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,

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.

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.

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).

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 wrote:
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.

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.

Larry wrote:
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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

I think that presenting instructions as if the reader were new to the subject also helps a writer avoid a lot of pitfalls:

1) assuming that the reader understands roleplaying the same way you do.

2) skipping steps in a procedure "because everybody knows that's the first thing you do"

3) failing to explain the relationship between this chapter and the next one

etc.
etc.

Believe it or not, it's possible to do this without handholding.  Just tell em what they have to do.

Thanks for all the replies.  They were very helpful.  I fully intend to buy quite a few of the games mentioned in this thread at GenCon this year.  I'll peruse them and see how they handle this issue.  It seems like an important issue to me and it will definately make its way into my ruleset somehow.

Thanks again.

One of the big things I've learned is that if you don't tell people how to play your game, how they're supposed to play, what their supposed to do; then theres a good chance they'll just play it the same way they did the last game they tried. If they dont know that they're supposed to take a certain aproach, that they're supposed to play a certain way, then chances are they won't. If the last game they played was Vampire and now they're playing Dogs in the Vinyard... well, its a good thing Dogs gives you a good idea of how your supposed to play it.

I think its good to spell stuff out for players (without being an ass about it if possible). You cant assume that people are going to have the same game experience or approach to playing as you. The game I'm working on right now is all about playing little kids and having fun adventures in  fantasy world. Its not about fighting or cool weapons or leveling up or really much of anything else. So I'm having to think of ways to get this across to players. Make sure that they know that their supposed to be playing kids. Making sure that they each understand their purpose within the game, and the relationship with how the game works. Making sure they understand the games objectives. I think its perfectly fine to spell all of that out. Someone else said that board games always do this. Works there, works here.

I think I must not have been clear. I mean to say, Yes, tell players everything they need to play your game, but write it in such a way as not to insult them if you expect most of your readers are experienced role-players. Say all the same things, but don't talk to newbies like they're veterans and don't talk to veterans as if they're newbies. And let's face it, a lot of the people who play indie games these days are not newbies. Your game may be different, so know your audience and write accordingly. But, by all means, include all that material about how to play your game.

In JAGS I put almost no advice (and I'm glad I didn't--my experience with the online community has greatly expanded what I would've written). In JAGS-2 I put in some notes about taking over people's characters with defects.

Here http://www.jagsrpg.org/jags/content/GEAR/GEAR.pdf is a game with a very comprehensive list of social contract issues spelled out pretty explicitly. GEAR is sort of my thesis on the GM-Player dynamic in traditional RPGs (it isn't completely finished--but it *is* a play-testable RPG). I will note that while there is one piece of systemitized advice (the Situation Framework) it does not "tell the players how they are expected to play" but rather expects that they will adapt the game to whatever they did last time that worked (insofar as that is possible, at least).

One of the reasons I think that traditional RPGs usually don't have the kind of advice that some of the less traditional games do is that the traditional RPG dynamic is very complicated. The GM's role as a facilitator is a complicated animal: the GM has both sublte and overt powers (and may expected to be a referee, moderator, opponent, and ally at different times or by different people).

Attempts to mechanically reduce that variety to a simpler format (as seen in GM-less games or games like MLWM) does reduce those misunderstandings--but (IMO) at the expense of some of the richness of the traditional RPG experience.

-Marco

Yes, put it in.  Here's me, one more voice in the consensus.

Consider any game <em>other</em> than an RPG, and check out their instructions.  They all tell the potential players what the game is about, what the players will be doing, and lays it out simply.  It's not demeaning, it's complete.  No veteran gamer is going to take offense at "The guy who handles the NPCs and rolls dice for falling rocks is called the Game Master."  If you don't put that inoffensive line in, however, the "total newbs" will be confused when you start explaining "the GM then rolls 2d6 and compares the result against the Critical Mediocrity table..."

And if you don't include it, Chris will jump up and down because your book is incomplete.  And you don't want that, now, do you?

Jake wrote:
One of the big things I've learned is that if you don't tell people how to play your game, how they're supposed to play, what their supposed to do; then theres a good chance they'll just play it the same way they did the last game they tried.

One other thing to consider---in The Mountain Witch, I am very explicit about what the players need to do to make the game work. In addition to that, I am very explicit about what doesn't matter. In other words, I am constantly saying "You can do this whatever way you want."