Including Social Issues in the Rulebook.

[Andrew Cooper]

I've noticed that many "mainstream" RPGs tend to ignore the fact that role-playing is a social activity and that if the social context the game is built on is flawed the game is going to suffer.  I've been thinking about this issue for my own game and how/what to put in the text to draw attention to the Social Contract without getting too heavy into RPG theory.  I want to address things like:

• What is the goal/purpose/point of the game?
• Who has what responsibilites for the game?
• Is PvP okay or expected?
• What kind of extra-game social interactions are allowed?

This isn't a compreshensive list, of course and I'm not trying to give answers for most of these kinds of question (some of them maybe).  What I'm thinking is to at least bring these kinds of things up so that players have some sort of guideline of discussing these things among themselves.  My questions are:

• Is this even a worthwhile thing to put in the rulebook?
• What is the best way to format such information?  All in one spot?  Throughout the rules?  Other?
• Have any other games done this well that I can look at and study?

Thanks,

[Adam Dray]

I took a stab at addressing some social issues in my Verge game. I talk about responsibilities and expected player behavior (even outside game stuff). I think it's entirely appropriate for a ruleset, but know your audience. If you're targeting your game at experienced role-players and you're saying stuff that every role-player knows, you're just insulting them. Not everything is "patently obvious," however, though we may think it is.

[Andrew Morris]

I like the idea of including social concerns in an RPG text. Adam, I wouldn't find it insulting to have information I already knew included -- that section would just be useless to me.

But the real issue, Andrew, is what you want for your game. Asking whether it's worthwhile or not doesn't make much sense, since everyone will have a different opinion. If you think it's worthwhile (and you seem to feel that way), then include it.

[Jack Aidley]

Nobilis contains a chapter on "play contract" that discusses these issues. Capes's Comic Code fulfils some of the same role. I think both are useful and valuable while be very different - it might be worth you checking them out (and they're both good games anyway).

[Frank T]

I agree that social issues belong into a rulebook. I think the best way to contain them is to have them come in small bits with the parts of the game that they concern. In the BARBAREN! manuscript, I do four things:

1) I put social issues into the explanations of rules and their application, if they matter.

2) I include some few comments regarding social issues into my examples of play.

3) I have "boxes" throughout the book that address "common" roleplayer behavior I highly disencourage. These "boxes" appear wherever it seems most fitting.

4) In the section on "running the game", I have some tips for players and GM which include social stuff also.

The danger with this is that you become patronizing and piss your reader off with all that advice and judgement. I mean, you are telling them how to behave as persons, after all. That's quite heavy. The majority of the paragraphs I tossed out of my manuscript to date, I tossed out because they were patronizing Forge-freak bullshit. I figure there's still loads of that in there.

- Frank

[Andrew Cooper]

But the real issue, Andrew, is what you want for your game. Asking whether it's worthwhile or not doesn't make much sense, since everyone will have a different opinion. If you think it's worthwhile (and you seem to feel that way), then include it.

Yeah, I agree.  I do think it is worthwhile, so I guess the important questions are really...

How can I do this effectively without sounding like I'm lecturing my audience?
What games do this that I can look at as examples?

I've got a copy of Universalis.  It does this to some extent.  I'm going to get a copy of Capes at GenCon.  I've never read Nobilis or BARBAREN! but I'll look for them and see how they handle the subject.  Thanks for those references.

I'm thinking that Frank's method of spreading the information out through the text might be the best way to keep it from sounding like I'm preaching at my readers.  All in one spot might be a bit much.

[Larry L.]

The Shadow of Yesterday, p. 5 contains my favorite "what is role-playing?" spiel at the moment. Conveys a bit of theory without using jargon.

[Andrew Cooper]

The Shadow of Yesterday, p. 5 contains my favorite "what is role-playing?" spiel at the moment. Conveys a bit of theory without using jargon.

Yes... I will definately be picking up a hardbound version of this game at GenCon, too.  So many games... So little money...

[btrc]

I look at most of my supplements nowadays as requiring some social element, not just in the PvP aspect, but in giving alternate viewpoints on an issue, and possibly making players think "outside the box" of their normal social mores in order to get things done within the game context.

For instance, Age of Ruin(post-Ruin) is low on currency, but high on social networking in order to acquire goods and services. You almost have to foster social relationships in order to get anything done. NeoTerra (cyberpunk) has virtually no laws save those that a community chooses to enforce as part of its own local social contract. Killing someone isn't illegal. But then again, neither is retribution. It tests the Heinlein-ian proposition that "an armed society is a polite society". Dark Millennium (11th century zombie horror) has a very clear "good guy-bad guy" dichotomy, but puts characters in the situation of having an evil doppleganger who can possibly be redeemed, but there is the question of how much harm the doppleganger will do before they reach atonement.

I try not to overtly bludgeon people with social issues, but I do think that drawing people outside their normal thought patterns in a game/supplement is a good thing. I think integrating the choices into the way the gameworld works is a better way to do it than announcing "moral choice alert!" at every opportunity.

Greg Porter
BTRC guy

[Adam Dray]

I guess I don't really differentiate that much between "typical" game rules and social advice. It's all the System. Figure out which bits of System you need to address for your players to make your game clear and easily playable.

Here are some bits from Verge:

Every player and GM share some common
goals. Make the game fun for everyone. Pay
attention. Stay focused on the stuff the other
players are focusing on. Don’t wander off.
Participate. Don’t bring personal issues from
outside the game into play. Make your play
entertaining. Don’t cheat. Resolve disputes
about the game amicably. Don’t be a
schmuck.

Outside the game itself, be a good guest to
your host. Be on time for the game. Bring
snacks or cool mood-setting music.

Each player is responsible for politely
representing his own interest in the game. If
you don’t like something, speak up.
Negotiate with the other players. Find a
compromise if possible. If you can’t
amicably agree on a solution, use your Veto
or call for a Vote (whichever is applicable).
Each player is responsible for following the
rules of the game, as written in this text and
as modified or amended by the group during
play.

The first paragraph is a bit of a laundry list of Do's and Don't's. I just get it all out there quick and dirty and then move on.

Earlier in my rules, I've written a "what this game is about" section. I think that's pretty important for any RPG. I delineate responsibilities clearly. All boardgames do this and it seems to work well; why shouldn't RPGs explain who does what? Consider partner card games like Euchre that have a "no table talk" rule. It limits social interaction but it is a necessary rule for the game.

So I guess I'm strengthening the tone of what I said before: You probably should be telling players these things when you have a strong design sense of how molding player behavior will affect their game. If you think including a rule about appropriate player behavior will improve game play, by all means include it.

[Bankuei]

Hi,

I consider these things a fundamental part of the rules that have been historically absent.

Half of the theory here has sprung up because most designs have failed to recognize that people might be showing up at the table for different reasons.  Half the games here have been a push to recognize and utilize the fact that roleplaying is built on communication & consensus- and the rules ought to focus on that, not necessarily the imaginary elements which exist only because of the group interactions...

Take a quick look at problem-threads here and on many of the other roleplaying forums- you'll find that a great deal of problems have erupted because those questions were not addressed by the rules.

But- you don't need to even drop a lick of theory to convey this info- take a look at Prime Time Adventures or Dogs in the Vineyard for two examples of games that explain these issues, explicitly and implicitly in everyday language.

Chris

[xenopulse]

Hi,

I completely agree with Chris. If a game does not include at least the items Andrew C. listed (purpose of game, division of responsibility, how to handle PvP, social interactions), it leaves itself open for very incoherent play.

In P/E, I make a point of spelling out that it's a competitive game, that players need to leave their real life connections behind, and that it is expected that you do your darnest to win, no matter how close you are to the other player. The revised draft also talks extensively about how to handle narration responsibilities and requires players before they begin to agree on a level of narration that's fun for everybody.

I thoroughly believe that if you want your game to facilitate coherent play of any kind, you need to make sure that you tell people how to communicate about the game and come to agreement on all the important aspects of it, especially regarding social interaction.

[AlexGrim]

You must include these issues, when writing a book it is always written as if a total newb is reading it. Experienced role-players will understand, because they read it in all the other games they have played. You might add some new ideas or perspective they haven't read. Sometimes experienced players like to read this section to see if you make reference to the experiences they have had with it and if your advise fits with what they did. Do it.. Do it.

[Adam Dray]

I disagree that you write "as if a total newb is reading it." Know your audience and write for them. You may include much the same content but focus the content for your audience. A game that you expect to be played by veteran gamers should be written differently than a game you expect to be played by people who have never picked up a d20.

[AlexGrim]

Just about every book I have ever read explained things like inexperienced people were reading it, it is common in my eyes. Should you put "For Experienced Role-players only" at the top of the cover? I personally want anyone and everyone to play my game if I am getting it published. I guess we can agree to disagree.