The game of social contract forging

[Callan S.]

From the 'A Hard Look at Dungeons and Dragons' article

No wonder people either idealize or vilify their youthful experiences playing D&D. On the one hand, it was you and your best-est friends, working something out together and arriving at (quite possibly) your first-ever Social Contract with other people, completely isolated from adults-approved activities. In other words, you remember it fondly not because the game itself was good, but because it wasn't - you remember your repair of it at the Step On Up and Challenge levels, and the good moments, however common or few they were, were all triumphs.

Recently I re-read it and this particular part stood out this time. I'd noticed Ron mention something like it in an actual play post ('old skool' or some such name) where a GM was trying to relive something from the past. But I didn't quite get what Ron ment at the time.

Now I think I do (correct me if I'm wrong, anyone). It's not so much about suddenly arriving at an arrangement that facilitates gamism or narrativism or some quite fun half breed. It's getting there. The original goal is to achieve a gamist session or whatever fun thing, but the thrill/enjoyment of achieving that is actually stronger than the thrill/enjoyment the goal itself can provide.

I can think of a couple of problems this can cause, the first applying to me:
1. Miss identifying the source of the pleasure. Trying to achieve that pleasure again by doing the same things again and thinking they need to be part of game sessions or even game design (but the contracts already forged, so those things don't have the thrill).
2. Controlling types (whom I've played with), who enjoy the social contract forging a little too much. Once its forged, they feel a let down as that thrill is gone. Similar to #1, the miss identify the reasons for why they feel let down and decide someone else has failed to stay within the contract and they then go on to getting the thrill of 'rounding them up' again. Okay, perhaps I'm mentioning this for catharsis.

Now, I want to bring Rifts into the mix (well, any palladium game, but Rifts as a prime example). I'll just say that I've run a fair bit of Rifts (even have a PBEM going at the mo), so if I sound unfair to it, atleast its not as an outsider who doesn't know much about it.

Now, I've run into a lot of fella's who say things like 'Rifts is great as is...you only need to change a few things', or 'Rifts is wonderful, we did this thing once (proceeds to tell story which is incongruous with the rule system)' and just plain 'In Rifts, you can do anything!'. Over and over I've noticed they are the ones providing the material they are raving about. I thought they'd all fooled themselves into doing most of the authors work for him, while thinking they hadn't done anything. I hadn't thought that the thrill itself of getting a social contract together so as to get this material in there, was telling them this game is so great.

This possibly explains why I've read some people online professing a dislike for rule systems that are too slick and self contained. Where is the room to forge social contract there, amongst rules that don't need fixing?

So I actually have to wonder if a system full of stumbling blocks is actually a valid design goal. Especially if players have a tendancy to miss diagnose the source of their pleasure from forging bits of social contract for the first time with the system they are playing.

This isn't a perverse joke post (just perverse), Rifts is by my reackoning selling on this point strongly, after all these years (all these years without a significant update...nothing fixed). What does the forge think of a design goal like this?

[Bill Cook]

To me, it is not a proper goal.  I could see building a system in a modular way to allow different pieces to be employed in an arrangement preferable by a particular group.  But how can you intend to omit vital links or intend to include complications that must be fixed?

The suggestion strikes me as counter Forge ethos.

But the phenomenon you describe will occur, regardless.  Any given group will provide enough variability in approach and emphasis as to mire in gray areas and negotiate their way out.  In fact, I think you've hit on a driver of design: making links and smoothing out tangles in an otherwise manageable system.  But not in the sense that someone would design to promote patchwork by groups that play the game; I rather mean a designer would take the parts he developed (or that arose as negotiations of his group) and blend and grow them into a new system.

It's really true that the effort and interplay to establish something at the social contract level is often more satisfying than play experience.  Most of the times I've had to stand in line and rush into a theatre to fight for seats, that process proved to be more rewarding than whatever movie it was we came to see.

(In the same way, the payoff of internalizing some system or theoretical concept can outweigh the enjoyment of actually playing or putting a new idea to use.)

[Asrogoth]

It could actually be quite fun to create a game that is by itself nigh unplayable except through the social contract.  In fact, it would be pretty cool to make a "fun" game (most likely of gamist origins) that required you to revise the rules in order to fit in with your "play" goals.

But, back on to your point... when I played D&D way back when, the social contract we made basically said, "We do what we want and ignore the rules when they get in the way."  Obviously we "broke" the game, or it was already broken.  Take your pick.  Regardless, I have fond memories of those role-playing experiences... not because of the rules but because of the social dynamic and the friendships.

I can't say that we spent any time figuring out how to make the rules "better" outside of the game.  Any social contracting we forged was during game play -- remember, it was high school....

[Callan S.]

To me, it is not a proper goal.  I could see building a system in a modular way to allow different pieces to be employed in an arrangement preferable by a particular group.  But how can you intend to omit vital links or intend to include complications that must be fixed?

With a modular system a group can own a configuration of those modules, but not really own the modules themselve. And by owning, I mean that so much of how module X works was figured out between them its a mutual creation amongst them.

A couple of examples from the Rifts system: On the Rifts boards two or three times a month a post about what telekinesis can and can't do comes up. Through each thread you'll find various strong assertions about what it can do (400lb of pressure to enemies eyeball, etc). You can see how each of these assertions comes from being hammered together by the posters group, or something they would assert when hammering together an agreement on it.

Likewise the number of attacks issue in Rifts (sort of fixed now, sort of not). Really this IS modular, you choose one method described in the book or the other. The thing that makes it owned more by a particular group is that the system text are contradictory and both methods are supported to varying degrees as being the right way. Having to fight past this with each other to get to an agreement means its less like a module choice and more like having fought and won a prize, thus owning it.

The suggestion strikes me as counter Forge ethos.

And thank god. But possibly this technique could be tamed from its wild form into something else?

But the phenomenon you describe will occur, regardless.  Any given group will provide enough variability in approach and emphasis as to mire in gray areas and negotiate their way out.  In fact, I think you've hit on a driver of design: making links and smoothing out tangles in an otherwise manageable system.  But not in the sense that someone would design to promote patchwork by groups that play the game; I rather mean a designer would take the parts he developed (or that arose as negotiations of his group) and blend and grow them into a new system.

It's really true that the effort and interplay to establish something at the social contract level is often more satisfying than play experience.  Most of the times I've had to stand in line and rush into a theatre to fight for seats, that process proved to be more rewarding than whatever movie it was we came to see.

(In the same way, the payoff of internalizing some system or theoretical concept can outweigh the enjoyment of actually playing or putting a new idea to use.)

It's bizarre, isn't it? Perhaps because its a conflict that is actually real, supported by the book. It might not be a great conflict, but its certainly a lot more real than saving the world in an SIS is.

Is an interplayer conflict encouragement and management system a worthwhile goal? Never mind the usual negative conotations of conflict, as negotiations are always full of it.

[clehrich]

Correct me if I'm all wrong on this, but wasn't something like this what Fang Langford had in mind with Scattershot?  He never finished it, but I thought the idea was that it was so totally drift-able that it was actually unstable, and required strong manipulation from the social structure of the group itself.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Given various comments in Site Discussion, I want to say that the following links are offered in the spirit of fun and mutual fellowship. They are offered because people may well enjoy them and use them to enhance and provide power to the current discussion, as well as to provide a (possibly novel) sense of Institutional Memory to discussions of our hobby.

No more incoherence! A rant (somewhat incoherent itself, in my view, but mileage may vary)
Incoherent kit-bashing
When the Drift is the fun part
Incoherency and sales II
Incoherence is fun! (see especially the four links Mike Holmes provides)
Incoherency and sales (Christopher Kubasik's comments especially)

Also, I suggest that Scattershot (insofar as can be told from an unfinished set of design notes) doesn't quite match to your description, Chris (clehrich). It essentially provided a powerful currency of "alter rolls' effects" points, which as I see it were to be customized to strong Gamist or Narrativist priorities as the group saw fit. In other words, a very in-game-present and customizable reward system, but not really "tinkering" with the rules in the sense that I think we're discussing here.

Best,
Ron

[Callan S.]

Thanks Ron. (On the side topic of providing links, sometimes I don't like how they are presented, but I understand and agree with the goal of presenting them and that they provide good information. Just thought I'd mention that if your copping flak)

That said, I don't think I'm talking about drift. It can involve drift, but that's not really it.

I'm not talking about taking a game that supports one of the GNS agenda's and going somewhere else with it. I'm more talking about the descision of how things work (cough, though this itself can introduce drift...but not all the time).

I'll give an example. Say I give a write up of telekinesis that is vague, powerful sounding, but ultimately wishy washy in what it says it can and can't do. Also say that were keeping this in a gamist agenda for now.

What I'm talking about is essentially player on player (well call the GM a player too) discussion, arguement, diplomacy, bartering, sympathy, etc etc.

From the vaguely written power, conflict is sown and it leads to real people clashing about it. Clashing not so much in a negative sense (hopefully), but in a way where both people with their minds and egos must come to some sort of conclusion. An agreement, which is typically achieved through wrestling at an intellectual and somewhat emotional level (Bill Cook's theatre example of rushing for seats at a movie is a good physical analogy).

The important thing to note here is that this is not an imaginary tussle. Its a real wrestling (a healthier term might be sparing) between individuals. The idea they wrestle over might be imaginary, but the conflict itself is real.

And once the wrestle is over, the result (ideally), is a fusion of each participants effort. What they gave up, what they won on. Intertwined with this are the memories of the conflict, the learning of your friends thought processes, the memory of how you showed your own knowledge, the fact that you came to a compromise which is a sign of a healthy friendship. All sorts of things. A ton of interpersonal gold!!!

In ADDITION to that, this agreement between individuals is basically a real life object. It exists as much as its owners do, as much as the idea of law or the idea of money having worth exists. Think of what this does! Its made a part of that imaginary game world essentially a real thing. Then take the rest of that game world and drape it over these real things, and just by association these other things become more real as well without even needing to be argued!

As I said, many people that I've heard raving about Rifts are basically the source of their own pleasure. But I never thought that, IMO a shoddy design like Rifts provokes them to be the source of their own pleasure (so in a way it did help them enjoy the game, if not providing enjoyment in and of itself).

A downside is insularity, I think. Basically people make these deals in small groups, but when a new player shows up latter, there is no 'play' for him in terms of agreement. All the agreements would have to be re-opened to really bring a new player in, and really that doesn't happen as the greater numbers happyness with the system is seen as more important than that of the new player. But I'm sure this could be managed more once its actually identified for users and given some sort of system assistance. Possibly this problem is what helps to choke back RP to a minority hobby (cough, though I think a lot more people have RP'ed at least in the past, than its widely known, if my call centre experience is worth anything)

[Bill Cook]

So you want to encourage metagame negotiation.  i.e. Discussion that leads to agreements about how the game will be played.

This brings to mind a psychological study that was done that my younger sister told me about.  Five groups of five members were given differing instructions, within the same group, about how to solve a problem.  If they wanted to work together, they had to first agree on a way to do that, since the rules were in conflict.

The study made the point that it's more important to agree than to be right if you want to get anything done.  Obviously, this wisdom is not unlimited in application.

Anyway, that's an idea for a mechanic.  And this is starting to sound like a party game, but:

[list=1]
[*]Each player draw an instruction card without revealling it.
[*]Split into teams.  Take turns moving markers.
[*]Interpret the objective based on your team members actions.
[*]After one side declares a win, their members write down the demonstrated objective.
[*]If their explanations match, that side wins.  If not, continue.
[/list:o]

[Callan S.]

I'm not sure what your design does, Bill? I don't think I'm envisioning it correctly at the moment.

Anyway, I'll add my own systemized discussion method here. It's very basic and only deals with a one on one discussion (not as a group), but its something to start with:

1. Play trundles along until a point of contension about something a player or GM has asserted, comes up (like, say, using TK as a fine beam to auto kill targets through the eye, no save). This is recognised as a desired element rather than something to sweep under the rug asap.

2. The player describes how he wants things to work in the situation.

3. The GM expresses his dissatisfaction with this.

Design note: In fact he expresses some dissatisfaction even if he doesn't have any. Doing this is important at two levels...it makes sure bargaining happens (You don't bargain by saying your happy with the price the other person offered) and it ensures there's a conflict to be 'defeated', thus making this all the more memorable/a mnemonic (sp?).

Then the GM says how he wants it to work.

Then the player describes his disatisfaction with that (again, faking it if he isn't actually disatisfied).

4. Now both parties have gotten that out of there system, this is the place to start a compromise (go to step 7). However, if no party is interested enough at this point, go to step 5.

5. An evidence justification phase. First the player and then the GM. Basically this lets them get off their chest their feelings/rationale about the matter and sometimes the genuine belief by either party here can resonate with the other.
Design note: No one can resist responding during someone elses justification, so some sort of proper 'interupt' method must be in place, suggested by the book.

6. Again, we see if anyone is moving on from this topic and willing to offer compromise to do so. Well assume someone does.

Design note: What's important to note here that such a system can do nothing to help if neither will compromise. It might sound awful to design a system that brings players to this point where they can't continue play with each other...but then again, it was inevitable.

7. The compromise is then examined by the other party. They can accept it (the end). Or express their dissatisfaction.

The important part here is whether they then express a compromise of their own or ask for something more from the other party before they accept. The other party either accepts or expresses disatisfaction and offers compromise/asks for more to accept the other parties offer.

Again, at this point both parties might steadfastly refuse to give any ground. Sounds terrible, but might just be far healthier!

8. That's it! But this is as rough as hell and I can already see and think of sub systems that need adding.

[Callan S.]

I was half expecting the methods used in Unversalis to be mentioned (a lot different from what I've heard, but similar in that it has a 'work out a deal' sort of process (but with a currency, while I didn't detail that here))

As I said, I think it could do with some subsystems to aid in this, adding currency types too it so people can offer various different types of currency during the negotiation. But at the core I think it can't be too controlled, you need it to be able to fall down in order to stand up. By that I mean that to get a tight, personal agreement between two people (which as said, makes the game world more real) you have to risk it that they might not be able to do so. Anything more formalised is more likely to work robustly and far more often, but doesn't have as deep an impact as I believe this design can have.