Setting Up the Social Contract [split from GM is God]

[Scripty]

A lot of very elucidating discussion, at least for me, has taken place on the GM is God thread. Most of the conclusions in that thread seem to point back to the Social Contract as the basis for the Players' roles, the GM's role and any abuse of said roles in a particular group.

A question that I've split off from that thread, however, concerns how exactly to establish an explicit Social Contract within a group of gamers.

It's my experience that scribbling down Robert's Rules for Table-top Play amongst a group doesn't quite fly. For all the trouble that it would save players and GM down the road, I've known few groups who could stand taking a half-hour to actually discuss how they want to play together and interact socially.

Furthermore, the mutable nature of the Social Contract, IME, often means that when such explicit rules come to the fore they won't likely even be valid.

So, what's best in your own experience? Letting the SC develop on the fly or laying down some ground rules prior to play?

And what has worked (and especially what hasn't worked) in setting up the Social Contract of your groups? How useful is discussing SC up front? Any ideas on good ways to do that?

Thanks for all the input, especially on the GM is God thread. Everyone's different perspectives on both what constitutes GM abuse and what potentially causes it helped me amend my own ideas of the social dynamics at work in the average gaming group. It's a fairly complex issue.

I appreciate any insightful replies to this latest round of questions.

S.

[jdrakeh]

[quote="Scripty"
Is this statement rhetorical or have we been doing this on this thread?[/quote]

It seemed that one poster early on was doing this, yes, though it was more of a rhetorical statement.

Also, I'd like to point out that you have revisited a question I posed a while ago about how a group should determine what their Social Contract is. I guess it would be a good topic for another thread, but I think that the Social Contract should be explicit.

My thoughts on the matter are similar. If you haven't read Formless yet, do so - it pretty much covers my thoughts on the matter (albeit in grossly simplified terms).

Almost all the groups with whom I've played, however, have ignored this aspect of roleplaying. Someone just assumes the mantle and the rest, for the most part, fall in line (or not).

In all of the games that I've played in that ended on a bad note, you could easily trace the game's failings back to the ignorance of a social contract. In my experience, any game which ignores the principle of social contract (as I've defined it in Formless) is doomed to failure (whether or not that failure comes swiftly or not often depends upon the degree to which the principle is ignored).

Do you have any suggestions for setting up a workable Social Contract in an explicit manner? Have you ever done so? If so, what worked for you? What didn't?

Yes, yes, and (you guessed it) see Formless for some specific examples (you can download it for free here).

[M. J. Young]

I always find it difficult to respond to these "how do you create the social contract" sorts of threads, because they don't really mean that.

What you must mean, really, is "how do you discuss inserting specific game-related elements into the existing social contract, in an effective but inoffensive manner?" The social contract exists; it is already controling interactions between the people in the room (or over the Internet) from the moment interaction is anticipated. It tells us things like "Hi, how are you?" is a better opening statement than, "So, can I sleep with your girlfriend?"

Further, if you tried to define all the elements of the social contract through discussion, you would very quickly offend people. Here are some possible elements for your social contract:

[*]Don't steal things from my home when you come over to play.[*]Don't make a pass at my girlfriend/wife.[*]Don't be mean to my kids while you're visiting.[/list:u]Those seem obvious principles of human interaction; yet those principles of human interaction are part of the social contract--or not, depending on how the group is functioning. I've seen them all broken in gaming groups. Yet if you were to name those as your expectations in terms of social contract, most people would be offended that you would even mention it.

The vast bulk of the social contract operates at this level of the undiscussed. You can't easily write it, and you certainly can't possibly write all of it.

The game rules become part of the social contract to the degree that they define how the group comes to agreement about what they are imagining together. Those can be codified (although as I was pointing out to a freeformer this week, the fact that it's never been expressed doesn't mean it's not there). There are other aspects of how the game is played that you can add to the rules that seem more social than mechanical, but these are still game rules--and the mechanical rules are not less part of the social contract for being mechanical. Everything that has anything to do with the way people are interacting is defined within the social contract.

So what you're trying to do is not create a social contract, but specify elements within it that are not usually considered part of the rules of the game--e.g., in Monopoly, it does not say you're not permitted to visciously hurl dice at each other or set fire to the game board, but these are social contract elements that could have been mentioned in the game rules.

I think understanding this much is a first step to figuring out how to do what you want.

--M. J. Young

[Yokiboy]

So, what's best in your own experience? Letting the SC develop on the fly or laying down some ground rules prior to play?

Definitely the latter. I took a group of SIM and GAM players and introduced them to narrative roleplaying, without an explicit social contract it would never have worked. We still discussed things, and will probably mutate and change things as we go along, but everyone involved appreciated setting the correct expectations up front.

Prior to this most recent experience we gamed together for 1 1/2 years, and all seven of us had different goals, which made the whole thing a mess and a half! At least someone was always frustrated by the game not meeting his goals, when in fact we had never discussed the goal of gaming at all.

TTFN,

Yokiboy

[Scripty]

James, thanks for the reply. I'm relieved that your statement on the previous thread was more rhetorical in nature and not directed at me specifically.

Thanks for the link to Formless. It sounds like something I should definitely take a look at and will in the near future.

So what you're trying to do is not create a social contract, but specify elements within it that are not usually considered part of the rules of the game--e.g., in Monopoly, it does not say you're not permitted to visciously hurl dice at each other or set fire to the game board, but these are social contract elements that could have been mentioned in the game rules. I think understanding this much is a first step to figuring out how to do what you want.

Thanks for the input, M.J. I think what you're saying is accurate in the most technical sense but I also think that what is being said is exaggerating what I'm asking about.

I understand that part of the social contract is pretty much the social expectation that we don't act like jerks when we play. I'm not talking about codifying these aspects of social interactions other than raising the question of should a "safe-word" be used as a guard against GM/Player abuse.

These types of things are what I'm talking about specifically when I'm talking about using mechanics in a Social Contract.

For example, Kirt's Unsung allows players to offer conflicts to other players as "Gifts". Players can then accept or deny these conflicts. Thus, players are given some authorial control over different storylines but the individual player has a sort of veto power over having everyone just run roughshod with *his* character.

I think this is pretty interesting from a Rules/Social Contract perspective.

My question is specifically how can you introduce meta-elements of creative control over the game and characters either inside or outside of the rules? How have other people, like Yokiboy below, succeeded in setting up a balance of Creative Agenda through the Social Contract? What are the best means whereby we can or could discuss these issues?

While I think you are correct in stating that I'm looking to define in explicit terms what is usually left implicit in the Social Contract, what I'm looking to define aren't things like "If you pick your nose at the table, you don't get XP!" What I'm looking to define in explicit terms are things like:

- group veto power over player or GM actions
- use of safe-words in a game
- means whereby players can introduce creative elements typically not available to them
- means whereby players can object to a GM's rulings

These things, IMO, are all-too-often left undefined in the Social Contract and it is often these grey areas, IMO, that are subject to the most vigorous abuse in play.

I'm not talking about trying to use the Social Contract to get players to bathe. But your input has helped me to refine my question and perhaps opened the door to get more people to help out with focused responses or other links that may help with my question.

I've just never seen these issues handled well outside of them flat-out being encoded in the rules (as in Kirt's game). Hence, my question leads me to wonder how best to approach them in explicit terms without the group-members glossing over or feeling intruded upon, as you mention.

Definitely the latter. I took a group of SIM and GAM players and introduced them to narrative roleplaying, without an explicit social contract it would never have worked. We still discussed things, and will probably mutate and change things as we go along, but everyone involved appreciated setting the correct expectations up front.

Prior to this most recent experience we gamed together for 1 1/2 years, and all seven of us had different goals, which made the whole thing a mess and a half! At least someone was always frustrated by the game not meeting his goals, when in fact we had never discussed the goal of gaming at all.

Thanks, Yokiboy. This is exactly what I was looking for.

How did you come about your explicit social contract? What was discussed and how did the discussion go?

[Bill Cook]

So, what's best in your own experience? Letting the SC develop on the fly or laying down some ground rules prior to play?

And what has worked (and especially what hasn't worked) in setting up the Social Contract of your groups? How useful is discussing SC up front? Any ideas on good ways to do that?

Using a one-page of rules is a good start. Also, stating an objective and a time limit are the hallmarks of any productive meeting.

In one sense, gaming is like politics: if you're explaining, you're losing. As in sales, what players want to know is how terms benefit them.

James:

I went to PIG's website. Their ad page reads like a bullet list on a software box. I get the feeling that Impressa is a Linux to d20. I was too scared to download it:)

.. how do you discuss inserting specific game-related elements into the existing social contract, in an effective but inoffensive manner?

There's so much to answer, here. Another way to ask is: what makes a good trainer? There are a scad of aphorisms running through my head. I'll just drop one: show me the fun.

At least someone was always frustrated by the game not meeting his goals, when in fact we had never discussed the goal of gaming at all.

To me, one of the most important parts of running a gaming session is providing direction for play. This implies being clear on expectations for player input. You get those two things spelled out, (1) what we're doing and (2) how we do it, and you prepare the group for success.

A word on discovery: it's ok to discover elements of the SIS; it's never ok to discover either of the two above. (IMO)

Scripty:

Well, I think you've boiled down your concerns with that list. Honestly, unless those things are addressed by system, it's up to you.

Are you planning on having a discussion with your group to suggest default handling of the listed issues? Is that the reason for asking about our experiences/approaches?

[contracycle]

Because it I am now quite experienced at introducing new players to games featuring experienced players, I have developed the habit of starting a game with a little speech about what we are here to do and how to achieve it.   I know think this is quite a useful device, becuase in fact the social contract might chnage in subtle ways depending on the genre or specifics of the game (like the degree of acceptable inter-character competetion, say).  I suspect that many established groups have been playing together so long that this sort of thiing probably does not seem necessary, but I have grown to think of it as very useful.

[Scripty]

Thanks, Bill, I think there are some real nuggets of wisdom in your post, though I'd like to see some of these points broken down to a practical (as opposed to theoretical) framework.

Using a one-page of rules is a good start. Also, stating an objective and a time limit are the hallmarks of any productive meeting.

I agree about the time-limit and objective. As I grow older, I've found myself losing patience with the "campaigns that never end".

Do you have (or can you point me to) an example of a one-page of rules? I've seen one-pages for settings in games like Sorcerer and used such devices in the past with mixed results. In terms of explicitly laying out some Creative Agenda/Social Contract issues, how effective have you found one-pages to be? And what are some of the approaches that you've taken that have yielded results?

In one sense, gaming is like politics: if you're explaining, you're losing. As in sales, what players want to know is how terms benefit them.

That's a great quote. I've known a lot of GMs who could've used that statement, "If you're explaining, you're losing", being posted on the inside of their GM screen.

To me, one of the most important parts of running a gaming session is providing direction for play. This implies being clear on expectations for player input. You get those two things spelled out, (1) what we're doing and (2) how we do it, and you prepare the group for success. A word on discovery: it's ok to discover elements of the SIS; it's never ok to discover either of the two above. (IMO)

Again, I totally agree. I've been fished into one-too-many groups on the expectation that the SIS is a collaborative construct where players can have input and lend direction only to find that it wasn't the case. How many of us have had GMs ask, beg or cajole us for character backgrounds only to seen said backgrounds play little or no role in the campaign?

My follow-up on this pretty much rolls into what I asked earlier. What do you do, say or write to get these things across in a concise/positive manner?

Are you planning on having a discussion with your group to suggest default handling of the listed issues? Is that the reason for asking about our experiences/approaches?

At this point, I'm at the embryonic stages of getting a group together. There may be 3-4 of us and no one's GM. I'd still like to have this conversation, though, even if I'm not GM. It just seems more efficient to me to have these issues known upfront rather than figure them out through trial-and-error.

At this point, my life is in upheavel, so I may be facing another move as soon as this Spring. Still, I may start up an online game for my Midnight-HQ conversion or an online game for Freedom City-HQ regardless of whether I move or not. I am also interested in possibly doing some demos for games like Sorcerer, HeroQuest and InSpectres, etc., at a local gameshop in the near future.

So, the answer to your question is yes. I plan on using whatever practical knowledge I can take from this discussion in whichever group I wind up in. I'm not just asking to ask.

My problem is I've never, NEVER been able to do this pre-game discussion thing effectively. Anyone who is even remotely familiar with me on the Forge knows that I have a very hard time keeping anything concise. I'm wordy. I'm very stream of consciousness. I'm honest. But I generally take the long way to reach my conclusions/points.

Maybe that's one of the obstacles facing me. It's certainly not helping me. What I'm looking for is practical techniques, fired in the furnace of experience, that will help me in this endeavor.

My situation will likely be thus: A group that, for the most part, will be strangers. Playing in a way (Narrativism) that most of them will be unfamiliar with. Giving them a degree of creative input (Director Stance, Author Stance) to which most (if not all) of them will be completely new. In a system with which most of them are unfamiliar as well. Placed in either a limited duration campaign or a demo environment.

I guess that's a lot for anybody to try to tackle. But it's what I'm looking to do. And I'd rather play/run in a game that I like and fail (as I've done many times), than just run/play whatever's popular, coast along until the fad wears out and realize that I put in years of effort for little return in terms of fun/collaboration/group cohesion (reference my last foray into running D&D).

Thanks for the input, Bill. Any further clarification that could possibly assist me would be awesome.

[Scripty]

Because it I am now quite experienced at introducing new players to games featuring experienced players, I have developed the habit of starting a game with a little speech about what we are here to do and how to achieve it. I know think this is quite a useful device, becuase in fact the social contract might chnage in subtle ways depending on the genre or specifics of the game (like the degree of acceptable inter-character competetion, say).

So, you typically start play with new players with a brief speech covering these issues. Is there anyway you could post what a typical speech would be like? I'm not expecting word-for-word, but maybe just some notes on the main points you cover and how you cover them. I'd really appreciate that.

[Bill Cook]

Do you have (or can you point me to) an example of a one-page of rules? I've seen one-pages for settings in games like Sorcerer and used such devices in the past with mixed results. In terms of explicitly laying out some Creative Agenda/Social Contract issues, how effective have you found one-pages to be? And what are some of the approaches that you've taken that have yielded results?

I've never used one-pages myself. I'm a big believer in having everything memorized and showing players how to do things as they come up. Nothing breaks the flow like, "Oh, let me see .. That would be an impromptu weapon, which should be in the expansion rules .. Well, no, it's not there .. So should we treat it as a club? .. But it's not the same material .."

For me, I get the snap by targeting elements of the system to capture. e.g. In BW: "yes" to striking advantage, "no" to FoRK's. And that's not a judgement about their worth; it's a border for my sanity. Think about it: can you honestly say you used every rule in D&D during any one campaign?

Secondly, I playtest my priority list. Once you're confident on the procedure, you can let yourself go in the moment.

I've been fished into one-too-many groups on the expectation that the SIS is a collaborative construct where players can have input and lend direction only to find that it wasn't the case. How many of us have had GMs ask, beg or cajole us for character backgrounds only to seen said backgrounds play little or no role in the campaign?

My follow-up on this pretty much rolls into what I asked earlier. What do you do, say or write to get these things across in a concise/positive manner?

I feel your pain. Obviously, people here are going to have different opinions about how to address the underlying problems with the above scenario. My suggestion may not be the best; I simply offer it for consideration.

I recommend you assume authorship. Set up your dilemma, create your approach, throw in your complications and resolve them yourself. Literally place whoever and whatever wherever you need to create a flashpoint for your story. Bring the GM to the edge of his seat, huffing and puffing, trying to take back his assumed rights. Stay on it until you press into play exactly what you're after.

This process is generally not concise or positive; it's more like mud wrestling. It can make you feel guilty, finding the stones to give negative feedback; or to demonstrate an alternative and insist that the old guard stay with you, full statement. It's likely that you're asking the GM to risk his prep. But if you're commited to your fun, entering the dialogue is ultimately liberating.

I read that your background is being marginalized as color when it should be enacted as potential. The term's wrong, actually: you should write a swirling lead-in to a big question mark that gets filled-in during play.

(This assumes interest in a particular style of play and is not a one, true way. Also, this is an acute stage remedy; not a longterm strategy.)

Good luck with building your group.

[contracycle]

So, you typically start play with new players with a brief speech covering these issues. Is there anyway you could post what a typical speech would be like? I'm not expecting word-for-word, but maybe just some notes on the main points you cover and how you cover them. I'd really appreciate that.

Erm, well ok, based on a game of Jovian Chronicles I ran not so long ago.  But bear in mind this did have a completely new player in it. But even without such players I would still do something similar, because I'm a big believer in making as much of ther SIS and the contract explicit as possible:

- Welcome to the JC universe etc, this is whats cool about it, have a look at some of the toys there, these are the dilemmas it is facing
- what we (players) are going to do in terms of process and purpose, outline of issues such as IC/OOC, demonstration of charsheet
- how to play, what we use dice for and why, why you have to tell the GM what you do, why you might expect to encounter violence
- character, range and scope, outline of interesting character types, actual range of available character selection, forming a group with mutual interests
- character creation, establishing links between characters, forming intra-party relationships

A discussion of any GNS concerns would occur in point 2; thats where I'm going to address goals and of play and the need to accomodate other agendas.