Play Contracts

wizofice

First Post
I ran across this article at 2d10.com:

Play Contracts: Care and Feeding

I wondered if anyone has tried something like this and what the results were. It's quite a departure from the standard way of playing we're used to. If you have used it could you post the Play Contract? Thanks.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Hmm, never put out a "contract", per se, but all of the GMs in our group put out extensive campaign notes ahead of time, including what races are to be allowed, what character classes are/are not included, rulebooks (or even specific rules) that are in or out, and the like.

Sounds similar, if not quite as formalized.
 

I haven't been able to wrap my brain around the idea entirely yet, but one aspect is that a lot of that sort of thing is worked out between the entire group. Not necessarily what the world is like, but what this particular campaign in the world will be like. It spreads some of what we normally consider to be GM responsibilities to the entire group.
 

Well, this seems like a grand idea to help foster strong relationship bonds between people who are unsure about a given gaming experience.

It would seem this is simply an extention of the expectations outlined in Social Contract Theory.
 

I've worked up something very similar to this for the game I'm going to be starting with some friends fairly soon, I'm still in the process of trimming it down to be a reasonable size, as I can tend towards being verbose when unnecessary.

in essence I have a bulleted list of information about the game, the "flavor", and what not... examples:

- I want the party to be a cohesive group, please talk with eachother while you design your characters.
- The world is somewhat "static" in that if I have plans to have a CR18 beast in region X then it will be there regardless of what level the PCs are.
- After the first adventure or two the game opens up to "this is what has happened, so what now?"
(what I mean by that one - if the characters have no motivation and do nothing then I won't twist their arms into action, which leads me to....)
- NPCs in the world have their own agendas. There are plots that will be going on regardless, if altered by, PC action or inaction.
(I acctually have been fleshing out a time line for the progression of assorted plots and plans of NPCs, the PCs can push back, or stop those deadlines through action)

parenthetical notes added for the forum. the whole thing is around 2 pages single spaced right now, so I need to do a lot of editing still.

The key point I try to get across to people reading it is - I want this to be fun for everyone, this is how I'm going to try to run the game, does it sound fun to you? If not, what doesn't sound fun? maybe we can work something out.

We've had game before where one or two characters just stick out like sore thumbs, people need to make up excuses why their character would associate with the other characters, et cetera. That has left a really bad taste in my mouth, so I'm trying this approach to make sure that the players know I want a cohesive group (party in-fighting isn't my idea of a good time, I know some people enjoy it though).

If all works out as planned - it should be a fun game for all of us, as long as people are honest when I ask them "does this sound fun to you?" and let me know if it becomes unfun.

Hope that helps you wrap your head around at least my idea of the social game contract :P

I wasn't sure what the site was talking about sharing responsibilities... I think it might have just been a bit about characters getting along, a lot of times in games I've played it's up to the GM to some how take these different backgrounds and personalities that don't mesh at all and try to make them coherant... in my game it's going to be up to the players to make their characters in such a way that they mesh and aren't always at eachother's throats.

I'll have enough to worry about fleshing out the setting without designing rediclous hoops and reasons that people who wouldn't get along at all have to get along or whatever :p
 

That definitely sounds like a step in that direction. As for spreading the responsibility, it's the idea that a player will be responsible for ensuring that another player gets enjoyment out of the game. For example, if a player wants his PC to have a reputation for being a swordsman extraordinaire (there's another thread where a DM mentions this is his player's goal), another PC might spread the word or set up a duel for him. This relieves the DM of the juggling act of making sure everyone's happy, because everyone is responsible for everyone being happy. Nothing's perfect, of course.

The two biggest problems I see: 1) getting everyone to buy off on the idea and 2) getting players to think and verbalize what they enjoy about the game so someone can provide that fun.
 

The two biggest problems I see: 1) getting everyone to buy off on the idea and 2) getting players to think and verbalize what they enjoy about the game so someone can provide that fun.

good examples to help me with other methods of everyone keeping everyone happy (the swordsmen bit).

I don't think (1) should be too hard, everyone has had bad game experiences due to misunderstandings, and anything to avoid it again and have a blast instead, eh?

as to (2), I agree. I acctually don't think a lot of people realise what they want, even in their games / entertainment. I've worked in lots of, "if this ends up not being fun *LET ME KNOW*!!!", clauses.

I guess I'll find out in a few weeks though, after we've given the new game a test run ;)
 

Please keep us posted.

Also, if you haven't checked out Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering by Robin Laws, Steve Jackson Games, it's good. Defines the different player types and what turns them on and off and what the different types of adventures are and how they're constructed.
 


Remove ads

Top