Hey Mike, JB,

On the X-Games back in the Pool thread, Ron wrote:

Related to that, regarding the Social Contract issue (and I recognize that "social contract" is not Fang's preferred term), I'd like to emphasize that I do not endorse the idea that Social Contracts are "established" through discussion. My perception of the term is a very descriptive one - how the people treat one another, what social and personal goals are expressed through this behavior, and what ultimately happens among them because of these interactions. Social Contracts, in my view, are never fully verbalized. The furthest I'd go is to say that some discussion of goals may contribute to a functional Social Contract.

I've been working up an analysis and reaction to Synthesis over the past couple of days, and was going to make the exact same point about the Social Contract section of the game document:

Any play group, whether playing Synthesis or any other RPG, should have a social contract--an agreement about what the group is trying to do and how to go about it. This should include matters such as how frequently the group meets, how long individual sessions should be, what kinds of behavior are or aren't acceptable (e.g., is a lot of social chatter OK in your game, or is everyone expected to stay in character as much as possible?), and just generally what is expected of everyone on a social level. Failing to at least discuss this a little can kill a game down the road, often very unpleasantly.

Our group has never formalized a social contract in this manner. To be honest, I don't think it's even possible. Think back on how many times your old AD&D group explicitly agreed to "use character names when talking to each other during the game," or that there would be "no backstabbing." How long did that "use character names" thing last? My experience with social contract is that you get what you get. Our group takes the game event, the act of producing compelling narrative, and the development of our individual narrativist gaming skills very seriously. But we didn't negotiate that. Our individual priorities, powered by earnestness and force of personality, pressed together upon the social fabric of the group when we first came together a year ago, and we got what we got.

Paul

Hi Paul,

I don't read the Synthesis text you've quote as being unreasonable. The "at least a little" portion, especially, lets me know that the authors acknowledge that a Social Contract does not exist in the verbal realm. Given that phrase, and given my reading-into it that there will remain social issues that have not been, and cannot be, included in such discussion, I agree with their point.

A more extreme version, allegedly containing the whole entirety of "what we agree upon" or "be it resolved" or some such thing - yeah. I agree that it's an absurd proposition. I definitely agree with you regarding the historical D&D pre-game agreements, having experienced their breakdown myself numerous times, ages ago.

What do the Synthesis authors say? I'm really curious as to how concrete and verbalized they expect a Social Contract to be.

Best,
Ron

Well, to quibble a bit, how else do social contracts get organized if not through verbal communication? Non-verbal? There is some communication going on somehow, right? If you're point is that you can't do it through explicit discussion before a game, I'd challenge that as well. One could certainly write up a contrract negotiated through discussion and sign it at the end, and then go on to play by those strictures. Why not?

Not that I'm suggesting such a formal process. When I say it needs at least a bit of discussion, I mean just that. The GM should ask about what the player expects from a game, and mention what he sees it providing and how. This can be very informal and still be successful. All I'm looking to avoid is participants coming in expecting one thing, and getting something very different. Because at that point people's time may have been wasted at the very least, and at worst there are hurt feelings and all manner of other BS.

I'll stand by what we wrote. In every game I run nowadays, I ask some questions before hand, and talk a bit about what we all expect. And what is established there is important and functional. Is it a formalized thing? Not necessarily. Does it change in play? Yes; such cannot, and should not remain static. But the trust and openess that it establishes, in addition to whatever agreements do stick, are invaluable. Also, it gives the participants a chance to say, 'no, not my cup o' tea' before things start.

Are you saying that any pre-play discussion is pointless? Or that such is not Social Contract. Social Contracts tend to be created post facto. There is no reason why that need be the case, entirely, however.

That all said, it's just a sort of caveat that I'm kinda including standard in games that I'm writing, and does not solely pertain to the game in question. The text of it can probably be improved.

Mike

I agree with Mike on this one. Having the basics of a group's Social Contract explicitly known prior to play would definitely be a boon, and not at all undoable. It is certainly absurd to try to lay down a bunch of groundrules that people are going to have to make an effort to follow, but it's not at all to decide, via discussion, what the group expects and what they consider the standards of roleplaying. I did a small amount of formalizing Social Contract for my Riddle of Steel game, though I cannot use this as a good example, because it floundered due to schedule changes on the part of most of the players. Still working that issue, though, so we'll see.

Since the text in Synthesis sounds very much like text we included in Universalis I'll chime in with my thinking on the matter.

I think the vast majority of Social Contract items are implicit...of the "just the way our group does it" variety. I think this is especially true of groups that have been playing together for an extended period of time and have (for example) learned the GM's limit when it comes to interrupting play to ramble on about a new movie they just saw.

Further I think that the vast majority of the implicit Social Contracts out there evolved under the "GM is God" model of RPG play. When do the Monty Python jokes become excessive? When does having your mouth full of pizza when the GM is trying to get you to respond to a question become unacceptable? When does killing another character become permissable?...answer: when the GM says so.

If a new player were to come into a group and say "I prefer we didn't get cell phone calls at the table while we're playing" 9 times out of 10, heads will turn to the GM to see his take on the matter.

What Mike and I did with Universalis, and what he continued with Synthesis, is to introduce the concept of an explicit social contract right in the game rules rather than an implicit one that just evolves through play. I don't think either game expects a written draft signed by the players at the table like some sort of Game Constitution...while Universalis does mention this as an option that new play groups may want to consider, it acknowledges that for most groups the bulk of the contract will go unspoken.

Why do I think explicit social contract discussion is important. Primarily for 2 key reasons / styles of play.

1) For games that have less reliance on "GM is God" and more emphasis on player empowerment. If players are encouraged and expected to contribute to the game as more than just participants in the GM's game, than not only is ach player at the table is going to bring his input and desires and preferences with him (as they always have) but now those preferences are going to be spotlighted right in the game. If they are not compatable with the player sitting across from you, you have problems.

To use Tim Denee's "Final Stand" terminology: If I'm playing "Quiet", and Ron's playing "Maxed" we have issues. Tim wrote right into his game rules to "choose the volume". This is an explicit Social Contract issue built right into his rules (whether he knows it or not). Little Fears does something similiar with the Fairy Tale / True Horror differentiation. Any game that explicitly asks players to choose a mode or style of play is asking an explicit Social Contract question. I would contend that despite Ron's resistance to "written contracts" that a Sorcerer One Sheet is nothing if not (at least in part) a written Social Contract. Beyond sketchy setting information the very definition of what Humanity is for the game is a decision about what type of game is to be played. The Art Deco threads in my mind are one huge Social Contract discussion.

2) Interpretive rules. In the days of rules heavy sim heavy RPGs, a big arbitor of Social Contract issues was "what do the rules say", or "how would that really work in reality". But who here has ever played an extended campaign of any rules heavy sim game without adding house rules? What are house rules really but undercover declarations of Social Contract priorities? When you add a hit location / wound based damage system to D&D are you not making a statement about the type of game your group will play? Are you not explicitly emphasizing what is important to your group? When you decide to scrap the weapon vs armor type modifier table are you not explicitly stateing what is not important to your group? I would contend that embedded in every single house rule ever made are Social Contract issues.

I would further contend that a large number of arguements over which house rules to use and which "suck" are based on different metagame priorities that players bring to the table that are essentially Social Contract issues about what is important to one player over another. Having lived through dozens of these arguements I feel safe in saying that if we'd had an explicit social contract about what we as players were looking to get out of the game at hand (e.g. interactive roleplaying vs tactical problem solving) many of these arguments could have been much more constructive.

I would further contend that in rules lighter games where much more is left up to the specific play group to interpret this is even a bigger issue. Look again to "Final Stand" where numerous comments have been made against the current "outside of combat, characters can do whatever the GM says" rule. Granted this is still the design tweaking stage, but what is being expressed there if not Social Contract issues about the role of rules authority vs GM authority vs player authority.

So in a nut shell, I do agree that most Social Contracts go unspoken (let alone written) I also strongly contend that explicitly acknowledging (even if its just to raise the issue and get affirmative nods from the players) has always been important, but for "new school" games is even more important than it was.

Are you saying that any pre-play discussion is pointless? Or that such is not Social Contract. Social Contracts tend to be created post facto. There is no reason why that need be the case, entirely, however.

See, the way I think about it, is that the Social Contract exists at an umbrella level above any explicitly negotiated agreements. I think a group can explicitly agree that everyone will be on time for game sessions, but it's the Social Contract that determines that Jenny is consequenced with substantial grief from the group when she's late, and Bob gets moderately positive social strokes when he walks in the door, in the form of the rest of the group calling him a "late fuck." I think explicitly negotiated agreements are only as good as the Social Contract above them, and that you can't negotiate the Social Contract. You take what you get.

I think you can have conversation at the Social Contract level, but it generally takes the form of "checking to see that we're in agreement," rather than actually establishing agreement. You can explicitly negotiate "no idle chatter" with your game group. But the Social Contract determines how well, and how long, that agreement will stick.

Paul

Well, we're obviously considering different levels here. But even that deepest level of Social Contract could be discussed if you wanted to. That would be called group therapy, or some sort of Playgroup counseling (lke marriage counseling).

Again, not that I advocate addressing that level. We are talking about the more overt goals of play when we say Social Contract. We just want to make things that were formerly (and wrongly) taken for granted to be the subject of potential discussion. In case participants feel the need. Instead of that tacit agreement that Ralph describes where everyone just accepts the form of play because they don't realize that there might be others, or that their opinion counts.

Just trying to promote communications at all phases of the game. Would it suffice to refrain from using the phrase "Social Contract", and just point to some sorts of things that would make for a good groundwork to discuss before play? That's all I'm trying to promote.

I don't want to get into too much of a sematic argument of the meaning of Social Contract as it pertains to RPGs, here.

Mike

Would it suffice to refrain from using the phrase "Social Contract", and just point to some sorts of things that would make for a good groundwork to discuss before play? That's all I'm trying to promote.

Yeah...I think promoting explicit agreements about things that otherwise go undiscussed is definitely worthwhile. Perhaps we just need a different term for that kind of explicit agreement.

Paul

Actually, I'd be much more inclined to use a different term for what you're describing Paul, since there is absolutely no "contract" whatsoever in the level of social connection depicted in your example.

There is no contract with out an agreement of some kind...implicit or explicit, and there is no agreement in the group's reaction to Bob and Jenny.

There is no way I'll buy into the idea that "take what you get" deserves to be associated with the term "social contract". What you're describing is more properly described as a Group Dynamic or Chemistry than a contract, IMO.

Pre-game Assumptions? That sounds pretty agreeable.

Mike

To be fair, Ralph, the original idea (Hobbes) of social contracts is that they are forced on us unconsciously and unfairly.

But also that only be addressing them conciously can we make them fair and equitable.

Mike

If you are referring to Thomas Hobbes, Mike, I'd have to disagree strenuously. Hobbes was all about explicit contracts in society. Perhaps the most famous example of which is "I agree not to steal from you and you agree not to steal from me". Further, "I agree to give up my right to self governance to an outside authority in return for that authority agreeing to force you to live up to your end of the contract to not steal from me".

He builds up the entire idea of social contract from his Laws of Nature which he took great pains to elucidate explicitly.

Paul Czege wrote:

Mike Holmes wrote: Would it suffice to refrain from using the phrase "Social Contract", and just point to some sorts of things that would make for a good groundwork to discuss before play? That's all I'm trying to promote.

Yeah...I think promoting explicit agreements about things that otherwise go undiscussed is definitely worthwhile. Perhaps we just need a different term for that kind of explicit agreement.