Differing perceptions of what the Social Contract is..?

[rrr]

I have a nasty feeling I sort of broke the social contract last session.  And I don't know how to fix it.  I think one of my players feels like force is being employed to make them take certain paths.  What is true is that NPCs are attempting to influence the PCs, but this is NOT me the GM trying to influence them.  I'm wondering if I haven't made it clear enough what kind of game we're playing.

We are a group who plays together as a result of being friends outside the gaming group, so interpersonal tension isn't really an issue.  Two members of the group have played with me as a GM before and we understand each others styles.  The other two are new to this group and I am still trying to work out what makes them tick.

As a GM I tend to very much try and stay away from using Force or "railroading" as it is commonly known.  I hate it as a player, and I don't enjoy it as a GM.  There are no NPCs who I will not allow to die, no situations I won't allow to go the players way should they make it so.  However players should not expect to get an easy ride.  As a player and a GM I enjoy a game with difficult decisions to be made, and no clear cut path to follow.

I see my responsibility as to:

Create an interesting and coherent situation for the characters to do their thing in.

Create conflict within the world AND within the group, which then drives a story forward.

Ensure that actions have consequences and repercussions from other people, but the setting itself is morally ambiguous.

I do this primarily by having NPCs to whom I give an agenda.  They work towards the accomplishment of this agenda.  Sometimes the agenda may be at odds with that of the group.  Sometimes not.  Sometimes they are working towards a similar end, but by radically differing means.  Players choose what to do, even to the extent of saying "bollocks to all this, lets ignore it all and go somewhere else"  (which has happened on occassion, causing me to have to immediately create new situations and NPCs)

I must stress that I feel very strongly as a GM that I should not impose my vision of how the story will progress upon the players.  I have stated this, but I just get the feeling that two of the players don't really believe me.  And this is the problem.

The situation in the game is thusly:

An "Arabian Nights" style setting.  A city in the middle of the desert.  The players are powerful people with magical abilities, and this is known by some of the populace.

Samir, an NPC noble wishes to take power from the Sultan by mounting a coup.  He has attempted to enlist the help of the PCs.

Other NPCs are trying to prevent this.  They have also attempted to get the PCs on their side.

Finally the Djinn (desert spirits) wish to destroy the city.

There are other complications, but that's enough to begin with.

I really don't know how this little melting pot of rivalries will turn out, but anyway last session ended with the Sultan discovering the plot by Samir and sending out his Royal Guard to kill those opposing him.  Due to their dealings with Samir the PCs are suspected of helping him.  (they have, but not in his plans to overthrow the Sultan)  hence the PCs are on the Sultan's list.

On top of this the Djinn have decided to attack right now.  The city is under seige from powerful spirits and the Sultan's troops are distracted by the need to defend the City.  Some of the PCs have sworn to protect the city from the Djinn, and none of them want to see it destroyed.

Obviously this is a real moment of crisis, and the PCs decisions will be crucial for what happens in the future.  Do they help Samir?  Do they instead defend the City and try and gain the Sultan's favour?  Do they say "bugger this, I'm off" and relocate?

So the troops find some of the PCs going about some other business and give chase.  Fleeing the Sultan's forces, they take refuge in Samir's heavily defended Palace, which is promptly put under seige.

"My friends" says Samir "The time has come to strike!  My Men will create a diversion and you can infiltrate the palace and kill the Sultan!  Following that we will take power!"

"Cool, let's go!" say some of the players, who like Samir even though he's obviously well dodgy.

"Wait a moment... do we really want to help him?" say some, unconvinced about the wisdom of helping a power-hngry noble to further his own ends.

"we should be out defending the City!" say others, getting worried by the Djinn attacks.

(I'm thinking "Great, a nice bit of inter-group conflict... wonder what they decide?")

So the discussion goes back and forth with the players trying to convince each other of the "right" course of action.  Until I chip in as Samir who says "well to be honest I don't think you have a choice...  The Sultan wants you dead anyhow, I suggest your best course of action is with me..."  Which is the kind of manipulative thing I felt a machiavellian noble might say to convince them.

At this point one of the newer players (who had up to this point opposed the plan) looks at me and says with a sigh "well I guess we better go and attack the Sultan." and looked all resigned to doing what everyone else wanted to do.

As soon as he said it I knew what had happened.  He'd thought to himself "the GM wants us to go down that route because that's what he's got planned, so I best fall in line. And even if he hasn't got this planned it's what the rest of the group wants to do so I best fall in line, because that's what gaming is about: being a group together..."

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but from what I can tell he comes from a very traditional RP background of playing through the GM's story no matter what the players want to do.  And I think he thinks that this game runs that way also, despite me trying to explain how I like to run things.  

I feel like the social contract is the issue, in as much as it is very informal and nebulous.  I should have been more explicit in pointing out that there is NO predetermined course in this game, and that also inter-player conflict is fine.  Now I feel like I've broken the game, because I would never want the players to feel like I was using force to guide them towards a certain outcome.  I know from my perspective that I really don't have a specific outcome in mind, and I know my two older players get it.  How can I make it clearer to the other, newer players?

Any thoughts?

edited for a bit more clarity

[TonyLB]

I think you are one hundred percent right about what the new player was assuming.  I've seen this many times, myself.  I've had people quit my games (regularly, in fact) because they couldn't figure out what I wanted them to do.

Remember that they may not be as depressed about being herded as they think they are.  Sometimes people do the whole deep sigh, "I'm forced to this course of action against my will" shpiel when, in fact, they're secretly glad to be off the hook.

I'd recommend asking one of the players who "gets it" to act as an intermediary for you.  The GM's word on his own behavior is, sadly, wholly unconvincing to most people.  They've gotten used to GMs who say one thing, then do another.

[Larry L.]

What sort of rules system are you using?

The two new players, what is their roleplaying background?

These are important to know, since your players surely bring certain assumtions about the "right" way to role-play to the table.

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

Yup - I agree with Tony. I've encountered this very situation with many instances of Sorcerer and HeroQuest, in which playing an agenda-driven NPC has resulted in very clear cues from players that they feel the hand of The Force ... even when my intention was only to add Color to their choice.

The lesson I learned is, "Don't do it." It doesn't matter what your intention was, but rather what the players hear. When dealing with people who are new to "your choice matters, and it's all that matters" play, they simply don't have the social experience that permits them to hang onto the power of their choice.

It's sort of like Adlerian psychology - if you develop manipulative and disempowered means of getting your way (including giving in when threatened), then you internalized the disempowered state and continue to use those means even when you are given power.

This situation isn't permanent, though. Over time, I've seen people change their responses through this sequence:

1. Wow, that was really smooth, the way you made us do X like that. (When I had done no such thing; they are projecting their own choice onto me because "GM controls story." There is no point in arguing with this phase; they won't believe it.)

2. Wow, that was so smooth I totally didn't notice you making us do it! (This is transitional - their perceptions are not matching their assumptions, but they can't believe their perceptions yet. Again, the best response is no response.)

3. Wow - all you're doing is playing the NPCs. That was our choice. And wait a minute, I think you've been doing this all alone! (At last.)

But that phase #1 is a big problem, because any confirmation they think they get that you are Forcing them slams them right back into cooperative, "Oh, I see, we only add Color" play. And all because you were just adding Color.

Solution now? I don't know. I'm not optimistic, based on my experiences. You are dealing with very ingrained, very well-trained responses.

Technically, I don't think you broke a Social Contract, but unfortunately reinforced a very powerful one which differs from the one you want.

Best,
Ron

[Sydney Freedberg]

Scratching my head trying to figure out how to get this across to players, besides just saying "no, it's your choice really," which as Ron points out they often just won't believe....

Return of the Jedi spoilers ahead

The pop culture image that comes to mind is the Emperor in the third (real, original) Star Wars movie, cackling at Luke "yes, go ahead, strike him down, you have no choice, teehehehehe" et cetera et cetera. That's a scene all of your players will probably know backwards and forwards -- and it's a case where what the "NPC" is saying to the protagonist character is not the same as "what's supposed to happen." Maybe just referencing that (maybe just breaking character to do an Evil Emperor voice for a second?) can give the players a momentary realization of, "ooh, maybe this is one of those scenes where the NPC is saying the opposite of what the GM wants... or maybe not.. or maybe" and break them out of railroad-trance into making a choice again.

[Bankuei]

Hi,

I often find it good to step back out of character and restate the facts...  "Well, you don't have to listen to him, obviously he's got a vested interest in you working for him."

The thing is, it helps when players can hear a difference between NPC voice and GM voice from you.  GM voice should always emphasize choice and empowerment.  At one point,  in dealing with an "abused player",  I had to just state, "Look, your NPC girlfriend is NOT going to get kidnapped.  There's no point, nor is it fun."

Just like real life situations, when social contract gets weird, sometimes it helps to step back and communicate.

Chris

[Eero Tuovinen]

And, of course... ask the players to read this thread! You've stated clearly what happened according to you. Tony, Ron and others have kibbitzed about it. Now you just have to take the matter up with the players. Nothing better for it than reading this, IMO.

[BrennaLaRosa]

I have only GMed once or twice. From the point of view of someone who is a player and has a neurotic attitude of "Just do what you're told, you idiot, smile and nod so you get a chance to think it over," I think, first of all, hinting somehow that an NPC is the sort of person you'd forbid your kids to marry is acceptable unless you play a sort "Mindfuck-whose-brain-can-I-break-today?" game. Even then, hinting that someone is less than honorable or "well dodgy" as you so aptly put it, is okay. Especially if you have players liable to take something wrong.

At the same time, As a player, I take the skew of "I'll trust you and work for you until you show me you can't be trusted." Once an NPC shows that he--pardon my French--is a right royal bastard, I'll go play for the other side. I'll switch back and forth until someone catches on or a third option is presented. If the GM hasn't given me something concrete proof that we're fighting the wrong fight, I will go with what seems to be the right venue. Even  if it sounds like I'm being forced.

[Callan S.]

I could easily read that in a gamist light. His suggestion is pretty damn optimised...doing something else would seem pretty dumb. Even if something else is smarter to do, I might think the GM isn't using force so much as defining what the social feedback stakes are. I'm sure weve all thought of gamist tactics which are mechanically good, but we wouldn't use because they wouldn't meet social approval. Here he's outlining what is a smart move in social approval terms. And even if you realise he doesn't mean it that way...he's just stated an optimum course of action and everyone else has heard it. The GM may not have intended to change your course of action, but what about every other player at the table? What about their social approval?

Possibly you need this player to have assurance from everyone that he will only ever be prodded by other players and the GM, not slapped for pushing/prodding everyone else for a different direction of his own.

[rrr]

Hi folks thanks a lot for all the feedback.  Some very helpful suggestions, and some very interesting viewpoints.  I've definitely got something to think about.

Just to give a response on some of the issues and questions:

The system is Exalted.  We're all new to it.  I'm not convinced it's quite the right thing for this group to be playing, as the rules are mega-complicated, but it's working ok.  We all love the concept though and so far fun is being had.

The two newer players:  one is returning to gaming after years of abscence.  From what I gather the last time he played was back in the eighties with AD&D 2E and SpaceMaster.  The other is relatively new to gaming and his only real experience is with AD&D.

As for whether the NPC was someone you'd allow your daughter to marry, I would say that it's been well established that he's a conniving fecker, and none of the PCs trust him fully.  Some of them like him because he's a charming chap and gives them free stuff, but they are all aware that he's out for his own ends.  

Following Tony's suggestion I spoke to one of my more familiar players and she gave me quite an interesting perspective.  She thinks I'm misreading the situation and that its possible the player's reaction was more an in character thing down to his PC feeling like he had to go along with the rest of the PCs and not that I was using Force.  I'm not sure, as there have been other moments which made me think they were simply going along with "what the GM wanted"  but she could be right.

Here's my plan.  I'm going to continue as planned, and try not to worry too much about it.  Chris' suggestion of stepping OOC and stating the facts of him probably trying to manipulate them might be a good option.  I think I need to make sure they realise that conflict within the group is fine also. They're actually pretty good players so I think if we can get used to each others style things will be fine.  I think I need to try and be more aware of what might be perceived as force.  As Ron says it doesn't matter what my intention was, it's what the players hear that counts.  

Many thanks for the comments and thoughts.

Drew

[hyphz]

Here's my plan.  I'm going to continue as planned, and try not to worry too much about it.  Chris' suggestion of stepping OOC and stating the facts of him probably trying to manipulate them might be a good option.  I think I need to make sure they realise that conflict within the group is fine also. They're actually pretty good players so I think if we can get used to each others style things will be fine.  I think I need to try and be more aware of what might be perceived as force.  As Ron says it doesn't matter what my intention was, it's what the players hear that counts.

May I chime in briefly and say that, in the experiences I've had, often doing it OOC doesn't work either?

Yes, it's bizarre and shouldn't be done, but an awful lot of these players and GMs actually carry illusionism forward into their OOC discussion of the game!

I've seen GMs get called on railroading - although typically on the more 'benign' railroading of the "so the king tells you to do X.." type - and argue back that, hey, of course you guys could have told the king to shove it!  It'd have ended the game, because there'd be nothing for you to do, but that's just action=consequence, right?  I mean, it'd be just as railroady for me to fudge the king into not throwing you out of the kingdom and making your name mud after you insulted him in his own court, wouldn't it?

Even though these arguments don't have much merit, many players in the same position have learned to accept them.  So no matter how much you tell your player that "it was your choice, I wasn't forcing you", they're thinking "yea, I've got to believe that because it's part of the social metagame, but in fact he must have been forcing us, because that's how RPGs work."

[Callan S.]

Following Tony's suggestion I spoke to one of my more familiar players and she gave me quite an interesting perspective.  She thinks I'm misreading the situation and that its possible the player's reaction was more an in character thing down to his PC feeling like he had to go along with the rest of the PCs and not that I was using Force.  I'm not sure, as there have been other moments which made me think they were simply going along with "what the GM wanted"  but she could be right.

Mmmm, I think the 'in character' thing is easily just trying to make the best of a bad situation by roleplaying out an unhappy character.

But really, even if it is in character, exactly how much does roleplay a character sullenly following along, add to the game? Even if he's just roleplaying, it's a pretty pointless addition to the game. And it being so pointless makes me think its because he's sensing force, rather than adding something he thinks is exciting. Would you find it exciting to follow along unhappily? It's kind of drab.

[jdagna]

Generally, stepping out of character and addressing the players has worked well for me.  

I remember a situation in which players had a pretty key decision to make, with at least three totally divergent options.  One of them asked me "Well, which one did you prep for?  We really ought to take that one."  I simply explained that I had no expectations and was equally (un)prepared for all options (which is to say, my plan was to completely ad-lib the adventure based on their choices).

However, based on that question, I've come up with a strategy that often helps in these cases - give players the key decisions at the end of a game session.  Let them discuss and require them to give you a decision X days before the next game meeting so that you have time to prepare for it.  This has been really effective in convincing players in Ron's phase 1 and 2 that I really am giving them a choice and not just pulling strings.

One advantage to this, is that the players tend to keep the game in their mind through the whole week because the choice creates more suspense than anything else a GM can do.


rrr, one thing I'm a little concerned about are the totally divergent viewpoints among the player characters.  Sometimes groups can make this work, but if you have a bunch who want to "stay true to the character" it may ultimately cause divisions they can't patch over.   In-party conflict is an awesome addition to a campaign, but it requires a very clear and powerful social contract.  If people are misreading "what they're supposed to do" then they can either feel like they have to compromise their character or retire him and make a new one that can work with the group.  

For example, if a character says "I hate you all and I'm leaving!" does that mean:
1) the character is now totally removed from the game
2) the character will tag along in the background and the player "expects" that he will eventually change his mind
3) the character will tag along in the background and "expects" that the point of conflict gets resolved or removed from the game (often by the GM)
4) the character will tag along in the background and "expects" the rest of the party to eventually change their minds
5) the character goes off to do his own thing, leaving the GM to run two separate campaigns simulatenously until he can brings things back together.

I put "expects" in quotes because many groups will say that options 2-4 are all possible, but almost all groups have some sort of expectation about how things should work if no agreement can be reached.