Play Contract "checklist"?

[A.Neill]

I'll add another anecdote to the pot and agree with Anthony.

I used to (and still do on occasions) game with a tight group of friends. We played AD&D and all but one player bought into the GM's simulationist prioritisation (exploration of setting, quickly followed by character). One player pursued a gamist-simulationist prioritisation (most kills per player-exploration of character).

The game reached a sticky moment when GS prioritisation resulted in lots of dead friendly NPCs. The other players explicitly and implicitly blamed the resulting carnage / plot destruction on the poor gamer who didn't fit in. The player in question decided not to return to the game and after that, the group-game dynamic improved vastly. Fortunately, despite a couple of awkward moments, the players remain to this day firm friends – though the only gaming the whole crowd join ups for are some board-gaming sessions.

If we'd been suitably armed with a GNS vocabulary at the time we wouldn't have indulged in the usual recriminations that these things seem to encourage.  Being good friends wasn't enough to keep the game together. If we'd had a decent social contract that perhaps referenced what the S prioritisation was that the GM was seeking or even general, non-GNS specific styles of play then we might have avoided this situation.

Our group at the moment doesn't have a formal contract, but I think we have agreed on a few salient points:

Everyone GMs: We have persons who GM more or less than others, but everyone must provide a game to play every so often.

Play Period: A game will last from 3-5 weeks (one game a week, 3 hour session)

Three Strikes: (We have 6 players, if more than two cancel, the game gets postponed)

Blackball: No one new joins the game unless everyone agrees

Our contract has changed slightly of late – we agreed to play only new games we hadn't played before (usually indie). That's changed and we're planning to do a couple of retrospectives (we've already done The Morrow Project).

Alan.

[Matt Snyder]

What's it going to take to get across to people that "all of this GNS stuff" is the "group dynamic"? Or, to be more precise, there are two aspects to the "group dynamic": the part covered by GNS (from the innate Social Contract all the way down the Venn diagram to Techniques etc.), and the part that no theory having anything to do with the actual gaming activity is ever going to touch (such as, whether the people involved actually enjoy each other's company). That latter part, a functional social relationship between the participants, is not a separate mountaintop from GNS; it's the earth's crust on which the mountain sits.

To clarify, Walt, I agree with you ... and so does The GM. My discussions with The GM have been about this point (among others, naturally), and I have said at every turn that people stuff, social dynamics, relationships, friends, not friends, etc., these things always, always trump any amount of theory. She agrees, and in some ways she views it as such a trumping that the rest is relatively minor by comparison. Therein lie the mountains.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

On the off chance that people are skipping to the second page, I'd like to draw everyone's attention to Walt's post at the end of the first page.

It demonstrates that the friendly debate between The GM and Matt Snyder is actually a non-debate, as it concerns a non-issue. It also points out a number of insights that I hope Michael (RaconteurX) finds interesting.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

My discussions with The GM have been about this point (among others, naturally), and I have said at every turn that people stuff, social dynamics, relationships, friends, not friends, etc., these things always, always trump any amount of theory. She agrees, and in some ways she views it as such a trumping that the rest is relatively minor by comparison. Therein lie the mountains.

I propose that you, "The GM" (I wish we had another name) have never been in a group that disintigrated for GNS reasons, then. I mean, I can give multiple examples from my own play, and anecdotes from others, where a group of fast friends tried to play together, but could not do so because of GNS differences.

And these sorts of differences do happen outside of RPGs. "The GM" brings up Rummy, etc. Well, as an example, I can't play certain of these sorts of games with my own wife (whom I hope I can consider a friend). Why? Because to her, they are non-competitive passtimes. In Scrabble, for instance, she and her friends play that you can look up words in the dictionary before placing. No challenges or anything. I just can't get excited about that sort of play. And if I try to play competitively, she complains about my behavoir.

See, we have different views of what we want to get out of these activities. Could be horseriding, travel, or anything. It's not only important that participants want to do the same general activity, the activity has to match to a point where it's fun for all.

That's GNS. It breaks down RPG play into some categories where problems in enjoying play across boundaries can be problematic.

Does this mean that all players have such stringent requirements that GNS problems occur in play when there are differences? No. And it's an open question as to how often these problems do occur, how common they are. But I think we can say with certainty that such problems do exist occasionally. The theory has always said that if it's not a problem for a particular group that it's irrellevant, however.

So, given that we all agree that Social Contract is very important, and that there's really not much to be done in terms of advice or design in that area (I can't design a game that'll make you be a good friend), then we have to concentrate on other things. One of which is GNS. Does that put it into perspective?


Which is a good point to segue back on topic. In Universalis, we didn't require that people make a Social Contract, or give them a checklist of items (we had suggestions at first, but eventually took them out, as many were actually GNS level things). All we do is make the game framework capable of covering Social Contract in the same generic way that it covers anything else. Really just a parliamentary proceedure sort of thing.

We don't pretend that we know what's best for a group on the social level. And I think that, while having your own idea of what works for you is cool, that making a checklist that fits every group is a pretty problematic proposition.

The furthest that I'd be willing to go is perhaps a list of questions. That is, something that addresses the most common social problems surrounding RPGs. Who's in charge? How is location decided? Food issues (food issues are more social than people realize)? Undesireable behaviors? That sort of thing. These would be open questions for the group to answer.

Is that what you're thinking of, Mike?

Mike

[The GM]

>>I propose that you, "The GM" (I wish we had another name) have never been in a group that disintigrated for GNS reasons, then. I mean, I can give multiple examples from my own play, and anecdotes from others, where a group of fast friends tried to play together, but could not do so because of GNS differences. <<

I see where you're coming from, and put in that perspective, I'm followin' ya 100%. I wouldn't say that our group is any different than any other. We all have our preferences, some of us are more vocal than others. So why haven't we caved to the infighting that seems to plague other groups when we certainly haven't given GNS discussions a go? I think it's because we compromise and as a group, want to make it work. You're right, I've never been in the midst of a full group melt down. I don't know, and don't care to know what that's like. I certainly hope that I'll never have to at any rate!

>>And these sorts of differences do happen outside of RPGs. "The GM" brings up Rummy, etc. Well, as an example, I can't play certain of these sorts of games with my own wife (whom I hope I can consider a friend). Why? Because to her, they are non-competitive passtimes. In Scrabble, for instance, she and her friends play that you can look up words in the dictionary before placing. No challenges or anything. I just can't get excited about that sort of play. And if I try to play competitively, she complains about my behavoir. <<

Again, interesting and not a line of thought that I had considered. Although I am begining to find that some people view play as an all or nothing proposition. (Not that I'm saying you have that sort of relationship w/ your wife!) However, it seems that the fun factor is not great enough for the two of you to set aside your differences and make that particular game work. Nothing wrong with that at all. In fact, your agreement not to play is your compromise.;)

>See, we have different views of what we want to get out of these activities. Could be horseriding, travel, or anything. It's not only important that participants want to do the same general activity, the activity has to match to a point where it's fun for all. <

Aight, I'm following you.

>That's GNS. It breaks down RPG play into some categories where problems in enjoying play across boundaries can be problematic. <

And if that's what a particular group needs, go for it. As I said earlier, I'm not saying that my way is the only way, or the right way, just a different one that the original poster could consider.


>So, given that we all agree that Social Contract is very important, and that there's really not much to be done in terms of advice or design in that area (I can't design a game that'll make you be a good friend), then we have to concentrate on other things. One of which is GNS. Does that put it into perspective? <

Very well in fact, even if I don't see it as the most important 'thing' in our game.


>The furthest that I'd be willing to go is perhaps a list of questions. That is, something that addresses the most common social problems surrounding RPGs. Who's in charge? How is location decided? Food issues (food issues are more social than people realize)? Undesireable behaviors? That sort of thing. These would be open questions for the group to answer. <

I guess we never formally discussed any of these issues, they seemed to resolve themselves along the way. As a GM, I expect that I will act as a hostess to my guests (my players/pals.) I expect that I will provide my guests with refreshments, a comfortable/ clean environment, an atmosphere where productive/ entertaining things can happen, and an open door policy of expressing greivances. I expect my guests to respect my place, to act in an appropriate manner (and w/ manners) and to have a good time. These all are pretty basic expectations on both sides though, so no, I can't say that we've really had to 'lay down the law.' People who haven't respected the basic rules of social conduct have gotten the boot. So maybe our 'rules' are loosey goosey, but hey, it works for us.
YMMV

Warm Regards,
Lisa

[M. J. Young]

Interestingly, if you were picking out a group of people to get together and play a weekly game of pitch or rummy, there wouldn't be 'designations' as such when refering to the players. You either 'like' the individual that you've invited to play, or you don't. The group dynamic (which I believe is based on various influences, such as shared interests, histories, personalities, and all of that kinda thing) will determine if the new player is going to work out or not. So, I postulate that designations in a 'social play contract' are somewhat missing the point of why you get together to play (or do anything else on a social level for that matter.)

Interestingly, if you were looking to get a group of your friends together to play pitch or rummy, you would start by asking which of your friends are likely to enjoy playing pitch or rummy.

I've commented before that I play a lot of card games; but most of the people with whom we play don't play a lot of card games. Bob and Margaret always played Pinochle with us. They played lots of board games, miniature golf, war games, bowling, and were our first roleplay group back in 1980 when we discovered D&D and added it to our games list. My parents will play bridge with us, but they don't play pinochle. Her parents would play Casino or Pit, but didn't get into other card games at all. We played canasta with her childhood friends--but I really don't care much for canasta, although my wife loves it. There was someone with whom we used to play poker, but I don't remember who now; and we played rummy with a few people occasionally, but that was long ago. Oh, and we used to play a lot of Uno with Tom and Lois.

The point is that when you pick a game like rummy, you've already got a rather narrow concept of what it is you're going to play. Now, you might (as Mike observes) have conflicts between those who want to play social rummy and those who want to play cutthroat (Tom loved playing killer Uno--double the wild cards in the deck). So you're going to look for people who are on the same page as far as that goes.

So you're already doing a sort of GNS determination by picking the game.

We do the same thing now with independent games. If you've got a game of Alyria or Sorcerer you want to run, most people who have heard of those games know that they are heavily narrativist; gamists and simulationists are probably going to self-select themselves out, and if not you'll probably do it for them at the stage of "let's invite people who might like to play X". I'm big on games, all kinds of games, but I have friends I wouldn't invite over to play pinochle, and friends I wouldn't invite to play OAD&D, and friends I wouldn't invite to play some board game like Vanished Planet. You know your friends, and select those who are going to fit. My parents used to have bridge parties all the time. A lot of their friends came, and a lot of people came with whom they had no other contact other than bridge; and a lot of their friends were never invited because they weren't interested in playing bridge.

The problem with many role playing games is that it is unclear exactly what the point of play is. Are we building powerful characters to overcome greater challenges? Are we exploring another world and discovering or creating interesting ideas? Are we building a story with dramatic value and internal conflict? A lot of games talk as if you're doing all three of these, but more often than not these three goals conflict. If one player is trying to do one, he's in the way of players trying to do the others.

You can compromise; there are ways to incorporate aspects of all three into play. However, you can't always do it, and sometimes you hit conflict where one player thinks that another is playing "wrong" because what that other player just did completely undermines everything the one player is trying to do--whether it's a decision to do something significant that tactically undermines the party's position, or to attack something that has importance to the story, or to leave the current location where things are happening to go discover what's on the other side of the mountain. Sometimes goals gel; often they do not. When they don't, sometimes people acquiesce--but then, you also have to ask yourself whether that means that one or two players are actually controlling play because the others are always giving in.

Asking what GNS goal the group seeks is exactly like asking what game they want to play. It is the basic question, what is the objective of the game?

I hope this helps.

--M. J. Young

[RaconteurX]

Who's in charge? How is location decided? Food issues? Undesireable behaviors? That sort of thing. These would be open questions for the group to answer.

Is that what you're thinking of, Mike?

Not in the least. In my experience, the time, place and composition of a group tends to remain constant once the setting, system and play-style are settled upon. A play contract to me is an agreement about the range of acceptable settings, systems and styles which everyone consents to play. It is a means to group cohesion, and a means to give recalcitrant players notice that they can leave the group and return later, if they do not wish to play a particular game, without censure or bad feelings.

Who brings the munchies, who hosts play sessions, etc., are definitely a part of the overall contract, but are completely superfluous for the group with which I am currently involved. We have a host and plenty of food. I want something that will allow for prospective GMs to say "Okay, I know these people have these interests, these things that are off-limits. Based on this, what games can I offer to run without there being endless debate over what to play next?"

Briefly outing mself, I look at it like scene negotiation between a Top and a bottom in the BDSM community. There, at least, a comprehensive list of activities is within the realm of possibility. "Have you done X?" "Would you do X?", "How much do you enjoy X, on a scale of 1 to 5? 1 being 'Does nothing for me, but I'd do it if my partner were into it' and 5 being 'Give it to me every time.'" I would like to create something comparable to this for roleplaying play contracts.

Oh, and it's Michael... :)

[RaconteurX]

Oh, and just so everyone is on the same page, our entire group has quite solid friendships. Several of us are just currently annoyed by the limited range of interests of certain members, and the resistance of certain other members to those who want to take a hiatus from the group when they would rather not play a particular system, setting or style. Ours is a rather long acquaintance (I ran the games department at one of the local stores for many years).

The problem is the people who expect others to their choice of game if it runs contrary to the formers' interests. I don't care for d20 or GURPS, for example. However, I am perfectly happy to let everyone play either game without me if they so desire. I just wish we had a play contract so we could say "Hey, you agreed to abide by the group's decisions regarding what we are playing at a given time, with the option to withdraw from the group temporarily if you genuinely objected" so we didn't have to renegotiate every time we take a break from the main campaign to play other games.

[Daniel Solis]

"Have you done X?" "Would you do X?", "How much do you enjoy X, on a scale of 1 to 5? 1 being 'Does nothing for me, but I'd do it if my partner were into it' and 5 being 'Give it to me every time.'" I would like to create something comparable to this for roleplaying play contracts.

It seems like one would keep on hand a sort of playstyle player sheet (as opposed to character sheet) which would have those rankings you just mentioned.

"You 'strongly agree' with killing monsters and taking their stuff without concern for the monster's family or the consequences of such actions in the future?"

"Yeah."

"Me too!"

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Michael,

What did you think of my comments regarding the in-game content of my old Champions game? That seems to me to be similar to what you're talking about.

The key issue for me is that people have a terrible time communicating about aesthetic priorities by referencing imaginative situations. Which is to say, "Let's play Fading Suns, and really get into the cool stuff in the setting!" may mean very different things to different people, and often incompatible things. You can even say "Dune!" and "Like Doc Smith!" to one another and it won't necessarily help.

It works better if the discussion turns to much more specific examples within the story or source material being referenced. If someone wants to play HeroQuest with me, we have a lot to know about each other: not just about what culture or what place, but what do we want as people from the experience? That's GNS. It can be reached, in the case of HeroQuest, by discussing the setting, magic, and locales of play ... but again, not necessarily.

Best,
Ron

[Harlequin]

What I found when thinking about the subject was that what was needed was not actually a checklist so much as a set of tools for handling the during-play disconnects which crop up in (for example) two players' comprehensions of what you mean by citing, say, "Dune."

That is, it's not like we can ever plan ahead of time for every angle of the play contract.  The "Do you enjoy killing monsters" question mentioned above is only relevant to some games; in another game it might take on a different set of responses (CoC: "I wish!") or not be relevant at all (Chalk Outlines, Millenium's End, Lace and Steel).  Even within a single published game the spectrum is awfully hairy to try and anticipate thoroughly.  Which doesn't mean it's not useful to cover many of these topics ahead of time, it just means that the same problem might recur over more specific elements even though you've covered the generalities.

Which is why I cited the thread I did, in my previous post.  Do check it out, if you skipped the link previously.  It covers the generation of mechanisms for communicating this stuff, even during play.  Which I think has to be part of any such scheme for resolving the play contract; prep just isn't enough, the real disconnects are always lurking behind the seeming consensus (IMO).

- Eric

[Mark Johnson]

Ron's comment brought a personal experience to mind.

Questionaires, pre-game discussions and the like are great and all for determining player intent.  However, it is amazing the number of times that player intent takes a total back seat to actual play dynamic in the game.  I was a player in short term Fading Suns campaign.  We had extensive pre-game discussions with the GM about what would like out of the game.  We imagined play as more Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun than Dune or space opera.

As soon as we entered play, there was tons and tons of settting.  The GM had extensively researched a particular planet and had developed a very immersive simulationist format for play.  There was a lot of setting and character detail, a slow plot development, a pending disaster and huge central mystery to be solved by extensive interaction with highly pre-detailed NPCs.  The GM had a definite plot in mind and since we had crafted our PCs with the information he had given us before the game in mind and he in turn had adjusted his scenario to make sure our PCs would follow his plot.  Everyone seemed to have a good time in the first session or two.  

About the third session into the game one of the players was somewhat disatisfied with the slow state of affairs (no combat in any of the sessions) and started "acting out."  Even though he agreed in principle with the "sound" of a slow paced/setting heavy game, in fact, he wasn't.  Every time he acted out, it caused tons of adversity for the party.  But it was fun.  The GM knew this.  Pretty soon the party who was originally a set of ambassadors on a religious quest for redemption became a group of terrorists on the run. Play turned out to resemble Blake's 7 more than anything: constant sabotage, inter-party warfare, survival of the fitest and highly gamist the whole way.  The whole point of our quest was forgotten.  All the GMs detailed setting had to be abandoned because we had to flee the planet with an entire noble house after us.  It was a blast!

We all thought we wanted one thing and it turned out everyone was seemingly satisfied with a different form of play.  In other words, although discussing player's intent before hand seemed like it would be the best course of action, we ultimately decided our form of actual play through the process of actual play.  The fact that the GM was willing to adjust his play style based on the cues that he was receiving from his players was a tribute to his skills, since he had to basically throw away everything that  he had planned and simply vamp.

[Adam Dray]

A few months ago, I watched my own D&D group, several years and still running, start to disintegrate for GNS drift reasons.

The core group of five had become ten, bringing in seven new players (and losing two). One of the core group and most of the newcomers were more interested in narrativist play. The core group had focused on gamist play (it is, after all, D&D 3E and we started the group right when the rules were published so much of our early days were spent exploring the rules).

Many of the new narrativist players became bored during the extended (and occasionally "pointless") combat encounters that the gamists seem to enjoy so much.  When a few of the older players began to complain that they were wasting too much time role-playing in the villages, the newer players got even more disenfranchised. When the older players got into arguments about how easy it should be to resurrect or how the resurrection rules unduly punished a player in terms of XP cost, I got frustrated and put my foot down.

I told them all that we needed a play contract and solicited opinions (in person and via my Yahoo egroup). Sadly, I got very few responses. Most of my players don't want to talk about the metagame; they just want to play the game, even if the game play is headed nowhere good.

I forced the issue, wrote a sample play contract, and floated it around. Without objection, it became the de facto guide for the campaign. I still struggle to make the players understand that it's Our game, not My game. No matter what I do, I cannot seem to get them to take ownership of the metagame. They refused to give input. They would show up at my house, play the game I present, insist that I make rulings (no Democracy here), and then get mad if everything isn't perfect.

I also split the group into two separate games. I offered a politically-focused city-based game with a much reduced likelihood of combat encounters. The three strong narrativist players jumped at the chance and split off. We've had one game (with a new, fourth player, too) and it went very well.

The "adventure-based" (gamist) group is doing much better, too. They explore ruins and kill the evil demons and collect magic items and are happy doing so. To their credit, they've dealt with the resurrection rules (by play contract) well.

As a side note, I took a "radical" (for this group) step away from "Adam as Final Arbiter of Everything" and more to group concensus. I stopped awarding experience points; they have to do it. Too many times, one or two players argued with me about the XP total for an encounter or, worse, the distribution among players who were partially involved. They even complained about the rate of advancement. So I just punted and now that the problem is theirs to solve, they tend to just divide it up equally. ;) If they feel they should get more, it's not my problem. The solution is working very well.

I'm happy to share my play contracts for my two very different groups if anyone cares to see them. If I get enough interest, I'll drop them on a web page for universal access.

[Adam Dray]

Here are a few questions I'd ask (and answer) in a complete Play Contract. These tend to be phrased as if the group plays only one game, but these questions easily extend to groups that play more than one game.


Meta
What is the overarching goal of the group?
How do you intend to achieve this overarching goal?
What is the process for updating this contract?
Is there any documentation for the game? Where is it?
How do players communicate? Are there web forums or email lists?

Where
Where are the games hosted?
Does the host have any special rules for use of his or her premises?
Who is responsible for setting up and cleaning up?
Can you eat the food in the fridge and drink the host's soda? ;)
Does the host have any pets that might trigger allergies?
Is smoking allowed on the host's premises and, if so, where?

When
What is the regular gaming schedule?
How often does the game group meet?
How long do games last?
Are there any penalties for tardiness or missing games?
How far in advance are game schedules announced, and by what means?
How far in advance are games cancelled, and by what means?

Who
Who are the players?
How can these players be contacted and in what circumstances? (some might not like getting regular calls for non-game reasons)
Can players bring children (or non-playing significant others)?
What is the procedure for adding players to the group?
What is the procedure for removing players from the group?
What is the expected activity level of players?
What is "quorum" for a game?
Are there special roles (game master, scribe, snackmaster, etc.), and who fills them?

System
What system does the game group use?
Does everyone need to own/bring a copy of the rules?
What level of player expertise is required and expected?
Are there any special house rules?

Setting
What is the basic setting for the game?
Is there a story arch?
What are the expected levels of technology, magic, religious power, and so on?

Tone
What is the tone or mood of the game (serious, humorous, dark, epic, etc.)?
What roles do violence and sexuality play? to what level?
What is the likelihood of character death?
Is character death permanent?
Does the game have a particular gamist/narrativist/simulationist focus?

Characters
How are characters created? Who creates them?
Are there any restrictions on the types of characters a player can create?
Can a player change characters mid-game? If so, how?
Can a player have more than one character?
How does a player replace a dead character?
If a new player joins the game mid-campaign, how is his character created?
Who owns the characters?

Roles
Who controls the flow and pace of the game?
Who creates adventure and story opportunities for characters?
Who sets the level of danger in the game world?
Does a player have absolute sovereign control over every aspect of his character? physical, mental, social, situational, possessions?
Is intra-character conflict encouraged or discouraged, and to what extent?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Adam,

In theory, I guess that's pretty solid ...

... but in practice, the existence of such a checklist seems pretty scary. It has a kind of "control all variables so no one is jarred" vibe. Maybe it would make more sense with a Customize to Taste sign on it (which is perhaps implied, as it stands?).

For instance, in a lot of my role-playing, the concept of "intra-party conflict" means something very different from its usual application to dungeon/team play. For me, there's rarely a "party" in the first place, so the phrase implies Blood Opera and the possibility of both initiating and backing off from potentially lethal climactic confrontations among characters.

And with that difference in mind, I'd actually prefer for that particular variable not to be set in stone prior to play. I'd prefer for it to be worked out through the medium of play itself.

That's merely one example, and it's specific to me; I suggest, however, that any number of people would find something equally problematic in the list - in other words, that they'd prefer not to see nailed down.

So actually, I guess it makes most sense for me, in reading your post, to put a big "For Adam and his fellow role-players sign" on it. What do you think?

Best,
Ron