The group with which I have been playing the past year or so is a mixed bag of player types, more or less consisting of two Storytellers, a Method Actor, a Casual Gamer, a Specialist, and a Power Gamer (I'm using the designations from Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering since my grasp of GNS is less than perfect).

I have been soliciting feedback for a number of prospective campaigns, but hoped to find developed ideas for creating a definitive play contract so I can better determine beforehand what concepts might actually fly... er, complement everyone's play-styles... rather than continually having to check and double-check with each person every time a new campaign idea is proposed.

Has anyone created a checklist or outline for establishing a play contract?

This has been something of a Holy Grail of mine for years, and recently I have been wondering whether such a thing could be done. I recall many a post on rec.games.frp.advocacy about play contract, but never found any sufficiently developed methodologies.

A checklist would be awesome. It would also be interesting if anyone with programming skills could develop a checklist into an online play-compatibility quiz of some sort.

The one thing I've found from gaming is that simply asking "what kind of game do you like?" or "What is fun to you?" only draws blank stares. Perhaps the checklist could be formatted as a series of brief examples of play, then a multiple choice reaction to the example.

Bob is playing Meat, a barbarian commander leading an army of scoundrels on a campaign of pillaging and conquest. He primarily solves his problems with gory, cinematic violence. Bob prefers to assume the success of his character's actions, delighting more in the description of his acts' outcomes than seeing if they can be done.

What do you think of how Bob plays?
1. Assuming success is unfair and unbalanced.
2. Hell yes, the description is always the most fun part of play.
4. Yada yada yada
5. Yada yada yada

Hello,

Hi Michael, I used to have a pretty explicit play contract built into my Champions games during the 1980s. We usually handled it through discussion before play, or through a GM (me)-centered screening process. In retrospect, it wasn't all that sophisticated in terms of aesthetic preferences, especially since what was meant by "story" wasn't too clear in my own mind. But it did a very nice job of making sure that the group was socially cohesive enough to let GNS-stuff get handled decently during play.

1. Everyone attends every game. Unless everybody's there, no one plays. If you can't make it to a particular session, it's your responsibility to inform everyone else and either arrange an alternate date or arrange to cancel out the session.

2. You're expected to know your character and take an active part in play. Associated with this as well are things like surveys (some in-character, as if to a news reporter, some player-oriented like "three fave villains" and so forth).

3. Everyone brings something for everyone to eat. Candy, doughnuts, etc, are not enough; it has to be real food.

4. Play includes breaks, for smoking, chilling out, whatever.

Less formally, we also had "game group dinners" every so often, whether at a restaraunt or at someone's place. And driving/arrival arrangements were expected to be established, not "work it out as we go."

It was quite a shock to some new folks, when I was setting up play after moving to Gainesville FL in 1989, that I meant all of the above. A couple of people agreed to the above, then were amazed that I simply dropped them from play if they wouldn't comply. The remaining folks became extremely loyal to one another after that, not due to "fear" I think, but rather because we had established our ties at the social rather than the imaginative level.

This was all long ago though. My late 30s are very different from my mid-20s in this regard.

Daniel, if we're talking about GNS-stuff, the key issue is to think all the way down from Social Contract, through the five elements of Exploration as interacting pieces, then "in action" via GNS to the Techniques of play, and finally, to the Ephemerae of things like Stances and narration. Just remember that each step is a subset or application of a previous one; that's crucial.

Most quizzes or surveys of the sort you're thinking of fail this criterion badly - they ask about Ephemerae or rarely Techniques when they think they're asking about GNS.

Best,
Ron

Part of what I'd like out of a play contract seems, from what I've read so far, almost like the establishment of tenets at the beginning of a game of Universalis. One person in our group, for example, hates time travel and alternate worlds. Another doesn't enjoy fantasy in the least. We end up quibbling over setting and system and genre-specific details, the net result of which is that no one can agree on which game they want to play next.

I typically ask prospective players how important various aspects of play are to them, such as action and suspense, leadership and diplomacy, politics and scheming, and exploring the milieu. I use these answers to identify a "campaign default"... the average mix of aspects necessary to keep everyone reasonably happy with the progress of the campaign in any given game session. Even this has not proven an ideal solution, as many I've met have very different definitions of these things.

Hence my quandary...

Hi Michael,

The following is strictly my personal take on the issue, and I really don't want you to perceive it as "instruction." I'm interested in what you think of it, for sure.

In all the collaborative artistic work I've done - music of several kinds, comics, theater, and (peripherally, as a consultant) film - it seems clear to me that full-consensus, preloaded commitment among everyone to be "happy" with the work, is not a viable strategy.

Direction, oddly enough, seems to be necessary. At the beginning, if person A is 25% all right with the direction, and person B is 75% all right with it, and persons C and D are 100% for it, and the "leader" is 80% for it (and yes, the "leader" may not be the single most committed person) ...

... then the question is whether everyone gets along, artistically speaking, well enough to go that direction at all.

And then, over time, interactions and adjustments occur among people as the "work" gets made, such that the real direction is found. And in this case, for purposes of this time spent among ourselves, the real people are all thoroughly committed.

So it seems to me as if you might be trying to reach consensus or commitment regarding "the content" or "the work" when it might better be established among the people to work toward arriving there, rather than being there from the outset.

And this issue is indeed on-topic for this forum, because differing GNS preferences represent the single most important stumbling block in this process. I'm not saying they can't be overcome, although I suspect that in many such cases, the "work" suffers badly, which for some is a problem and for others not.

But GNS preferences are best understood as a vector, existing in real time and real play, from the five elements of Exploration (especially System) to the combined Techniques of that instance of play. They exist in application, not in labels or attitudes or rhetoric. For instance, of course most people say they care about "story." That's mere noise.

So what can a group settle upon before play begins? Exactly what we're discussing - how are we going to treat one another and establish a Social Contract (a) about the physical and logistic "space" of play, and (b) regarding the role-playing itself. I'm claiming that (b) is best handled as a process, over time, including the willingness to lose or gain a person or two, rather than as a fixed "we all agree" kind of pact from the start.

Best,
Ron

Hi, Raconteur...

In addition to Ron's comments above, you might want to go check out this thread, where I asked (and then answered to the best of my own ability) pretty much the same question. Not to blow my own horn, but I think my long posts in that thread are a reasonable start on what you're looking for.

The content there is slightly different as I address the social contract rather than the play contract, which distinction is likely negligible on the level of definition but relevant on the level of connotations - Ron's comments above being a good example of something more relevant to one than the other.

Hope that helps,

- Eric

Hi,

I was thinkin' about the in-game focus of your questions, Michael, and realized that I used to be pretty hard-line about that too back in the Champions days.

I played a lot of Champions, with a number of groups. After the first experience, I always made damn sure that everyone was on the same page as far as what sort of comic we were engaged in "creating." "Superheroes" wasn't good enough. Even a title wasn't good enough, for a long-running book; I wanted to know what span of years was involved. Post-Phoenix X-Men, Silver Age Fantastic Four, and late-70s Legion of Superheroes are very different animals ...

Fang Langford used the term "genre expectations" to describe this sort of agreement, and his thoughts about that are extensively presented in the Scattershot Forum. By "genre," he meant something very specific, such that "western" would be too broad by far.

I still exercise a fair amount of this effort pre-play, although now we do it much more socially rather than "listen to the GM." One exception came a couple+ years ago, when we played Hero [Quest; Wars at the time], I pointed to Heortland and said, "Here's where," and then just answered questions about it. I didn't even present the possibility of playing elsewhere, and I would definitely not have supported a free-for-all character session prior to indicating a place on the map. Given the scope of the setting, the players were all right with that.

More recently, in prepping for Pocket Universe, what we did is more typical for us now: I described the system, which in this case is a very well-constructed generic/point task resolution engine, and then suggested that I wanted to play "mundane."

I listed police procedural, street gang 'hood, pre-agricultural tribal, modern spy (not "spy thriller" but rather drama), 1940s detective, and asked for suggestions as well. We ultimately chose what we wanted to do through some discussion, and that was that. Making characters after that point was very easy.

So my observation is that "on the same page" expectations for in-game content are also important, but perhaps are best handled through suggestions, even if the group does indeed have a "final buck" at which the decision stops.

Best,
Ron

Part of the problem is that none in the group really wants to tell anyone that they have to leave because their desires are not in accord with those of the rest of the group. The biggest issue is that certain group members do not want to break up the group in any way, so the persons who refuse to compromise yet insist on being part of the group effectively control the group's decisions as to the genre and rules being used. It has developed to the point that I am prepared to leave the group out of frustration more than anything else.

Wow! In other words, "Being together is more important than having fun together." Placed into the context of almost any other social activity besides role-playing, that would constitute extremely intolerable behavior. Typically, the other members would simply schedule their activities away from the offending parties and be done with it.

You might be interested in an older discussion at the Archives section of the Sorcerer website, as well as a critical discussion here at the Forge last year called Social Context. I'll go grab some links.

Got'em!
Playing in the band
Social Context

Best,
Ron

A lot of it comes down to the two Storytellers and the Method Actor (me) wanting to branch out into something other than the same-old same-old (we're the three who do most of the gamemastering and deep roleplay), and this not being well-received by the Specialist and the Tactician (not Power Gamer as I previously mentioned... he likes to "win" more than having lots of fiddly bits) who are pretty much enamored of GURPS to the detriment of all other games.

The point is moot, however, as I and one of the Storytellers (our principle Star Trek gamemaster) announced our departures tonight. This has my Casual Gamer girlfriend distressed, as hers has been one of the loud voices for keeping the group together regardless. Thus, the group endeth and a play contract is no longer necessary. It would still be interesting to pursue this idea to its conclusion, for future use...

Hi Michael,

H'm, to me, it seems as if the idea has reached its conclusion, and not necessarily a negative one. In other words, one of the implications of the concept of a Social Contract is that sometimes it's not feasible.

For one more reference, check out my comments on the difference between Social Contract as an explicit or even written phenomenon and Social Contract as a somewhat larger and partly-non-explicit phenomenon, in my review of Universalis.

Best,
Ron

Hey all,
I was reading this thread and it brought to mind a series of discussions I've had w/ my pal Matt Snyder on this topic. We agreed that the most important thing in gaming is the Fun Factor. From there, we've diverged a bit. He's on one mountain top saying that all of this GNS stuff is pretty important, while I'm across the valley on the other mountain saying that that it's less important than the group dynamic (IOW, how do we function socially first, and then as a game troupe second.)
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.)
A group (or troupe) that gets along outside of gaming is a golden thing. I feel very fortunate to have a troupe that can just as easily hang out over a few beers as play a game together. This is where the 'magic' is for me. I think that more important than all of the GNS/ Powergamer/ Rules lawyer/ etc...designations is the trust and loyalty factor of the group of people getting together in the first place. After all, gaming is (in part) the verbalization of a shared fantasy. A game can be a intimate disclosure of sorts, in the same way that sharing one's dreams and desires can be. If that's the case, then a game troupe should be formed of people who you like and trust, and who in return, like and trust you. In the recent cases of when we've collectively booted people from our troupe, it wasn't because of what type of gamer they were, but rather because the like and trust factors were not met.
I've wandered a bit off the mark here, so before I go further, I'll wrap up. I would say that the most important aspect of putting together a successful play troupe isn't in the questionaires, or in the gamer archetypes, or surveys, or even in asking 'what type of game do you like?'
The most critical issue is knowing how to pick your pals and making sure that they are the type of people you want to hang out with. If you do this first, the rest of the details will fall into place.

Warm Regards

The GM wrote:
The most critical issue is knowing how to pick your pals and making sure that they are the type of people you want to hang out with. If you do this first, the rest of the details will fall into place.

Anthony I wrote:

>>I would say that having similar gaming priorities is more important- for gaming- than being friends is. Afterall, you can become friendly with other gamers, but it's nigh near impossible to convince some people to change their set-in-concrete ways.<<

Interesting. I guess what I'm referring to is not about picking friendly acquaintances. A good example; another of my hobbies is gardening. I have a group of like minded people that I trade tips and techniques with, and even plants on occasion. I am friendly with these people, I like them, but I would not call them friends. We share a hobby, and that's about it. Yes, I can see how gaming could be viewed that way, and that's fine. However, if you pick only acquintances for your gaming troupe then you'll not have the kind of flexibility and latititude in your style of play that you would by having close friends as a part of your troupe. I'm NOT saying that your way is wrong, or that anyone's way is. I have just found that my friends, who have a shared history w/ me outside of gaming, afford me a degree of trust when it comes to changing game styles, method of play, type, etc... I do the same for them. I play games with them that I would never seek out on my own, that aren't to my personal preference and so forth. Bottom line: It doesn't matter! What matters is that I enjoy hanging out with my pals. In this way, everyone gets what they want and there is no loggerhead about what to play, how to play it, when to play it, or whatever. We indulge each other's whims and are happy to do it. This is the advantage of playing w/ friends as opposed to playing with acquaintances. We are comfortable enough with each other that compromise comes fairly easily. But that's really a different thread topic, I suppose.

(EDIT: added 'I' in last paragraph)

The GM wrote: He's on one mountain top saying that all of this GNS stuff is pretty important, while I'm across the valley on the other mountain saying that that it's less important than the group dynamic.

The Shit Sandwich Principle wrote: No amount of adjusting the other ingredients will make a shit sandwich palatable.

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.

Walt Freitag wrote:

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.

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

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. <<

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

Lisa, The GM, wrote: 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.)

Mike Holmes wrote: 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?

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.

RaconteurX wrote: "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.

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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

Everything I write is 'according to Adam.' People can take what they like and use it and toss the rest. I don't presume to tell people what they need. The topic subject is Play Contract "Checklist"? and no one has attempted to post a checklist yet so I gave it a try. That's all. =)

My own play contracts evolved out of necessity. When I started my game several years ago, the verbal contract was something like, "Let's play once a month at Adam's house. He will run some D&D 3E and we can learn the rules as we go. We'll make up 1st level characters any way we want and Adam will come up with some kind of world to play in -- whatever he wants."

It was years later that the problems caused by the lack of a more formal contract caused me to start spelling out some things.

The play contracts for my own games don't even cover all that stuff in the checklist. A lot of it wasn't necessary for my group.

I thought the idea of the checklist was to enumerate some things that everyone should consider (not necessarily include) when making a play contract. I expect that people will interpret the various subjects differently and handle them in numerous ways. Great!

Adam

Makes sense!

Best,
Ron

See, all the evidence here points to why I object to the idea of a list.

Michael*, "The GM", I agree that the social stuff that I listed is, in a way, too easy to actually need a list. That is, we're all used to performing social interaction to the extent that that end tends to take care of itself. So we don't need that, I guess.

I just have to take a moment here to say that I think that the tradition of GM being host is not a good one. IME, play goes much better if one of the players hosts. Leaving the GM free from extraneous concern while play occurs. Especially if, like me, you're not the greatest host to begin with. :-)

Anyhow, once we're past that, however, I think that you're starting to get into more GNS sorts of things. The one that I suppose that I'd accept as social, but pertaining directly to RPGs is questioning what subjects are uncomfortable for players.

Outside of that, however, I think that the non-social stuff (given that we've already discounted the purely social stuff) Adam's list or one like it, while well thought out, isn't going to help. That's because this sort of list just gives the players a chance to disagree before hand. You're giving over to the players the authority to try to decide these things individually.

I was in the military. I believe that, while trying to cater to people isn't a bad thing, that having a central authority is more important in executing team plans. So, what I'd do, is to fill out Adams' list with my own single vision for how to play, and then go out and find players who want to play that game. This makes the process much shorter and much more effective, IMO. Basically I'm saying what Ron has said above about the band metaphor.

What about the players that you'll lose (I hear a cry and hue already)? I posit that you lose more by trying to compromise. Further, if you make a well stated set of goals and objectives for play, I posit that players will see that as a positive thing and want in. Coherency of vision is attractive. In any case, assuming that you're the GM, most players want to be led anyhow, IMO, at least on this level of issues.

Think of it this way. If I say, "Hey, I'm playing Monopoly, wanna play?" players don't worry too much about what game is being played, they just join in under the assumption that it's fun to play a coherent game with their friends. You don't say, "Hey, let's play Monopoly, but before we get started, let's try to agree on whether we want to play competitively with all the rules, or more casually."

Now, that sounds like I'm contradicting what I said above to The GM. But it's not. GNS is not about setting up a game that only some players will like. IMO, there are no Gamists, meaning that there are really very few players who really dislike the Sim and Nar modes. What there are, IMO, are players who, confronted with games that don't have a coherent mode of play indicated, default to the Gamist mode. That is, if presented with a coherent Narrativist game, the "Gamist" player becomes a Narrativist while playing it, most often.

As I see it, GNS is not about selecting players at all. It's about presenting how to play the game in a clear way such that, in play, expectations will be met. Incoherence is play where expectations aren't being met.

So, you don't need a checklist. You need a clear vision. Give that to your players, and they'll either self select, or play contentedly. It's only the complexity of RPGs that make them more susceptible to this sort of problem than other activities. Understand the complexities, and you'll have no problems creating the clear vision. Some people do this intuitively. Hence why they don't need to understand GNS.

Mike

*Sorry about the Mike thing, but you're the first Michael that I've met that prefers that. When people call me that, I look over my shoulder for my mother or my wife, expecting a chore. :-)

I have to agree with Mike here -- experience has shown me that if you lay down the law, people will hew to it, and this goes for everything. The trick is not to be shy about laying down the law, but without sounding like a fascist.

Of course, the fear of sounding like a bastard is, in my experience, greatly exaggerated... Knowing what the rules are is sometimes off-putting, but it gives a firm foundation to start from even if you don't agree with all of them.

There's laying down the law and then there's leadership. Leadership involves building concensus.

The idea that players will "self select" themselves out of the game isn't practical. More likely, they will join the game and then try to change things and complain about things they don't like. If you have mature players, you'll have fewer problems like these, but you'll still have some.

Yeah, you can write out a play contract and say, "This is my game and this is how I am running it. If you want to play, you can play by the rules. If not, sod off." All you do is set up opportunities for resentment.

If you write a play contract as a group, then you have buy-in. The ideal situation is that everyone playing the game takes ownership of the game's success.

We talk about sharing authorial and directorial power within the game. I think there's value in sharing metagame power, as well. After all, it's a social contract, not a set of commandments handed down to the players. Or at least, I think it ought not to be a set of commandments.

All IMO, of course.

Hello,

I'm with Adam on this one ... but with Mike and Kirt as well.

The reason that's possible is that I think we all agree that it's not a dichotomous situation. The choice is not between "My way, my game, and I say so" and "Let's all airy-fairily agree on everything while predicating nothing." Rejecting the one extreme doesn't mean adopting the other.

The key lies in the term "leadership," and that can work in a variety of ways. The one point that seems common to the above three posts is that it has to work in some way for a given group of people, rather than be set aside or ramped up to dictatorship.

Differences between, say, my actual application for a particular group of people, and, say, Adam's are not going to matter much (for purposes of discussion) in comparison to our agreement about the basic point.

Best,
Ron

Mike Holmes wrote: I was in the military. I believe that, while trying to cater to people isn't a bad thing, that having a central authority is more important in executing team plans. So, what I'd do, is to fill out Adams' list with my own single vision for how to play, and then go out and find players who want to play that game. This makes the process much shorter and much more effective, IMO.

I think, John, that you can have both coherence of vision and varied points of view. Why can't people express varied viewpoints during the contract agreement phase?

And a social contract is a living document, not a stone tablet. As viewpoints vary over the course of gameplay, your group can adjust the social contract to fit.

What Adam said. I'm not saying that things can't change (I shouldn't have used the term "execute"). In fact, I tend to believe that it can't happen that things won't change. I'm just saying that the best way to start is to have a coherent plan at that point. Once play starts, it will no doubt adjust to suit all better. But if you don't start with that coherent vision, it will take longer to get there, and that may be too long. Players may have left by then.

I don't think it's impossible to come up with a coherent vision by committee. I just think it's more difficult, more susceptible to problems, and unneccessary. It's just easier to start with a single vision that makes sense, and change as neccessary.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: I'm just saying that the best way to start is to have a coherent plan at that point. Once play starts, it will no doubt adjust to suit all better. But if you don't start with that coherent vision, it will take longer to get there, and that may be too long. Players may have left by then.

I don't think it's impossible to come up with a coherent vision by committee. I just think it's more difficult, more susceptible to problems, and unneccessary. It's just easier to start with a single vision that makes sense, and change as neccessary.

Again, John, I'm not saying it can't work that way. I'm just saying, as you point out, that IME having a single vision is a more stable way to start. But, no doubt milage will vary on this one.

Still, that doesn't mean that I can imagine a single checklist that will work for each group to establish things democratically (the topic here, after all). That is, I think it would suffice to have a discussion on the subject, or to modify as you go. Which you suggest works. So, even if you're not going with the single vision, I still doubt that a list is going to help. I'd guess that in such a case where this will work, the list will be redundant.

Basically, either the group has enough cohesion that it'll work democratically, and the central vision and list are both unneccessary, or the group needs a little help, in which case I'd say that the central vision is the way to go. The list method I see as breeding lots of potential problems.

Mike