A friend and I were talking about social contracts, and he came up with a list of questions that he feels every table should address in their social contract. How have you answered these for your campaign, and are there any others to add?
Are there any alignment intolerances? If the party is primarily good, an assassin may be frowned upon as NPCs see birds of a feather. Alternatively, a more chaotic party may not want a paladin hamstringing their freedom of choice.
Level of character optimization? Some people feel at a double disadvantage if they want to play a character who overcomes handicaps and disabilities, only to find everyone else at the table is a superhero.
Static or nomadic? If someone wants to start a shop, get married, or have close contacts with a lot NPCs they may want a stable base of operations. Other characters may want to have the freedom to leave town when things get boring or opportunities arrive elsewhere.
Racial diversity? Is the party generally homogenous (let's all play elves). Sometimes someone might want to play an outcast in the group, only to find that everyone's some strange outcast (defeating his intent).
Communal or individual treasure division? Will the cleric pay for all of the party's wands and buffs, or will the party pitch in for these items? Who pays for resurrections? Are items given to players who could use them even if they can't afford them yet?
Does Paizo make any assumptions about the typical social contract, and how does this influence their adventure path design?
How have you answered these for your campaign
Definitely some interesting questions. Here are the answers for our group:
Are there any alignment intolerances? If the party is primarily good, an assassin may be frowned upon as NPCs see birds of a feather. Alternatively, a more chaotic party may not want a paladin hamstringing their freedom of choice.
No evil. The rest is up to the players to decide among themselves before they start play.
Level of character optimization? Some people feel at a double disadvantage if they want to play a character who overcomes handicaps and disabilities, only to find everyone else at the table is a superhero.
It is the players responsibility to build whatever characters they would be happy with, given the books that the DM has allowed. Discussion among each other is recommended. If you end up "unhappy" because your charcter is too "weak", then get more competent next time.
Static or nomadic? If someone wants to start a shop, get married, or have close contacts with a lot NPCs they may want a stable base of operations. Other characters may want to have the freedom to leave town when things get boring or opportunities arrive elsewhere.
The players must agree among themselves beforehand and relay that information to the DM before the game starts.
Racial diversity? Is the party generally homogenous (let's all play elves). Sometimes someone might want to play an outcast in the group, only to find that everyone's some strange outcast (defeating his intent).
See above.
Communal or individual treasure division? Will the cleric pay for all of the party's wands and buffs, or will the party pitch in for these items? Who pays for resurrections? Are items given to players who could use them even if they can't afford them yet?
No specific social contract, here. It's the players' responsibility to decide among themselves. (This has never been a problem in our group, thus the lack of concern among us for this particular topic.)
Social contracts in our games have always just been created when we all sit down to roll up characters. I dont even know if I'd go so far as to call them contracts per se. In games that I have run I just give a little info on the flavor and style of the campaign and then I just let my players riff off one another for their character concepts and so far we have had a blast.
I've been playing with the same people since I was 12 though, so now that we're all grown we've never had to institute anything in writing or force any one player down a road they weren't into.
I would imagine that guidelines/contracts would be helpful to GM's running games for new players, relative strangers or online campaigns. I could see the half dragon, dark elf, aasimar, warforged, vampire groups cropping up much more often without some sort of boundaries on them.
As far as treasure goes we've always just assumed group treasure unless someone goes out of their way to alter that (filthy stinkin rogues!), or if someone is going to use an item. Again this is also much easier in my group because it's just assumed from years of doing it this way.
Our group doesn't do resurections though (the idea that I'd have a villain undergo a True Resurection terrifies them to no end and we like the finality of PC death) so I can't really comment on how that would best be handled.
My current group does not have a social contract and I wish we did. I think it is a case of we got lucky and are, fore the most part, of the same mind. When this happens, a social contract is not as important. I have had plenty of experiences where discussing a social contract before hand could have saved a lot of people a lot of anguish.
I will go out on a limb here and probably insult a lot of people and end up censored, but I think Gamists are less concerned with social contracts than Narrativists and Simulationists. I think it is easier for them to identify and obtain their goals. I suppose they could be disappointed if the GM is an extreme drama queen. Although an extreme drama queen is less likely to use certain systems which a Gamists simply would not play in.
When an unsuspecting Narrativists strolls into a pack of Gamists it is not the Gamists who end up getting hurt. From their perspective, Narrativists are easy targets. Their characters are weak, ineffectual and pose no threat to the Gamists’ dominance.
This is all just my own opinion based on my own experience. I concede that my experiences may have been marred by people with poor social skills and may not be directly related to their gaming preference.
|
Its funny that this was mentioned on the boards, they always seem to read my mind. This has actually just recently started to become something of a point of contention among one of the groups I play with(myself and another DM switch off who is running for two different groups of players).
In one of the groups, other then the occasional IC drama and some steady bickering between two of the players, these things work out rather well. The current group is entirely good, and even when that has been different in the past(we had a character who wished to try out a necromancer) everyone made characters that accommodated this in some way, either by being tolerant of it and leaning more neutral, being ready to accept that he accomplishes good through his own means, or in one characters case being afraid of the undead and using that to boost RP rather then to limit the other characters fun in any way. They've always grouped their money and made purchases as a party with the groups interests in mind and their races while often diverse tend to blend in together(an elf who always told the half elf he smelled like a human, or two dwarves and an elf who were 'brothers' treating the elf as a dwarf in every way, even though he was the ugly one).
Now with that all said, I suppose that my luck with group relations in that group has soured me(and a few of the other players for that matter) on the other group. There is still a lot of inter-party RP that plays out well and we work to build storyline between our characters, but we have a mixture of players who tend to be greedy with their characters which ruins the idea of a party pool(one character always keeps a pile of his own coins that we know about, while the other has a secret stash that often rivals that of what the entire rest of the party has, but still makes sure that we purchase items for him just like everyone else from the pool). We also have a player who is a bit of an anarchist when it comes to character design. He often comes up with extreme characters in their design, which we can all deal well enough with, but he uses those extremes in a way thats pretty sure to eventually lead to strife. Be it a paladin who is far too concerned about propriety for his own good, or his current incarnation of a changeling assassin in a group that at least very heavily leans towards good.
I have a feeling that with my second group some of these issues are really going to come to a head, because they are starting to affect the party pretty significantly and a number of people are grumbling about them.
So, to try and answer your original comment after all that wordiness, I think it depends on the group itself whether a social contract is required. Often times these things can go unspoken, but not everyone has either the sense to pick up on what is acceptable or the tact to follow through on it. You know your players best and can decide what makes sense for them.
My current group does not have a social contract and I wish we did. I think it is a case of we got lucky and are, fore the most part, of the same mind. When this happens, a social contract is not as important. I have had plenty of experiences where discussing a social contract before hand could have saved a lot of people a lot of anguish.
I will go out on a limb here and probably insult a lot of people and end up censored, but I think Gamists are less concerned with social contracts than Narrativists and Simulationists. I think it is easier for them to identify and obtain their goals. I suppose they could be disappointed if the GM is an extreme drama queen. Although an extreme drama queen is less likely to use certain systems which a Gamists simply would not play in.
When an unsuspecting Narrativists strolls into a pack of Gamists it is not the Gamists who end up getting hurt. From their perspective, Narrativists are easy targets. Their characters are weak, ineffectual and pose no threat to the Gamists� dominance.
This is all just my own opinion based on my own experience. I concede that my experiences may have been marred by people with poor social skills and may not be directly related to their gaming preference.
You don't have to worry about being banned if you craft your post correctly, which you did. I run a Gamist group and I essentially agree with you. The Simulationist player might survive in my group but its philosophy tends to be in opposition to the Simulationist hence not a good fit. A Narrativist is much more likely to end up getting hurt but should be able to recognize munchkins when she sees them and the DM bragging to anyone who will listen about all the little skull stickers on his DM screen and how each of them represents a dead character. That ought to clue her in that the DM is trying to kill the players and derives a great deal of satisfaction from the event whenever he manages to do so.
This is an example social contract. My pulled this from part of the Treasure Tables Website .
About the Game
* What game we are playing?
* What modifications are we playing with?
* When, where, and how long (per session) does the game happen?
* How many sessions will we play (extended campaign, short, one shot)?
* What is the style of play (including how serious are we)?
* What is the theme of the game going to be (dark, comedic, serious tone, political intrigue)?
* What's expected of everyone? Do players get full control of their characters or are they supposed to "go along" with a GM's story?
* Things the players want to see within the game?
* Things the GM wants to see in the game?
* What types of rewards are handed out(experience, in game rewards)? What types of actions will be rewarded?
* Will the group split up at all?
Out of Game Concerns
* Who brings the food, and do we share?
* How do we handle players who can't make a session (do we cancel, play without them, play some other game, kick them out)?
* How do we deal with problems between players? What is too far? When do we ask people to leave, and how can we do it in a mature fashion?
* If life comes up, how do we bow out in a good fashion? Do we incorporate it into the story, do the characters notice?
Rules Based
* How do we resolve conflicts about the rules or other in game stuff?
* If a player dies how do we bring him back in (resurrecting, plays an NPC, new character)?
* How much out of game knowledge should players bring in (do the players know much about resurrection, or specialist classes)?
Miscellaneous
* Issues we would prefer to not see addressed in the Game?
* Do we use Profanity? What is allowed language?
Are there any alignment intolerances?
Set by the DM, with input from the players. The DM needs to take this into account to adapt/create the adventures. Also, the DM needs to stress that the party needs to work together to accomplish the goals of the adventure, so players should take that into account when creating characters.
Level of character optimization?
Player preferrence, with the understanding that good teamwork and tactics, to include effective character building, will be important. "Effective" does not mean munchkined, so some flaws are OK. Characters who are mostly ineffective, however "interesting," should not be adventurers in most campaigns, though (IMO).
Static or nomadic?
Usually a mix. The campaign typically is centered around one town/city/area, with occasional travel to other regions.
Racial diversity?
Player preferrence, with the same understanding that the party needs to work together as with alignment. Depending on the setting or campaign, the DM may set restrictions on available choices.
Communal or individual treasure division?
Players need to work this out on their own. A common solution I recommend (both as a player and a DM) is equal shares, with a 10% pool for party purchases, mostly common-use healing potions and wands.
Another one that crops up:
What (if any) non-core rules are allowed?
This is usually a DM decision based on the setting.
|
A friend and I were talking about social contracts, and he came up with a list of questions that he feels every table should address in their social contract. How have you answered these for your campaign, and are there any others to add?
Are there any alignment intolerances? If the party is primarily good, an assassin may be frowned upon as NPCs see birds of a feather. Alternatively, a more chaotic party may not want a paladin hamstringing their freedom of choice.
Level of character optimization? Some people feel at a double disadvantage if they want to play a character who overcomes handicaps and disabilities, only to find everyone else at the table is a superhero.
Static or nomadic? If someone wants to start a shop, get married, or have close contacts with a lot NPCs they may want a stable base of operations. Other characters may want to have the freedom to leave town when things get boring or opportunities arrive elsewhere.
Racial diversity? Is the party generally homogenous (let's all play elves). Sometimes someone might want to play an outcast in the group, only to find that everyone's some strange outcast (defeating his intent).
Communal or individual treasure division? Will the cleric pay for all of the party's wands and buffs, or will the party pitch in for these items? Who pays for resurrections? Are items given to players who could use them even if they can't afford them yet?
Does Paizo make any assumptions about the typical social contract, and how does this influence their adventure path design?
This is a very interesting post. Here are the answers from my table:
1- The only alignment restriction is that the parties range is at least somewhat compatible. As a personal note here, many argue that evil parties will cannibalize themselves almost immediately. If that were the case, then why is every fantasy world filled with patient, well organized, evil organizations hiding in the shadows?2- Optimization is important, but secondary to concept. We try to optimize our concept and will take hits in effectiveness in exchange for story/coolness factor.
3- Usually static, but with "itchy feet". My players almost always want a home base and then do their best to never be home.
4- Racial diversity is never an issue. The only exception is ECL races or non-core books, which all need approval. Just because WotC likes the idea of a Goliath or a Dragonkin, doesn't mean I will retcon them into my campaign world.
5- We usually make healing and utility items communal & divide the rest. We've given players items they couldn't afford & someone keeps tabs on how much they owe from future hauls to pay their debt to the party.
all in all, I have a good group of players who have been together for about 15 years, so my experience may not be typical.
Thank you for the excellent discussion topic, Takasi.
The 'Ling
Great topic Takasi! For those of you who are interested, many a podcast has talked about this discussion as well (in most cases siting a 'group template' rather than a social contract which could be wider reaching).
In general everyone pretty much has a veto to put in. If a compromise can't be worked out another game is chosen or someone 'sits out' for that campaign (hasn't happened yet).
Are there any alignment intolerances?
This is a group decision, though the DM tends to have a strong say. In our current game, Shackled City, there are no evil characters allowed. One character was allowed to take a trait which caused him to register as evil but it was required that this be discussed as a group prior to play (particularly because we also had a paladin in the party). The party decided that this would cause low level conflict that would lead to good RP and so decided to allow it. Looking back though, I think most of us would have made the opposite choice now.
I would throw another restriction in with this one: All characters must be willing and interested in working as a group. No 'lone wolf' pcs. If you want a story just about one character either write a book or play in a solo game.
Level of character optimization?
Our current rule is that any WotC 3.5 book is allowable, with the exception of the Book of Exalted Deeds (individual items in here could be requested on a per item basis). Any other 'house rules' such as those in Unearthed Arcana or home grown are specified early on as well.
I would suggest that a character who wants negative traits not necessarily get an in-game minus for the trait but could play it to the hilt. For example, an alcoholic or womanizer.
Static or nomadic?
Essentially my game is static as it is placed in and around Cauldron. This was communicated up front. However, if the party decides that they aren't interested in sticking around I would simply stop running SCAP and move on to other adventures. Not a problem so far...
Racial diversity?
No restrictions or agreements on a single race in the current game. However, for an intermittent game another player will be running she would like us all to be human. If I run AoW, I will likely ask that everyone play a race that is full grown in the first 20 years of life (or change how fast other races mature to make the story work).
Communal or individual treasure division?
This is an in-game decision but one that I encouraged them to do. It was decided that all treasure would be given a credit value based on the amount it could be sold for. Each party member gets an even share of the credits. Credits can then either be cashed out or traded in to 'purchase' items found by the party for their sale value (meaning you can get party found magic items at 1/2 price).
To date the raise deads have been paid for prior to the division of the party treasure (though there was a heated discussion about that).
Does Paizo make any assumptions about the typical social contract, and how does this influence their adventure path design?
I think the assumption that they have to make is that everyone is playing RAW. That people are generally good (unless specifically addressed differently in the particular adventure) and interested in helping others though they expect a reward.
Sean Mahoney
|
|
My most recent group only started to begin dealing in social contracts, and they did not couple themselves well with the idea. I'll attempt to chronologically explain why I am a proponent of social contracts, though as a DM feel its hard to enforce them (and almost always up to the players).
When we started up, there was some understanding that the group should be balanced in character abilities, though we had little understanding of how this was to be done. For instance, we knew we needed a "expert" character, and thus someone was a ranger. This character didn't do much, since the DM didn't supply chances for the "expert" side to come out. The bard and the druid both were expected to heal, but the bard did this better and eventually stopped the druid from doing so.
The second game saw the loss of this balancing idea, as everyone knew that the fighter characters in the previous game had been always doing something. The DM had changed, and thus we ended up stepping on each others toes. Again, the game faltered (during fights, not during RP) because of the 4 fighters in the group.
As time has progressed, I became a DM, and decided to attempt to balance the options in the game with the classes/races in the groups. This worked to some benefit, but I did impose the first "social rule" of no evil characters (people in my group go too far). I also eventually implemented the "no paladin" rule, due to problems.
The next game saw problems with static and nomadic characters, ending because a player made a character who was static (and a coward) in a nomadic game.
It was at this point that I began to explain what the characters could expect in games, especially when running APs. It has seen some success. The original groups are always balanced, and work great. Then someone dies, and the whole idea of balancing, making compatible characters or even following past promises ("Don't worry guys. I promise I'll be the cleric and help with healing all the time") are lost. Most of this is due to lack of communication.
Communal Treasure is always done though, with race having little effect on the group and characters deciding their level of "handicap" or "interesting mixes" that they so want. As a DM, I have seen 100 total character deaths, so I guess it's up to you Takasi to state how well my foray into social contracts has gone.