Ten Baseline Assumptions About How the Game is Run, by Rich Burlew (game designer and creator of The Order of the Stick), examines ten things common to many games (but especially D&D) that are often not discussed before the game, but should be.
Rich never actually says “social contract,” but if you discussed all ten of these topics before your next game, you’d have a pretty solid social contract all set up and ready to go. (Related TT posts: Social Contracts for RPG Groups, Active vs. Reactive and the social contract section of our GMing wiki.)
Definitely interesting reading. It also definitely shows a degree of dysfunctional past. Let’s see taking those one by one:
1. Ok, this is a good one, though it’s kind of mushy about what the creative agenda is.
2. This should only have one answer in a functional game: of course the players can make mistakes. They can misjudge the effect of the rules, even in a narativist game: browse the Forge for writeups of Dogs in the Vinyard games, and you’ll find writeups of players who didn’t totally grok the implications of taking 3d10 or worse fallout. Of course the players can’t make mistakes of judgement (addressing the premise) in Dogs.
3. Ok, this is sort of ok, though how it is applied may be dysfunctional. Of course the game should revolve around the players, but as I mentioned in the “stuck players” thread on the forums, if the players start dawdling, the GM should make something happen. A dynamic world also adds relevance to the decisions in simulationist play.
4. I’m starting to feel like this is overblown. A lot of secrecy is dysfunctional.
5. More dysfunction hiding here. If the game is gamist, then the monsters should be challenging. If the game is simulationist, then sure, they should act according to the dream. If the game is narativist, then the NPCs should act in a way that allows the players to address premise (and it’s fine for the NPCs to have their own motives, this should force player decsions or highlight them).
6. More dysfunction hiding here.
7. Of course the game should be fair. In a gamist game, the GM should present fair challenges (whatever that means in the game at hand – importantly though, the players have to be able to evaluate challenges if encounters that they can’t beat are possible). In a narativist game, the GM should present fair opportunities to address premise, that are interesting to the player, and don’t negate the player’s address. In a simulationist game, it’s only fair to share the dream.
8. This is a reasonable thing to cover in social contract, though the weight it’s given by many groups is a result of dysfunctional play in the past. My personal thought is that healthy games have a lot of sharing.
9. Now here’s one that’s all dysfunction. A lot of blame can be laid on confusing rules texts. More can be blamed on muddled creative agenda. Text that tells the GM he is free to ignore the rules is also to blame.
10. Ok, this is a valid one also.
Frank
I agree that there are a few of these that show some issues with players that he is trying to circumvent or a locked in to a very confined style of play, but all in all they are some of the big basics.
I just attended Origins and while the con games didn’t really do a social contract most of the GMS did an explanation of what the game was about. This was mostly for DEMO purposes, but it was also a lot of, “The game we will be playing today will have a lot of comedy to it so don’t be afraid to be humorous” or “This is going to be a more serious political game, so keep the humour as a sideline and stay focused.”
Even something that simple, setting a premise for the game brought everyone to the same place as far as play went.
John,
In a healthy environment, with some shared expectation of social contract as a basis, we shouldn’t need a whole lot more.
Afterall, we do dinner parties with simple social contracts: “Appetizers at 6:00, dinner served at 7:00” says arrive anytime after 6:00, and make sure you’re there by 7:00, and suggests a degree of formality. “Potluck BBQ party 6:00-whenever, BYOB, meat, and a side dish to share, the grill will be running all evening.” tells me show up anytime after 6:00, and knowing my friends parties often run well past midnight, if I want to show up with my steak after the 9:00 movie, the grill will still be hot, the beer still flowing.
Frank
> I want to play the emotions of my players like a fine violin.
This is the creepiest thing I’ve seen in a long while.
I understand the desire to make a game that is emotionally engaging (a generous reading of his point) and one that stays on the minds of his players– that, at least, doesn’t sound like a bad thing.
Really, his ten points are good small scale Social Contract; they assume a lot about the big picture, but they also hint strongly at it. Reading his ten, I have a pretty good idea what game he runs– and that was the point of his article, I think.
(I do agree with Frank that some of the choices aren’t mine… but that’s why he lays them out. Many of his are false dichotomies– there are other options– but just laying them out as dichotomies says a lot.)
“I want to play the emotions of my players like a fine violin” doesn’t bother me that much. It can be done badly — forcing it, as Frank mentioned, or being creepy and pushing emotional buttons (which is wehat Roger’s comment made me think of) — but it can also be done well.
John: You’re right on about even a mini-mini-mini-social contract being a good thing. Even at demo and con games, this is an easy way to get everyone closer to being on the same page.