Don't forget to read the Disclaimers
Chances are, if you’ve come to FNI more than once then you’ve probably seen far too many scenes that went nowhere. Whether you’re sitting in the audience or playing the game, you can almost pinpoint that very moment when you realize that this baby just isn’t coming out of the coma. And it doesn’t. And we all feel bad. And finally, mercifully, the host comes out on stage and pulls the plug on the respirator.
And it’s no ones fault. We all appreciate that everyone tried. FIOK and all that good stuff. But it hurts never the less. So the salve I’d like to gently rub on your improv soul is the easy cure-all for most improv scenes: conflict.
Just about every improv game is really just a story - and a story without conflict is like a day without sunshine (a day without sunshine, of course, being night). If you’re trying to act out a story without conflict, then all you’re really doing is fumbling around in the dark, desperately looking for your ass with both hands and no flashlight, improvisationlly speaking.
But I think you already know this. Somewhere along the line in your education career you’ve had a Basic Lit class. You learned the format of Introduction, Conflict, Resolution. It’s the basis for all classic story telling. So why do we run into problems with conflict and what can we do about it?
Let’s start by taking a moment and talk about what conflict isn’t.
Conflict isn’t just encountering a “problem” to be solved in a story. Dorothy had to deal with the problem of flying monkeys, but we really wouldn’t call that a conflict. And despite what you may think, conflict isn’t just “fighting”. Just because you’re yelling obscenities at your partner doesn’t necessarily mean you’re having a conflict. Most importantly, conflict & denial are not the same thing. They are two totally different things, that’s why we have two different words for them.
Know your enemy & know yourself:
Conflict only comes out in relation to motivation. It’s what happens when you have two characters who’s goals are in opposition to each other. So you have to know what your character’s motivation is as well as the motivation of your partner’s character. If you have two characters on stage, then how are they the same and how are they different? This is the place you have to look if you want to find potential conflict. To do this, of course, implies that both players have characters and that those characters have motivations… sadly this is not always the case at FNI. However there are still some things you can do to create conflict in your scene.
What if you didn’t defuse the bomb?
Most of the games we play at FNI ask for a very specific suggestion from the audience; namely, a task to complete. Now, if there are two players in a particular game, we naturally just assume that both players are working towards that same goal – ie, completing the task. But what if one of them wasn’t? This is probably the quickest and easiest way to create conflict in a scene, because the audience basically hands you a simple, potential conflict. But the same idea can be used in other ways as well. If you are in a scene, and a problem arises that must be solved (ie, the car has a flat tire) then, sometimes, the best way to help the scene is to not help your partner.
I’m gonna pick a fight!
All too often two (or more) players decide that mindless bickering is going to pass for conflict. Well, it doesn’t. Arguing - in the context of a scene – is often a hallmark of conflict, but a shouting match in and of it’s self does not constitute conflict. One of the things that is inherent to “good” conflict is the very real possibility of a resolution. Someone has to “win” (and, conversely, someone has to loose).
Now, at this point, I’m going to bend a big rule of good improv, but bare with me. If you decide that the correct thing to do (in a scene) is start an argument, then before you begin you should already have a plan to loose. Ok, ok, I know. Planning is not improv. You are absolutely right. But here is the problem: We are all human. As humans, we all have egos and those egos hate to back down, let along loose. And I think that this is the very reason that players get “trapped” in arguments on stage… both players (note I said players, and not characters) feel that they are “right” and neither one wants to be the first to blink. So what ends up happening is that the audience get treated to three or four minutes of “You’re a poppie-head” “No, you’re a poopie-head!!”.
So before you fire that first verbal volley across you’re opponent’s bow, it really helps to have a plan for a strategic retreat. Granted, depending on how your partner(s) react, you may not need to use it. But if/when you realize that no one is going to give up the fight, it becomes your responsibility to kill the monster that you created.
River, river, carry me home
The biggest issue I think players have with conflict is that it seems to run against the grain of the first comment of good improv: Thou shall not deny. Now, denial is a huge problem in improv, and of course should be avoided at all costs. Denials kill scenes, it’s just that simple. The problem is that we get so well trained to avoid denial that we often miss the opportunity to create conflict.
But denial and conflict are two totally separate things. Denial is when you say “no”, conflict is when you say “not right now”. If your partner says “Help me Doctor, I’ve been shot!” and you reply “I’m not a Doctor, I’m a shoe salesman.” then THAT’S denial. But if you reply “Sorry, I’m busy.” then you help create conflict.
The trick to conflict is to never refuse an “offer” made by your partner, but rather to accept it and give in return something that is it’s opposite. If your partner wants to storm the castle, then be a coward. If your wife wants a baby, be sterile. The key difference is that you’re not just arbitrarily throwing obstacles in your partners path; instead you look for the goal that your partner is reaching for, and then chose as your goal something in the opposite direction.
Some last, but very important points about conflict.
Keep it simple: All too often players trap themselves into conflicts that are just far too complicated. Conflicts don’t have to be nine levels deep just to be effective. Brothers fight over toys, couples argue over who’s going to do the dishes. Your conflict doesn’t have to be of a “comet is coming to hit the earth” magnitude to be interesting.
A meaningless conflicts is just as bad as a overly-complex one: At some point, either before, during, or after, we have to learn why the conflict happened at all. This means justifying the conflict. Again, simple justifications work best… “Mother always loved you more!” is a perfectly acceptable justification. “Because it’s Wednesday.” is a less strong choice.
Remember to end it (this is the most important point of all): Conflicts, by themselves don’t help you. It’s seeing a conflict and it’s resolution that makes for an interesting scene. So even as you enter into a conflict, always have an eye towards it’s resolution. At some point in the scene one of the players has to make the conscience choice that “I’m not going to win”. This is absolutely vital to making the whole thing work. It’s the “giving” part of improv, or in this case, the “giving up” part. If you don’t have a real resolution to the conflict, then what was the point?