Proposed Social Contract

[Phil C.]

I'm fishing for players at various websites and my local gaming shops. I made up this social contract to post on my campaign's website.

Thoughts, suggestions?

What is a social contract?

A social contract is an agreement, often implied, regarding behavior in a particular circumstance. Whether we realize it or not, we all operate on tacit social contracts. As an employee, you have certain expectations and formal modes of behavior; as a parent, a teacher, or a friend, you will have separate social contracts for each relationship. Often these social contracts of acceptable behavior and expectations are learned – if not formally discussed between parties.

Why does a gaming group need a social contract?

EVERY gaming group has a social contract, regardless if it was discussed or not. It started the moment new gamers are introduced and accept each other as some form of “friends”, if only for the purpose of gaming. For example, as guests of the host, we know it is inappropriate to pee in their potted plant, or to make a pass at their wife. In terms of the game, most of us have some understanding of the role of the GM and the player.

All too often, however, many issues go unaddressed and result in dissatisfaction, or even argument. This is a direct result of failing to discuss expectations up front – a failure to establish a social contract. So, by laying out the expectations of this particular social group, we can avoid misunderstandings.

ABOUT THE GAME

What game are we playing?

GURPS Banestorm.

When, where, and for how long (per session) does the game happen?

Every Sunday, at 2 p.m., unless otherwise re-scheduled by group. The games will be held at Discordia Games, in Bremerton, WA. Each session will last approximately 4-6 hours.

How many sessions will we play?

The estimated length of this campaign is 9 to 12 sessions. Players are welcome to participate in future campaigns – but this agreement only reflects their commitment to the current one.

What is the style of play (or, how serious are we)?

Realistic role playing is expected and rewarded. While outbursts of humor and socializing are unavoidable, table-talk should be kept to a minimum – and character actions will have realistic consequences.

What is the theme going to be?

The theme of the campaign will lean towards “dark and gritty”, but will include other flavors (political intrigue, war, mystery, etc.) as dictated by the decisions of PCs.

What’s expected of everyone? Do players get full control of their characters or are they suppose to “go along” with the GM’s story?

Players will always be in control of their characters. The GM may use the PC’s motivations and/or weaknesses to encourage a certain path, or “story hook” – but the GM will never “railroad” the PCs.

It is important to note that tabletop role playing is a COOPERATIVE game, and not competitive. The GM will provide opportunities for adventures and stories by appealing to the personalities of the PCs; in turn, if players can find in-character motivation to follow a hook, the whole game becomes a creative collaboration – and is ultimately more fun. But there is no single “acceptable path.” Players should follow their PC’s personalities and reasoning.

Things the players want to see within the game?

As GM, I will try to cater to players’ desires. Some players are actors, power gamers, problem solvers, etc. Once I learn more about each player’s particular expectations, I will try to incorporate that element in the game – without letting one particular aspect dominate the whole game.

Things the GM wants to see in the game?

I would like to see active participation, and at least attempts at role playing. And, as a result, I hope to see people having fun!

What types of rewards are handed out? What types of actions will be rewarded?

Players will receive 3 character points at the beginning of each session, just for showing up. They can use these points during the game in order to avoid an untimely death (per Flesh Wounds option), but any remaining points at the end of the session are experience awards.

Another type of award points are called “bonus points.” These are given out by the GM during the session for good role playing, ingenuity, and teamwork. For example, actually adhering to your character’s disadvantages, even at the cost of personal gain, may earn you bonus points. Between 0 to 10 points can be awarded per 4 hour session. Every 5 bonus points equals 1 character point.

In-game rewards are also possible, depending on successful role playing. A PC may earn a higher reputation for performing good deeds, the favor of a powerful NPC, or discover a long-lost magical artifact.

Will the group split up at all?

There may be occasions when splitting up the group will be tactically advantageous. As stated above, the PCs are free to make such decisions. Splitting up the group on a regular basis, however, is discouraged – as it tends to slow down the game and detract from other players’ opportunity for participation.

OUT OF GAME CONCERNS

Who brings the food, and do we share?

No-one is expected to bring snacks. It is up to each individual player. If the whole group agrees, we can all put the same amount of money into a pool and buy shared snacks.

How do we handle players who can’t make a session? Do we cancel, play without them, play another game, or kick them out?

Unforeseen emergencies and other life events are understandable. But players are expected to keep game night in mind when making other social plans. Every player’s participation affects the group – so giving us at least a few days notice of your absence is preferred. It is not cool to ditch game night because “something better came up.”

Typically, the game will continue in the absence of one player. Two or more, however, may justify rescheduling. If a particular player is repeatedly unable to make it, an attempt will be made to find out if the player is still interested in the campaign, or is simply having scheduling issues.

If a player is not interested in the campaign, PLEASE communicate with the GM – either we can address your dissatisfaction, or at least adapt to your absence.

How do we deal with problems between players?

I’ve never really had a problem with players being outrageously rude towards each other, much less having to ask someone to leave. I expect all of us to act like mature adults and respect the people we’re playing with. Remember, it’s just a game! If a player has any issues with other members of the group, my door is always open.

If life comes up, how do we bow out in good fashion?

Completely understandable – life happens. I only ask that you let me know so I can incorporate it into the story.

RULES RELATED

How do we resolve conflicts about the rules or other in-game stuff?

The GM is the final arbitrator of rules. HOWEVER – I try to be fair and consistent in my application of the rules. Sometimes this works in your favor, sometimes it doesn’t. I try to adhere to the rules, but not to the detriment of game play. And “Rules Lawyers” are welcome! It’s more important to me to be accurate, than to be right – and to that end I find Rules Lawyers to be helpful.

If a PC dies, how do we bring him back?

In the event of a PC’s death, it is unlikely that they will be brought back. Such powerful magic, or miracles, exist – but they are incredibly rare. This is not a high fantasy game where the deceased can be resurrected at the local temple.

The tone of the campaign is one of gritty realism – where players can be maimed or killed, as in real life. Though they may be handy with a sword, it is still unwise to be careless. With that said, let me acknowledge that it is no fun to lose your character to bad luck. For that reason, a player may spend a character point to reduce damage from a single attack, or re-roll any non-combat action. This optional rule is intended to maintain the realism of the game, while giving the players an opportunity to overcome bad rolls that would otherwise cost them their PCs.

MISCELLANEOUS

What about profanity?

It’s probably a good idea to “curb” the profanity if we are playing in a public place, such as Discordia Games.

[The Final Door]

The Social Contract is a brilliant thing. It gets a lot of stuff cleared quickly, and paves the way for better chances at a good group.

Sadly, like so many brilliant things, it is very confusing to have suddenly stuck in your face. I suggest you not mention anything at all about the SC, but simply describe the game by using it as a tool. The whole thing is plain and clear when used like that, and nobody will frown when seeing the word "Contract" on your message.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Phil C.

It is important to note that tabletop role playing is a COOPERATIVE game, and not competitive.

Splitting up the group on a regular basis, however, is discouraged – as it tends to slow down the game and detract from other players’ opportunity for participation.

But players are expected to keep game night in mind when making other social plans. [...] It is not cool to ditch game night because “something better came up.”

FWIW, I would say that these are the points about which the typical gaming group most often needs a reminder.

The first and third items are seriously important to any gaming group, style of play be damned. I've seen more groups wrecked by inappropriate competition (either passive agression or active one-upmanship, even attacks) and by indifferent attendance than by anything else. The elusive player-GM conflict that I've heard so much about from some people might happen, but in 30 years of gaming, I've yet to see that trash a campaign. It's definitely a B-list problem next to these two.

The second item is more a matter of taste than anything else. Some GMs don't mind it. However, it would be wrong to pretend that excessive splitting up doesn't derail the game. I've seen more campaigns padded out to twice their sensible length and bogged down needlessly because some spotlight hog had to go off by himself or some self-styled philosopher kept asking, "Why would we stay together all the time?" Splitting up should be saved for those rare times when the PCs have no other good tactical choice.

Note also that while splitting up is ostensibly a play-style issue, it feeds back into the first point that I singled out: competition. Splitting up most often happens when overly competitive players feel the need to race off alone after the loot/kudos/princess, or simply to show off how awesome their PC is. I like to address both concerns directly, and link them together explicitly, with a clear statement similar to this one:

You WILL stay together and work together, with one hero's strengths covering another's weaknesses. That's the most fundamental campaign premise. If it feels fake to you, then come up with a justification that makes it seem natural – you're all family, servants of the same house, graduates of the same academy, a recently released military squad, etc. Then plan your capabilities to be complementary and your attitudes to be at best similar and at worst tolerable. If you want to play a troubled loner or the sole star of your personal saga, then you have the wrong group. Thank you.

And note that I have nothing against loners or lone-hero stories. It's just that they're not suited to group play, which is clearly what you're after here. They're suited to one-on-one gaming, which requires a totally different social contract.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Kromm

The second item is more a matter of taste than anything else. Some GMs don't mind it. However, it would be wrong to pretend that excessive splitting up doesn't derail the game. I've seen more campaigns padded out to twice their sensible length and bogged down needlessly because some spotlight hog had to go off by himself or some self-styled philosopher kept asking, "Why would we stay together all the time?" Splitting up should be saved for those rare times when the PCs have no other good tactical choice.

Note also that while splitting up is ostensibly a play-style issue, it feeds back into the first point that I singled out: competition. Splitting up most often happens when overly competitive players feel the need to race off alone after the loot/kudos/princess, or simply to show off how awesome their PC is.

On this particular point, my approach and my experience are quite different. I routinely run campaigns where the PCs spend a lot of time apart; I have in fact run an entire campaign where all the PCs were in the same place doing the same thing only in the final two episodes.

Sometimes this is for tactical reasons. In a mystery campaign, it can make sense that one PC is in the lab doing forensics, while another is watching a suspect's flat.

Sometimes it's for scenes focused on personal relationships. I won't say it's not possible to have all four to six PCs present for an intimate conversation or a series of Erotic Art rolls, but it often makes more sense to have it be a two-person scene.

And sometimes it's because the PCs are in conflict and working against each other. I've run a Mage campaign where the PCs were from conflicting Awakened factions in Hong Kong—three Wu Lung, one Wu Keng, one Shao Lin, and one Virtual Adept—and they were actively opposing and attacking each other through much of the campaign.

None of these is simple egomania or scene stealing. And players can be interested in other players' spotlight scenes, either because the outcomes are tactically relevant to their own objectives (will the interrogation of the suspect suggest whose phone I need to tap? will the Wu Lung mage be able to shadow my Wu Keng shaman?), or because the scene reveals character and they're interested in the other players' characters. On the latter, after all, I give eeps out for playing good dramatic scenes or giving good dialogue, which means I'm trying to encourage them, which means I assume the players like them.

And I do have players who like the spotlight and like applause. But they only get them by using the spotlight to entertain the other players. So I don't mind giving solo time . . . so long as all of the players get their turns, because nothing alienates players like spending an entire session with their character in the background.

Bill Stoddard

[The Final Door]

Originally Posted by Kromm

If you want to play a troubled loner or the sole star of your personal saga, then you have the wrong group. Thank you.

Oh so true. However, I was thinking about a different tactic in getting this across, since blatantly roaring it out never solved a lot of problems (making 'demands' tends to make people feel like this is not for fun, this is serious effing business and you'd better etc etc.).

So I suggest this: Make it clear (kindly and cheerfully) that character creation will include designing a powerful and compelling reason why your character wants to be part of a group, how that character (not the player) will work to add to the group, and how the character will fight to make the group stay strong and together. Make the idea of group cohession not just something pressed upon the players, make it an important and pervasive part of each character, and hold players to it. Playing the character (i.e. playing the game at all!) means holding the party together. In fact, splitting it could have serious consequences for the character, in-game and in-character!

Just a thought. Have done it slightly before, but think I'll be doing it more focused from now on...

Originally Posted by whswhs

And I do have players who like the spotlight and like applause. But they only get them by using the spotlight to entertain the other players. So I don't mind giving solo time . . . so long as all of the players get their turns, because nothing alienates players like spending an entire session with their character in the background.

One thing I took away from some VtM gaming (where in-fighting, loathing and distrust seems to be the dish of the day, every day) was a focus from GMs on having the views of pther party PCs be an integral part of character description. While tricky to recreate in games with player-generated characters (I only do VtM at conventions or as one-shots with pre-gens), there might be some functionality to it. It allows the need for cohession to be balanced with the opportunities for PC-on-PC drama, which can get very enthralling as long as it is a story element. I have had times when I did not know if a player was getting truly hostile about refusals towards his/her path of action, or if said player was just really good IC. These little things might help get it all running smoothly, for greater enjoyment everywhere.

Maybe :)

[Kromm]

You can certainly encourage group cohesion via carrots rather than sticks. There are endless methods. Examples:

• Players who submit a background story get 1 point extra, exactly as if they had defined a perk or roleplayed well. If several players collaborate on a collective story that incorporates all of their PCs as allies and associates, then they each get points equal to the number of players cooperating. For instance, if Loner Ninja Guy's player writes a 15-page story about his PC's awesomeness, he gets 1 point. If four players write a single page that explains how they got together at the Five Points back in the day, they each get 4 points.

• Heroes created as part of a group that has a clear unifying backstory get 5-10 extra points in the form of a "group package" agreed upon by the players whose PCs belong to the group. For instance, a bunch of commandos might all get Claim to Hospitality (Old Unit) [5], Courtesy Rank 2 [2], Sense of Duty (Teammates) [-5], Savoir-Faire (Military) (E) IQ [1], and Soldier (A) IQ [2] for "free." Those 5 points don't come out of their starting budget, and the -5 points in disads don't count against disad limits.

• Characters may spend their points to help allies within line of sight. If number of points spent would matter, add 1 to points spent to help an ally if at least 1 point is spent. Thus, you can step a critical failure to just a failure for a friend for 1 point, where he'd have to spend 2 on himself.

[Kyle Aaron]

Honestly it was too long and I didn't read it. And most gamers will have a similar response, I think.

I find it better to sneak the stuff in through the xp system. For example,

Character creation

• appropriate character image, +1xp
• appropriate figurine for character, +1xp
• (as backstory) one important person, place and thing for your character, and why they're important

Game sessions

• player shows up on time and ready to play
• player brought snacks and shared them
• constructive - player or character did something that helped moved the game/mission along, such as photocopying character sheets, coming up with good tactical plan, etc
• bravery - something personally confronting for the character, this could include not fighting
• roleplaying - we could tell what the character's traits were without looking at the character sheet

This lays it all out in a format players are interested in - xp - without sound too schoolmarmish in telling them how to behave.

[Phil C.]

Originally Posted by Kyle Aaron

This lays it all out in a format players are interested in - xp - without sound too schoolmarmish in telling them how to behave.

Schoolmarmish? Really? Isn't that a little negative for someone who didn't even read it?

It's an agreement, and a declaration of expectations. For example, "If you promise not to make a ninja character in my medieval-European'ish campaign, I promise not to introduce firearms and laser beams."

Or, "If you promise to role play your disadvantages and motivations, I promise to provide you with an opportunity for adventure and entertainment."

Or, "If you promise to respect other players' time and decisions, I promise to give your PC their time in the sun."

Ironically, these seemingly simple notions have been broken countless times by players who just assumed, and GMs who took them for granted.

Players who insist on creating a character modeled after their favorite anime character, despite the genre of the campaign.

Players who constantly disregard their PC's weaknesses/personality to pursue whatever meta-game goals they want. Or better yet, they choose disadvantages for the points, but only ones that already cater to their particular playing styles. Their characters love to get drunk, hit on women, and fight. Alcoholism, lechery, and bloodlust. But then they get pissed when realistic consequences happen.

Players who constantly demand the limelight, without letting other players blossom.

Or, for that matter, GM's who don't invest any energy in their campaigns, and provide a 4 hour evening of meaningless interactions largely devoid of NPC interaction or impetus.

I'd much rather have expectations laid out plainly at the beginning.

And if a player can't be bothered to consider those things, then how do I expect them to respond during actual play?

I have to agree with Kromm. There's nothing wrong with being both welcoming, and straightforward with people.

It's paramount to inviting someone to play poker, without discussing what type of poker will be played, what the minimum ante is, what the buy-in is, who should bring what in terms of beer/food, etc.

A lot of RPGs are different, a lot of GMs are different, a lot of players are different, and a lot of gaming groups are different. I prefer to be a little more selective, I guess.

[baakyocalder]

Having run demos at a game store and followed the mandate to spread the HackMaster gospel, I wish I had been more selective. However, I would agree with Kyle Aaron that the approach taken is somewhat offsetting

For me, the word social contract sets off an immediate concern that players would have for thinking the GM is trying to keep the game tightly controlled. Few players like that, even though I'd personally prefer to have all those issues laid out beforehand. You're already losing potential players at a game store just by making yourself seem rather controlling and too detail-oriented. Secondly, many of the social contract theories for RPGs come out of the Forge, a group which not all gamers appreciate (though not everyone knows about them).

The document is also rather long, which means it's likely to be overlooked as players don't tend to read long documents. This is especially true if you're recruiting at a FLGS.

I'd revise by replacing 'social contract' with a less loaded term and shortening the document to the basics. Character point awards can be handled later. The salient points are how long the campaign will run, the campaign style and generally acceptable behavior.

I would also make sure the code of conduct Discordia Games wants is laid out, since you are playing at their place of business. At home I can swear more and say more offensive things than at my FLGS. At the store, I have to be nice to the Ugi-Oh playing children, gamers who have such odious personal habits no one will play with them, those who hate my RPG system and give me a hard time about it and anyone else who comes in.

All of the original concerns are valid, but there are ways to say them which might work more effectively. As Kyle Aaron said, rewarding positive behavior through in-game rewards is much easier for motivating most gamers. . .

[Kyle Aaron]

Originally Posted by Phil C.

Schoolmarmish? Really? Isn't that a little negative for someone who didn't even read it?

I didn't say your piece was schoolmarmish.

I said what I offered laid out what I wanted from players without sounding too schoolmarmish. There are a thousand different ways I could have written the same thing which might have annoyed the players.

Originally Posted by Phil C

If you promise not to ...
I promise not to ...
If you promise to role play your disadvantages...
If you promise to respect other players' time and decisions...

Ironically, these seemingly simple notions have been broken countless times...

characters love to get drunk, hit on women, and fight. Alcoholism, lechery, and bloodlust. But then they get pissed when realistic consequences happen... [etc]

From what you've presented here, it seems that your game experiences have been overall bad, and that this has shaped your "social contract" approach.

My experience is that rather than asking people to promise not to be bad, it's better to ask them to be good. "This is what's fun!" rather than "this is what annoys me."

Some players who are utterly incapable of that will then exclude themselves from the game. Most don't, instead they join the game and do alright. That's because every player is both a good and a bad player, they have different traits in them. As GM and game host, you can encourage the traits you like best, rather than listing desirable traits before the campaign and looking for players who have them already.

Originally Posted by Phil C

There's nothing wrong with being both welcoming, and straightforward with people.

Absolutely. But there are ways to present what you're saying. I find it's more effective to say what I'd like players to do, rather than what I'd like them not to do. Reward what you want to encourage - by xp or whatever way - rather than punishing what you want to discourage.

I know this from experience. Using the same five categories in game sessions, I sometimes gave negative awards - to punish those who were habitually late or roleplayed badly. I found this just annoyed players, it didn't improve them. Players will accept getting little or no in-game reward; they're not so keen on in-game punishments. It's all about the tone of the thing.

The tone makes a difference. Looking over it now, the tone of your "social contract" is not "schoolmarmish", but is rambling, unfocused, and tells me you are worried that your game sessions will be a mess. I find that focus and confidence in the campaign description gets me focused and confident players.

Just list what you want in bullet-point form, not more than seven points. Express it in positives rather than indecisives or negatives. For example, "Everyone should be on time" rather than "Everyone should try to be on time if they can" or "No-one should be late."

There are things I think you can safely not mention at all, eg whether the party should split up. Me, I hate it when the players split the party, that means half as much participation for each player. So I just laugh and rub my hands together and say, "Excellent! I love it when you split the party!" and that makes them rethink things.

Or,

Originally Posted by Phil C

How do we deal with problems between players?

I’ve never really had a problem with players being outrageously rude towards each other, much less having to ask someone to leave.

If it's never been a problem, why mention it?

Like I said, the important stuff you should be able to reduce to seven or less bullet-points of 25 words or less each. Players will only scan over it, anyway. Honestly, they'd be more interested if you printed up a list of guns they could have in the campaign. Put an equipment list in the campaign pitch and watch the replies come flooding in.