy and some less but almost all human beings have a significant amount of the nosy gossip trait. Therefore the average reader should be assumed to be a nosy gossip.

For instance, do you agree that a person could read a story because the story features a place that he has visited in real life, but had never understood its customs during his visit? If you admit that it is a possible reading scenario, then let's label this reader Mr. A. Given that Mr. A has an apriori interest in learning about the customs of the location through the story, is it possible that Mr. A is attracted to the story because he knows that the story contains explanations to his questions? Now, a custom can have many different origins, some are rooted in problems, some are not. But to Mr. A, whether the origin of the custom corresponds to a problem, is unimportant as long as there is an explanation. In this case, let's say that Mr. A is satisfied when he realizes that all of the customs are rooted in a creation story (a religious story of how the world was created). Here, is it a possible and valid claim to say that Mr. A is interested in the story not because of the problems that the story might introduce, but because of the knowledge he gets? Isn't it obvious that a story can be interesting to an audience even if it is long and has no conflict?

Now, consider a day 6000 years ago. Our Mr. A is a caveman. He is listening to a story being told by an elder. The content of the story was about all the strange things that happen in the world, like rain, wind, fire, lightning, etc... Mr. A is interested in the story because the story speaks of an almightly being that can do powerful things. Mr. A is interested because the story provides an explanation of the phenomenons around him. Is it possible and valid that Mr. A is so desperate to learn that he is interested in the story regardless whether the story contains conflict? If so, then what is conflict to Mr. A?
I don't know if you've read Jean M. Auel's _The Clan of the Cave Bear_ but it has a nice portrayal of storytelling in stone age culture as a mechanism for transmitting problem solving techniques. There is a storytelling competition where teams of hunters act out how they accomplished one of their most impressive kills. The audience learned the hunting technique was appropriate to what prey and what context allowed it to be used safely and successfully.

But speaking more to your example, I've read hundreds of creation myths because they are a particular interest of mine. They definitely do contain conflict. The world is naturally in conflict, people who live a precarious hunter-gatherer existence are very aware of this, and in fact the creation myths exist to explain this conflict to people so they can be satisfied that it is understood and thus resolved, instead of in suspense because who knows what the world might do next. As an example, many cultures have a myth explaining why people cannot be brought back from the dead. This is an example of a natural conflict - many people are very unhappy when a friend or a loved one dies, and if possible they would fight against the world to undo that death. The myths show this conflict being acted-out to demonstrate its futility so listeners will learn that it doesn't do any good to violently protest a death which has occurred.

Climax

The following is about the concept of climax. First question: On what layer is 'climax' defined? Is it in the Truth Layer, the Story Layer, or the Experience Layer?

Do the following have conflict? Do they have climax? Are they stories?

Title: Zebra's Party
Once upon a time the zebra has a party.
His first guest is the lion because the lion is the king of the safari.
His second guest is the elepant because the elephant is the biggest on the safari.
His third guest is the giraffe because it is the tallest on the safari.
Last but not least, the zebra's fourth guest is the lemur, because the lemur is his best friend.

Title: The Train
There is a train car with the number '1' printed on it. You see the car, you see the number, you are satisfied.
Then, a new train car is attached. You look at it, you see the number '2'. You are satisfied.
After that, another train car comes and gets attached. You look at it. You see the number '3'. You are satisfied.
After that, another train car comes and gets attached. You look at it. You see the number '7'. You are satisfied.

In my opinion neither of those are stories because they do no show any result of a character taking action. They also do not have climaxes. With the zebra story, after describing who the zebra invites and why, we need to know what happened. Did the Lion eat the other guests? Then it could be a story with a climax and a moral.

The train car example is first of all not correct. The response to seeing "1,2,3,7" would not be satisfaction but would be surprise as the 7, wondering if something has gone wrong. Even then it's quite far away from being a story though.

The Relation between Game and Story

This thread exists in a game development forum because the discussion is not about a story as a standalone composition, but story as it may exist in a game. Here are some examples:

Game 1: Save the Princess
Story: The princess is kidnapped, the hero must travel to the villain's castle and save her.
Gameplay: The player moves the hero to the castle and defeat all enemies along the way.

Game 2: Tic Tac Toe Tournament
Story: Every 10 years, the king hosts the TTTT to select the destined hero that will rule the land.
Gameplay: The player plays Tic Tac Toe against computer opponents.

Game 3: Murder at the Mansion
Story: The hero is stranded in mansion with friends and his friends are being killed one by one. The hero must find the murderer and save himself and his friends.
Gameplay: The player explores the mansion and tracks the murderer by identifying clues.

Game 4: The Epic Journey of Sir Henry
Gameplay: Players take turn to placing cards with story events to expand a plot and tries to use up all of their cards before the opponent.
Story: Sir Henry...

Game 5: The Curious Life of John Johnson
Gameplay: Starting with an ending, players take turn to ask Yes / No questions to uncover the events leading to the situation.
Story (ending): When John Johnson died in 1986, he had three fathers and five mothers, he had married twice, but divorced three times. He was born in 1994. (Game: Why?)

...

The above is just a sample showing how a story can exist in a game with different level or mode of integration. Therefore, when a design requirement specifies that the story does not have a conflict, it is not specifying that the gameplay must not pose the player in a conflict. For the complete discussion, it is only natural to confirm that there exists legitimate gameplays that can use a stories without conflict. I hope that this saves the discussion on whether a game with a significant amount of story in its composition can exist when the story itself has no conflict.