The Forge Archives

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.

Quote
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

Something like that.

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

Quote from: The GM
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.

I would have to completely disagree.  The group I primarily game with is a small clique that have gamed together for years-we have all been friends for a long time.  This particular group has always done primarily Sim gaming- mostly Exploration of Setting or Character.  I want to branch out and try other styles- the majority of the group has absolutely no interest in playing anything else.  We, as a group, can still hang out and be buddies.  But I am looking for another group to play with where I can facilitate my different gaming priorities.  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.

You also have to remember that GNS is not a player-label, it is what is prioritized in the game play.

Quote from: Anthony I

>>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)

Quote from: The GMHe'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.

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.

Perhaps what's needed is a pithy "the something principle"-type name for this idea. I propose the following.

Quote from: The Shit Sandwich PrincipleNo amount of adjusting the other ingredients will make a shit sandwich palatable.

In other words, GNS is most decidedly not a recipe for making a shit sandwich taste better. And it doesn't pretend to be. If you don't like the company of the people you're playing with, you're not going to have a good play experience. That doesn't mean players necessarily have to be best friends. You can sit down and play with strangers at a con, for instance -- but you have to want to meet strangers. And it's pretty much a requirement that everyone involved is, at game time, sufficiently sane, civilized, and emotionally stable for a Social Contract to exist.

GNS is all about the other side of that coin: a refutation of the idea that if you're friends with, or enjoy the company of, the other participants, you're guaranteed a functional play experience no matter what happens at the Social Contract, Creative Agenda, or Techniques levels. That's like saying any sandwich that contains no shit is guaranteed to be tasty. Most gamers have shared the (sometimes traumatic) discovery that it ain't so. GNS tells us what to do about that fact.

- Walt