Are Stakes Necessary?

[bulmabriefs144]

I know writing teachers say "conflict, conflict, conflict!" and try to emphasize the importance of stakes. The susp paranoid part of my brain suspects that's Deep State's plan to get us to crave centuries of armed conflict tho. Okay, yes, having stakes does make a book more engaging. Think avout Wistoria, the underdog story where we know there are two distinct sets of stakes, the sky falling ( if you haven't seen, I'm not going to give away just how awesome that bit of worldbuilding is) and Will's constant struggle to see his beloved. But Frieren as a slice of life fantasy has stakes which are almost invisible, and the further you get into slice of life, the more characters just kinda Netflix and chill. Then there's anime that only introduce stakes in the last two episodes (usually one of the main characters is leaving or something). Is the theory that conlict and the whole rising tension to climax thing really valid? Or are the teachers who push this model a bunch of state hired crackpots? More importantly, should you have them? Think about it. If you are in a bad mood due to tension, is reading about more conflict helpful to mental health and relaxation? And am I conflating conflict and stakes? Can you have one without the other?

 

[RepresentingWrath]

I don't like steaks. I think everyone who like steaks don't like them, they like various sauces that come along with a steak. Plain steak with nothing but pepper, salt, and butter is mehbleh.

Jokes answer aside, stakes aren't necessary. There is no conspiracy here. If you are in a bad mood, reading about more conflict can help you reach catharsis.

 

[RiaCorvidiva]

Stakes and conflict are fundamentally different, although related. A conflict or some sort of tension is necessary for a story. At some abstract level, there needs to be someone who wants something, and something that opposes them. That doesn't mean there needs to be punchfighting or an active individual trying to stop them. It could be the environment, it could be society, it could be an active antagonist.

Stakes just represent what the protagonist stands to lose if they fail in their journey. And you don't need super high stakes to have a story. Romance stories center on the stakes of 'does the main character get with their love interest?' You can have a story about someone striving to get their dream job, or get a part in a play/movie. Or winning a sports tournament, or so on. None of those stories are going to have the same level of stakes as a high fantasy story with a dark lord in the final stages of a millennium-long quest for global domination. But again, high stakes can create tension, but you don't need exhaustively high levels of tension for a story to work, and indeed, it can get exhausting if it's too over-the-top.

 

[Jocelyn_Uasal]

I like the last option, Stakes and conflicts are different because not all stories have stakes but the mass majority have conflicts. In Hemingway's Old Man and The Sea (super spectacular book but almost nothing happens) there's almost zero stakes BUT there is a very clear conflict with the old man and a small child who doesnt understand his chill, do-nothing attitude towards life.

Stakes are for certain stories/genres, conflict will emerge naturally is nearly any story.

 

[MatchaChocolate69]

First of all, no one is stopping you from writing what you want, and you don't need to ask for permission to do so.

In my opinion, though I'd dare say it's a fact, a story without conflict isn't a story. Think about the stories you love and that have left an impression on you. They all have conflict.
It's like eating a soup without seasoning. It's not a soup but hot water. But maybe someone might like it. After all, there's a niche for everything.

Stakes, on the other hand, aren't necessary, but they give a reason why characters must do something and make the story more engaging because we have a reason to care about the characters.

 

[Jocelyn_Uasal]

The susp paranoid part of my brain suspects that's Deep State's plan to get us to crave centuries of armed conflict tho.

Unironically I feel the same way about the A good guy would NEVER kill a bad guy! trope

 

[expentio]

Personally, I found that especially in movies I developed a particular distaste for the common arc of suspense. By now it's just so completely foreseeable.
Set up - rising stakes - breakdown - downtime - finale
Or in other words, the situation gets introduced, the protagonist gets into some kind of circumstances, quite often some kind of lie, things are building up to the eventual downfall, or in case of the lie exposure, then the protagonist feels bad, has to pick themselve up again in some way, just to be ready for the finale to save the day.
Even if the story is about something completely different, this pattern of breakdown and eventual uprising you'll find in almost all media.

Isn't it kinda strange how much the art of storytelling, which hence the word should be free-spirited, is dependent on such a strict structure that so rarely anyone deviates from?
I guess it's difficult to make for a finale without buildup and therefore a satisfying conclusion. Still, I think one shouldn't allow this to influence the stories one wants to write as an author.

 

[CharlesEBrown]

It varies by story - but often, stakes/conflict and risk are what keep the readers interested so are always useful, even if not always NEEDED.

 

[Kalliel]

I don't eat steaks. They look raw af, and if I cook them till well-done, they become tires.

 

[Tempokai]

Stakes usually emerge naturally from the conflict. Forcing it will make the story worse. Mind doesn't expect world changing consequences from going into grocery store for example, and instead expects it in hero vs big bad and so on examples.

 

[melchi]

First of all, no one is stopping you from writing what you want, and you don't need to ask for permission to do so.

This,

Nothing quiets nay-sayers like success.

 

[Representing_Tromba]

I love steak

 

[JayMark]

Sometimes stakes are the only way to eliminate the vampires for good.

 

[AnonUnlimited]

I heard steak and I came.
Well, stakes are required to kill vampires.

Wait... I'm late for those two pun jokes.

 

[Rezcore]

Only if the story needs it. Love stories and slice of life don't reall

I heard steak and I came.
Well, stakes are required to kill vampires.

Wait... I'm late for those two pun jokes.

I too cum at the thought of Grilled meat.

 

[CharlesEBrown]

Only if the story needs it. Love stories and slice of life don't really

I would argue that love (or, in many cases, just sex) IS the stake in a love story. Slice of Life stuff though... those can be pretty much anything, with both stakes and conflict optional.
I

 

[laccoff_mawning]

I'd focus more on the idea of build-up and resolution. Resolution is the "fun part" of the story, but build-up is the part that makes the resolution fun.

Every (maybe?) story then needs build-ups and resolutions. And "stakes and conflicts" are one of the ways to do build-ups in stories. But they aren't the only ways. As such, you don't need "stakes and conflict". What you need are build-ups and resolutions.

Slice of life is interesting. I'm going to suggest that all slice of life stories still have the idea of build-ups and resolutions.

 

[GlassRose]

Conflict is what drives character growth, and stakes are what makes the conflict matter. Think of it as engine and fuel.

It depends on the story you want to tell/read. The characters you want to include. People are flawed, so characters, being representations of people, also tend to be flawed. And when something is flawed, it's satisfying to see those flaws be mitigated. Humans can be horribly perfectionist. A flawed character can be more relatable, and overcoming flaws provides satisfaction. It's about self-actualization, the satisfaction of approaching the best version of oneself that one can be. And it's about the satisfaction of meeting your goals, of overcoming external barriers to those goals, also proving your worth to yourself through your accomplishments. And reading about characters going through conflict and struggling with different things can help the reader with develop themselves to be able to overcome similar issues.

That said, people are also just- tired of conflict, of fighting obstacles, and so there's a lot to be gained from just a cozy, relaxing, slice-of-life story with minimal and low-stakes conflict, to help the reader unwind, and that provides satisfaction in a different way. A freedom of burden, for a little while. It's not a catalyst for growth in ability, but it can be a catalyst for growth in simply being able to enjoy living and achieving a more simple, day-to-day happiness.

They're two very different paths, suited to different situations, types of people, and phases of life, and neither is less valid than the other.

 

[Kenjona]

FYI Conflict does not necessarily mean an actual fight, it could take form of a competition (with an idea, thing, concept, yourself or others) or a stressful situation (with an idea, thing, concept, yourself or others) that should be or needs to be be resolved.

It could be as simple as a person deciding whether to be brave enough to touch their dates hand at a movie theater. An internal mental conflict ensues on whether it is a good idea or not, then followed up whether they are brave enough or not, and finally whether that other person will ignore/enjoy/hate said touch. Three internal conflicts.

Steaks I like mine medium rare thank you.

Stakes are there to count coup, to help give a driving motivation and/or for a reason to get through a conflict.
Failure could mean any thing from nothing changes to the end of the authors life.

 

[BearlyAlive]

For vampires? Yes, they are. For everything else? Not really.