(See Bruce Baugh's query about Limiting Character Types for the thought which sparked this off.)

Thinking about social contracts, I'm coming increasingly to the conclusion that this is the one area where the state of the art is, frankly, lacking. Discussion revolving around the Impossible Thing shows that people come to the table and, from the same sets of printed materials, actually evolve remarkably different social contracts. [As far as I can tell, most replies to The Impossible Thing consist of the statement, "Here is one version of a functional social contract."] This is good, variety is life - except that if there's a single most common source of gaming dysfunction, IMO it's poorly understood or inconsistent social contracts. I know those of my gaming groups have sometimes crumbled under the weight of competing assumptions and so on.

Existing text addressing this just does not seem to convey what's necessary. "How to play" text (a) seldom gets read, and (b) tends not to grab the imagination. Partly this comes from its placement in the book - often amid some other fairly dry content, possibly relegated to the GM's section which "players shouldn't be reading anyway." Partly from a perceived low priority - definitely below the interesting stuff of rules and setting, right? Isn't anything else in an RPG book just filler? :) And partly from the intrinsically dull nature of advice-as-text. It also generally doesn't talk about the social contract itself in so many words - it assumes that the playgroup basically already has some sort of semifunctional social contract, and will adapt same to this game. In fact, Nobilis is the only game which springs to mind which addresses the social contract itself, by name - and in my experience this section failed in its purpose, possibly because the issues Bergstrom focuses on (player comfort zones, for example) are just not issues which play hobgoblin to my playgroup, whereas some which Bergstrom skips over are boogum'd snarks indeed, locally.

This is an area which needs work.

First off, can anyone point me at other good social contract resources? Advice text which actually pulls its weight in your opinion, whether in a game book (probably hiding in the GM's section), or elsewhere (I should really pick up Robin's Laws at some point). Specifically, I think we don't yet even have a good list of what comprises the contract, what elements may or may not need negotiating in your group. I may simply be behind the times - if so, a link to appropriate discussion would be appreciated instead. (Fang, I think that's your cue... but I have to admit that I have yet to penetrate far enough into Scattershot's own thick brand of jargon to be able to find it on my own.)

I think ideally, we would start out by acknowledging the list and the need for the negotiation phase of things. Then we work on making it less intimidating, less jargony, and better supported - social contract backed up by useful, thought-provoking mechanics and other "high priority" game content. There's lots of these, right now - distribution of directorial power in Adventure! or Donjon, for instance. "How do you share directorial authority?" is definitely one of the questions on the social contract list, and these games answer that one centrally. Several of the other questions (for example, tardiness and related issues) are harder for the game designer to address - but not all of them, and some game designs do actually provide, or at least imply, explicit solutions to social contract issues which you might assume would be GM-player only. [In Continuum, if a player fails to show up for a session, it's perhaps cause for IC concern, but it's remarkably simple to resolve at the table - characters go "poof" all the time, it's a feature of the setting, and due to comparative interchangeableness of their capabilities, it's not a really big deal. The same is not true for a classical dungeon crawling game.]

I suspect that this is an area which, here, we gloss over here all too easily as "this part will depend on your local group." This may be true - but it does not mean that the game design can be divorced from this, rather the reverse. And we have few, or no, good examples before us of how to really facilitate this from the design end.

See, I think that this has things backwards. The reason that text that isn't rules doesn't influence play as much as it might it simply because, not being rules, its not in the minds of the participants in play. You can say, "Don't kill the baby kobolds" all you want in the text, but if the rules give you EXP for killing the baby kobolds, you're going to have dead baby kobolds in play.

This is the big problem with The Window. Lot's of talk in the text about how to play, but the rules don't back it up, particularly (which is problematic, really only because players then revert to traditional forms).

The only social contract you need is to play the game in question, assuming that the rules of the game reinforce the style of play that you want to see. Make your rules such that they promote the style of play that you want to promote. Then you can skip almost all that silly "how to play" text. It can just come down to, "do what the rules say."

Mike

Hey,

But Mike - Universalis (remember, the game that you and Ralph wrote?) has an extensive section on forming the Social Contract of play. In fact, I see it as exactly the sort of text that Harlequin's calling for.

What, you're going to say, "But that's rules," right? Doesn't matter. "Rules" is an undefined term.

Best,
Ron

Mike - I have to disagree. (Ron - crossposted, but retained because of nonoverlapping content.)

Take the issue of players being late for the session and holding it up. This is a social contract issue, and one for which local groups need to work out a solution. It is, however, also one which might affect the themes and moods of the game - envision a time-themed game where punctuality was itself very significant to the characters, perhaps Continuum with different rules for IC time-travel: be there at the right time precisely, or get left behind. Lots of room for drama in that, as things try to hold up the PCs before their all-important rendezvous, and they have to fight hard just to be on time.

In theory this would not impact the issue of player punctuality. However, in support of the game's themes and the style of play that would make those themes manifest most strongly, the author of that game would want to have input into the issue of player punctuality - normally not an issue he gets a voice on.

Encoding this in rules is not his only voice, and in this example perhaps not the best one - such rules would come across as pretty intrusive, and say "Drift Me!" in big red letters to many groups. You've picked out the mode of "communicate by rules" and say, never use another way to speak to the players/GM. I say that that's neither warranted nor sufficient - he has other tools in his basket, and if they're more appropriate, then he should use 'em.

Edit: I now want to run the game described above. I think it would resolve a lot of my issues with Continuum, namely to do with losing (as the GM) access to a lot of my stock plots - no race against the clock, no unknown but imminent events, tricky to do many setups like murder mysteries and so on. "Show up for the time beacon" might be the answer I was looking for, as a way to retain Continuum's cool ideas without going mad. (Grin.)

Trying to answer my own questions and live up to my own challenges...

I have a half-formed set of linked ideas for one approach to addressing the social contract in a meaningul, approachable way. It has to do with formalizing terms - not so much in a jargony way, as in the way that game systems all do with their rules terminology, in the hope that this will lend itself much better to interaction with the "real bits" of the game (rules, setting, etc). The eventual goal is to not only taxonomize, but also to apply relevance in play. But a strong first step is to give people the terminology they need, in order to identify which social contract issues matter to them and how strongly they feel about them.

I'm going to point-form things for now, which would turn into full text in such a way as to help playgroups air Social Contract negotiations. Consider this my first draft of a version of the text I was asking for; comments are more than welcome, they're embraced with open arms. Much of this is assumed, either in conventional RP or here at the Forge - I'm still putting it down because it would nonetheless belong in that text.

This is part one of two, and fairly long. It deals with the "advice text" mode, or portion, of communicating the social contract. My intent is (as I've said) that this does not, should not, stand alone... ideally it should be empowered by being interwoven with both rules and setting, so that this subject is actually meaningful in game terms. Part two will follow (possibly tonight), talking about some thoughts on that integration.

******************************
- We assume that the ultimate goal is to have everybody having fun, and specifically having a wonderful evening, every time the group gets together. Nothing is second to this objective - plots, characters, and every other element of the game is just a tool towards this end, to be used not for their own sake but because we enjoy plots, sympathize with characters, and so on.

- The goal of this section is to help clarify and identify the group's consensus, its style of play. Every player has a different set of preferences on all sorts of issues, and moreover those preferences change from day to day. In order for the group as a whole to be having fun, a compromise position will necessarily exist, usually as a form of unspoken consensus. We might call this the 'social contract.'

Gamers' preferences can cover all sorts of ground, and we will list only some common examples of issues which might get aired at the table; anything that a player or GM feels could make things more fun is, by definition, a valid issue.

- Unspoken consensus is always a very slippery object. Everybody has their own mental picture of what that consensus is, and every version of that picture is different. If different mental pictures clash, the result is not generally as much fun as it could be. So it can sometimes - maybe even always - be useful to verbalize, or at least have the ability to clearly verbalize, the disconnect. The classic example of such a disconnect has to do with control issues, the player's control of his character and the GM's control of the world. (*We'll probably sidebar in a running example of play, alongside all of this text, to illustrate this.*)

- It's probably useful to look at the consensus process in two stages. Initial negotiations, and disconnects during play.

At the start of the game, there's a process of initial "negotiation." If the GM wants to run a game about heroes, that's a point he's asking to have included. If one player agrees but wants to play a tragic, ultimately failed hero, that's something he's asking in turn. A lot of this negotiation is set by the game system you choose, not only at the obvious level - this is a game about knights and castles - but also at subtler levels, in the assumptions made by the game itself - the honour rules will assume that you value loyalty, and that your character has someone to be loyal to. If the group wants to change some of these assumptions, it is a very good idea to have that clear - which means understanding those assumptions in the first place. Another big chunk of the consensus is set by the campaign that the GM, or whoever is proposing that you play this game, is envisioning. This game will have everyone start out as grown boys dreaming of knighthood - does that sound cool? Big factor number three is tradition and the social dynamic. If this is an existing group, then "the way we usually play" is another black box which is probably already pretty solidly in place. If not, then whatever ties brought the group together will dictate other assumptions and preferences.

As soon as we've presented those three big factors to the table, a kind of social contract exists. This group of people wants to sit down to play this game, and specifically start up this story arc or campaign. However, not all issues of the consensus get addressed in this envelope, and some of them do get addressed, but we don't notice them - they are implicit, and therefore slippery. Talking about slippery issues is useful.

- The initial discussion really only serves as a springboard for play. Half the time, you'll probably look at some of the questions below and answer, "I'm not sure - it depends." Coming up with clear answers to this sort of thing is both a knack (for verbalizing gut reactions) and is, itself, an issue on which one can have a preference - formalizing things is not everybody's cup of tea. We suggest the initial discussion, even if it partly flops - it helps if somebody goes out on a limb and answers first! - because then you've got a baseline to look at things if and when they come up.

- During play the consensus gets stretched, changed, and tested. What you thought you wanted may not be what you actually want - in general, today, or right this instant. What you thought the consensus was, on this issue, may not agree with someone else's vision of the same. What he just did stepped on your toes, bugged you, or left you bored. Whether you've verbalized the consensus or not, it's the yardstick by which anything gets judged. We assign each other social credit, trust, respect - we just do. Living by the consensus gets you credit; breaking it costs you some, in direct proportion to how much it annoys people. Stretching it probably costs you a little credit, but if the payoff is more fun, then you get that back and then some. The consensus is incredibly flexible - exactly as flexible as the gamers we use it to describe. We do all of these things automatically, whether or not anybody at the table has ever read these words.

- It's useful to have words for things. Especially during play, when digressing into a squabble or even into theory may detract from the fun (though note that this, too, is a matter for consensus!), being able to more easily and efficiently get your point across is golden. As such, there are a couple of terms we identify as pertinent to the consensus itself. They're ordinary language, and should come as no surprise... but if you use these terms instead of their hundreds of synonyms, then others who've read this section will more easily understand you, and often that's all it takes.

***************
- There exists a default. A solid consensus probably has a normal mode - maybe the GM usually defines all the details he considers relevant about a scene, but the players are welcome to ask for more information, and even introduce scene elements without contradiction - but only for the purposes of "special effects." You'd probably use this mostly in clarifying the consensus - I thought that was the default.

- One can assert authority on some issue. Try using that word specifically, if the other players have read this. If you want something that you think lies in a grey area of the consensus, you're asserting your desire for it. It may be a grey area because it was previously unexplored, or it may be because it depends on circumstances. Perhaps you want to add a scene element which pushes the boundaries of "special effect" - you intend to actually shoot that fire extinguisher, and 'acquiring a tool' may be a little stronger than we normally allow. You're asserting yourself about the scene-elements issue. If the consensus is solid and everybody's friends, then you'd never refer to this, you'd just do it, with the understanding that you're stretching beyond the default, and presumably trying not to overstep the flexibility of that grey area... but if that's in doubt and somebody wants to refer to what you're doing, then he can use this term and you'll understand him.

- One can question something another gamer has done or said. This is basically the act of pointing out that you think this is outside the bounds of the social contract. It brings it into question. This is a social game, so of course it's the group - preferably by the ultimate criterion of what will be the most fun overall - which decides if you're right. But again, if you use this term for it, then you've at least got a starting point for such discussion.

- Finally, one can - and occasionally will - bitch about something. It happens. Flag this term, identify it as such, and bring it into social contract terms - what bothered you? What does our group have to say about it? Being bitched at, and having the consensus against you, will cost you trust. Bitching, when everyone else sees it as unnecessary, will do the same thing. In either case, though, anytime someone airs a beef, respect them - it takes a certain amount of built-up annoyance before they'll speak up - and try to repair the social contract. Only once some sort of consensus is achieved (even, "he's right, that was dumb") will it be any fun to go back to playing.
**************

Every group has a social contract, but some social contracts are healthier and more robust than others. Recognizing it in these terms should help. A healthy social contract:
- Is neither totally one-sided, nor purely democratic. Individual voices are weighted by their level of respect, their emotional stake in the issue at hand, and a dozen other things. Neither one man's say, nor the will of the mob, accurately models what's really going on among the social circle, and all we're trying to do is describe what's really there.
- Is open. The right to assert yourself about an issue, question someone's actions, and bitch if necessary, should be mandatory for a healthy consensus. If you suspect someone is being cut out - even by themselves - help cut them in.
- Is conscious of the objective. To roleplay, today, and have fun doing it. Don't get bogged down in theory or argument - use "yeah, but would that be more fun?" to cut through Gordian knots. Consensus issues are necessarily here-and-now.
- Is positive. This follows from having fun. Even in the worst bitching, remember that these are your friends, and try to focus your own attention on improving the situation. Back away and read this section again while you cool off.
- Is flexible. It never writes things in stone. What worked for the consensus yesterday may be obnoxious today. Precedent loses out entirely to enjoyment of the game. Try saying yes - and then evaluating the result.
- Is responsible. An awareness of your own actions, and a willingness to answer for them, helps a lot. Try checking this short list every so often. Air problems promptly (though often after the game is best), admit to your mistakes, live up to resolutions to do better.
- Is trusting. Assumes as the default that other players are here for the sake of everybody's fun, and will consciously act to promote your own enjoyment. Strive consciously to be worthy of that trust.
******************

A list of things worth looking at, and potentially questioning any existing assumptions on, follows. If what's being done about any of these things isn't making you have more fun, then ask - maybe everybody else feels the same way.

- Physical Level - Where will we play? Do we need a table or will a circle of chairs do? What do we do about drinks and food? Is this light level okay, and this music volume? Do we care about the presence of little sisters, toddlers, cats, kibitzers? Should we do something to make it up to the host, or the cook?

- Rules - Does everybody understand them? (Does everybody need to?) Are there any rules we're ignoring, adding, modifying? Is there any rule that someone feels is not helping the game out (too powerful, awkward to use in play, anything), that maybe should get changed? Are there enough copies of the rulebook?

- Comfort Issues - Are there any social dynamics we should be noticing and keeping in mind - don't send his character and his sister's out alone or they'll end up fighting, he's attracted to her and wants to indulge in some IC romance - or doesn't want that, too scary or risky, thank you. Is there anything that makes you uncomfortable about what we're discussing, or indeed about what just happened? Do the campaign's ideas risk offending you (perhaps if handled poorly), or confusing you, or just boring you? Some of these comfort issues are not ideally handled by airing them to the group at large. Smaller groups are okay, too, especially if the issue doesn't concern the rest of the group. What's important is that consensus exist, where it's relevant.

- Authority Issues - These are often the really nasty ones, and are the ones most worth talking over. They often boil down to one question: Where does the GM/player boundary lie? Who is responsible for what? None of these questions are cut-and-dried, and they tend to depend on what's important to your enjoyment of the game. Someone who enjoys the sweeping arc of overall drama will feel differently about some of these than a player whose greatest enjoyment is in the details of immersing himself in his character's unshakeable will. As such, try not to answer any of them in black or white; try to give a feel for where your boundaries lie, what makes you uncomfortable, and so on. Unless the group wants to, outlaw none of the options below - there are no "bad solutions" on these lists, even if many of them represent styles you wouldn't normally play.

- Player territory... is it okay for the GM to assume your character's natural responses and narrate a scene? Is it okay, but only if you know that you have the right to correct him? Is it never okay, and you'd rather he just fed you information, and let you do the responding on behalf of the character? This issue often highlights the trust level of the group, or a particular player. Try to trust the others not to diminish your fun. Try to be worthy of that trust.

- GM's territory... what's in the room? Should a player find out from the GM (who already knows one way or the other), or ask the GM (who decides at that time), can he add the tool to the scene if it seems reasonable (and how strong an objection does it take to contradict this)? Can he add it even if it seems improbable - do you trust him to do this responsibly?

- What controls the flow of the action? Can the GM build intricate plots and expect the players to follow along without strong, preexisting in-character motivations to do so? He can't always know them inside out - what does he do when they decide to do the completely unexpected? Do the characters always do exactly what the player feels they're motivated to do, or do the players give the GM's plot desires some "weight" in their decisions? How much? Do the players try to avoid ending up in situations where what the character wants is completely unexpected and outside the GM's plans? How hard do they try? Is some introductory scene-setting (you have been captured by Hidoku and imprisoned...) acceptable, even if it skips over the normal situation-response-effects model in order to get this effect?
This question is a good one to experiment with - you might find that your default is not what you most enjoy, for a given game.

- What part of the experience is the most fun? The exploration of a character's unique mindset? The thrill of triumph over the challenges the characters face? The broad arc of the story's plot, built up from the sum of everything that happens? The knowledge of how important your contribution was, to that plot, or to someone else's favorite part? Just hanging out, the story didn't matter? Or something else? This is an excellent question to bring up after every game - try doing that for a while and then discuss the patterns that come up.

There are a million more... but if your group gets together and goes through this section out loud, then when anything else rears its head as important, then you'll be that much better armed to beat it into well-understood submission.

Hey Harlequin,

Great stuff! I'm been thinking a lot of the same things. Can we compare notes? Mine are down in the Scattershot Forum. I talk about the default in my discussion of Genre Expectations and Scattershot's reward system. I discuss who can assert things in my notes on Who's in Charge (I mention bitching too). I talk about who can question whom in Challenge and Solomon's Auction. I address the whole set of player and gamemaster territories over in Scattershot's Mechanix under Proprietorship (especially in the glossary).

We seem to be on the same wavelength, so I'm really excited to hear what you think of the similarities (and more importantly the differences) in our theories.

Fang Langford

Thanks, Fang.

As I said, I have to admit to having been intimidated, before... but I'm knuckling down tonight to work through not only the above but in fact your posted "reading list" - I like what I've seen of Scattershot, even if (mild criticism) it's not always comforting to see quite that much game-specific jargon all in one place.

On the other hand, I suspect we should compare notes on more than just Social Contract issues, if Complication resolution is the scope I think it is - that is, exactly the same scope as the mechanic I've just hammered out, and am very excited about, for my own stuff. (I haven't been posting that game here at the Forge because it actually may not qualify... there remains a good chance that it technically won't be Indie made, but done up big. Like a little Illusionism in the mix, that doesn't bother me, but it does raise some technicalities.) I'll read over what you've got and, once I recover, I'd be more than happy to compare notes.

***************************

Part Two of Two: Mixing in the Mechanics

This is specifically in context of the game I'm working on. For this part it's only necessary to mention that I'll have two types of "I want it" points in the game, in the form of Will dice and [Divine] Purpose dice. It's heavy on the theological element, so free will vs. destiny is a big motif... but they also serve some other, nefariously hidden, Social Contract purposes.

1) The distinction between the two is that a Purpose die can be spent toward any task that is important to the player - including other characters' actions and even to assert some directorial power - whereas a Will die is spent nearly identically, on tasks that are important to the character. An artificial limitation, that you can only use or the other on a given task, plays up the thematics quite deliberately. Characters can balance out any way you like, and it'll vary over time... a one-sided character should hopefully be as interesting and as powerful as a balanced one. Note that this is not the primary character descriptor, it's the strong tertiary "deciding factor," and is thereby more meta- and less char-descriptive than the names might imply.

Now, I would never dream of bringing up GNS in so many words in a published matter... but if I offer one guy a true author- and even director-stance mechanic, and another guy a sharply actor-stance one of equal "value," I'm hoping I can facilitate getting Narries and Simmies enjoying themselves, and in fact seeing the distinctions between their playstyles as cool variety, maybe even experimenting with the other side for a while.

2) Player territoriality over his character will get a specific mechanic, based on the Fates of the Norwegian Fateplay system. (I'll post that link up elsewhere - it deserves serious discussion here, as a fascinatingly odd and seemingly functional social contract -cum-ruleset.) This will probably serve as the main refresh mode for Purpose dice.

At the start of a session, the GM may offer a PC a Fate - preferably an actual sealed envelope, if he has time, because kinesthetics are powerful. He may put something tantalizing on the outside, if he likes; certain types of Fate may even require this, it's still a tentative setup. The player need not accept if he does not want to, and there are strong injunctions against pressuring him. Accepting the Fate gets the player some Purpose dice to do with as he will. He reads the Fate, which describes actions either taken by his character, emotions felt etc., or perhaps things done to his character - the game otherwise has a strong element of proprietorship, such as a damage system assessed exclusively by the victim. He may have the option to decline, but only by returning the Purpose dice and an equal amount of Will dice.

The dice exchange is clearly described as a formalization of the actual transaction, which is happening at the social contract level. The dice are not the true currency - they are simply the tangible element. The GM asks you if you want to take on this cool thought of his; you can decline amicably (no trust gained or lost), or accept (and receive a literal token of appreciation). If, having accepted, you back out, you end up down a little group-trust-factor, and a few dice.

I'm considering, but have not yet thought through, a parallel mechanic usable by the player, in exchange for trespassing on GM territory. Pass the GM an envelope containing, let's call it a Deed, you wish to do - you assert it strongly enough to be willing to disrupt for this goal. Killing a recurring villain would be a good example. If he accepts, it costs you some number (not sure how best to set this - and nevermind that it works best in a high-trust environment, I'd rather design for medium-trust, everybody has snarky days - ) of Will dice. Having read it, he can decline by giving you back your Will dice and an equal number of Purpose dice, or he can accept that a player wants this badly enough to want it woven into the overall story.

This second mechanic may be too much symmetry, though, and I may stick with spending Purpose points on director-stance actions such as introducing scenery and third parties. Regardless, this makes the dice into a tangible currency loosely tied to the social contract, to give social contract actions more kick.

3) With that in mind, the abovenamed social contract keywords (default, assert, question, bitch) and their associated actions can be emphasized using this loose currency. This won't be necessary - text shall reemphasize that the dice are not the social contract, there is no one-to-one correspondence - but it's an option open to anyone who wishes to have his voice clearly heard.

If you assert, sometimes you feel a little ignored. Put your money where your mouth is - voluntarily spend a Will die to show everybody this matters to you.

If you question, put a Purpose die on the table to represent your challenge to the legitimacy of someone's actions. Give it to him if the group decides it's legit - he was stretching the contract, which is honestly a good thing - or lose it to the pot if the group decides you're right.

If you bitch someone out, the gift of one or the other type (whichever you think he'd appreciate more) after you're done can go a long way toward saying, "Sorry, I just needed to vent. Still friends."

How's that for a start? It's the Game Design Version of the old aphorism: there's an engineering fix for anything. There's a mechanic which can support any set of behaviours or play. My very God, System Does Matter. :)

- Eric

This thread is making me weep with joy.

I know, empty post, but really guys - this is fantastic.

Best,
Ron

That's all cool stuff, Eric.

Ron, rules, not rules, let's avoid that, yes. The point is that even if you don't do the Social Contract thing before play, the rules of Universalis define the "how to play" to an extent that it works (the only needed agreement is to use the rules; you once made that point to me, yourself). It's almost as if doing it this way, there's an unstated Social Contract that: "We're doing this without a safety net of previous discussion, so be careful."

But the "how to play" stuff is tight enough that the basic "who gets to say what happens" part is fairly well covered. Any game can do this with the rules to the extent that in-play control is fairly well understood (if I might say so).

Universalis encourages debating and explicitly establishing social contract issues (like what to do if someone is late) because it is the only game I know that can do this using the rules. Other games might suggest that the participants talk about this stuff but give no framework for it. In Universalis, the social contract can become an explicit part of play in action.

But it should only be done to the extent that the group feels it's needed (and the text says so). Just like anything else in Universalis, the rules are a tool to help the group form consensus on everything related to the game. To the extent that they feel that it's neccessary.

But it's baseline rules are there to prevent the sort of misinterperetation that causes problems like TITBB.

Mike

Hi Mike,

Agreed on all counts!

Best,
Ron

Wow. You could create reward mechanics for player behavior. Show up early, get a bonus die. Show up late, -1 penalty. Players can nominate other players for the "best snack provided" reward. Talk too much about some movie you saw, and you get a "delay of game" penalty. Mention player A's ex and lose a turn.

What if that were the only reward system? Holy cripes, that'd be something to see in play.

Frankly, I think I'd find that intrusive, and I'd put the book that suggested it back down unbought. I'd guess it's the difference between a mechanic which you use to emphasize your comments on the social contract, and a mechanic which itself makes comments on the social contract.

A local group in which I no longer play has a very, very different social contract than mine. They get together at about six, natter about movies and other games until about nine-thirty or ten, and then play through the remaining time until about 11:30, with heavy kibitzing and peanut-gallery stuff. Drives me nuts, but they're all mostly there for the socializing, the game is basically context. I just can't see a mechanic usefully addressing their style and mine at the same time, if the mechanic is actually addressing those specific physical-layer components of play.

Plus it would bug me a lot to have the physical layer translate into game-effectiveness too strongly. I'm too much the gamist for that.

- Eric

I have a whole list of those sorts of rewards for Universalis on the website. Either sporadic rewards, or for "jobs". That is, the host should be reimbursed for hosting, etc.

In the game online, at the end of last session, I Gimmicked in a payment schedule for Bob McNamee who does all the session recording. At the beginning of each session that he's done his job, he'll get 5 more Coins.

Mike

Hi there,

Amber includes any number of out-of-game activities as reward-material for character points: writing poems, drawing pictures, keeping a journal for the character, summarizing the session, and more.

In play, I and my group found that formalizing such things turned out to be a pain in the ass - and we're talking about a group which tends to do such things for fun very consistently (e.g. my character's diary in Le Mon Mouri).

I don't think this reaction is necessarily universal, but I think that providing a mechanism for such a reward system (as in Universalis) would be a far more successful game text than a game which simply presents such a system (as in Amber*).

Best,
Ron

* Yes, I know that these are optional in Amber. That's irrelevant to my point.

Thanks for flagging that, Ron, although we should possibly fling the question of mechanics interweaving with "physical layer" over to another thread, and save this one for its original (more general) purpose.

I found exactly the same thing, with Amber and other games. Even in a group which will spontaneously do such things, the moment you ask for them, inspiration dries up. I do it myself - good intentions plus a week-to-week obligation for written matter turns into failed intentions and in fact a negative experience. Such mechanics get drifted pretty fast.

They're also a slightly different level than granting mechanical gimme's for punctuality and so on. Call the journal the "Contribution level", slightly distinct from the Physical level of munchies and tardiness and all that. At the risk of generalizing, I'd say that such things - possibly at both the above levels - should only get mechanified (?) if they are central to the game... if they're important enough that good intentions will stay good. I'd cite my earlier example, elsethread (Limiting Character Concepts?), of a punctuality mechanic. Usually - stay away from it like the plague. In a game where this reinforces a strong theme? Go for it.

So I guess my earlier response to Matt isn't quite accurate. A random game which used who-brought-munchies, who-gave-lifts as the sole basis for the reward scheme would mostly give me the screaming tribblies... but if that game were, say, Munchkin, or some kind of weird ZEF/FEZ thing (roleplaying a group of gamers, themselves playing a gaming session), then that reward system would tie fairly elegantly to the matter of the work, and would fit nicely.

- Eric

Mike Holmes wrote: I have a whole list of those sorts of rewards for Universalis on the website. Either sporadic rewards, or for "jobs". That is, the host should be reimbursed for hosting, etc.

In the game online, at the end of last session, I Gimmicked in a payment schedule for Bob McNamee who does all the session recording. At the beginning of each session that he's done his job, he'll get 5 more Coins.

Mike

Seems to me that the best thing one could do, really, is take the whole text Harlequin has written, condense it a bit, and ask all the players to read it. Then everybody discusses a bit, then you get cracking on your game, whatever it may be and whatever its mechanics may be. Once you've got everyone aware of the issues, in a clear, simple form, you're a long way toward solving the problems.

Mechanizing isn't going to help, IMO, because as Harlequin pointed out, it's going to seem intrusive. I really like grouped reward systems, such that everyone decides together whom to reward, but keeping the rewards pretty limited in number. This will fail horribly if the group is really dysfunctional socially, but so will just about everything else.

As a final note, I do think that any form of punishment system is a very bad idea. The punishment for being late should be peer-constructed shame. If that doesn't bother the person, then taking points or dice away isn't going to help matters. What you've got to get is player consensus that punctuality matters. If everyone agrees on this, then the one guy who's always late is going to get the hairy eyeball from everyone else.