|
While I can't fault your intentions, I don't think the solution to the problem of lots of absolutely terrible threads along these lines is to make another thread.
Well I am not sure what to say here.
I feel like the framing of your comment leads me to not offer any way to propose a strengthening of the list and/or offer any corollaries...
So help me understand (and I mean this honestly), in what way should I offer my comments or concerns that you feel would -not- lead to a 350+ thread about "because I said so"?
Support your intent, disagree with the method.
If the problem were an actual disagreement on the rights of players, this might help. Instead it seems to be two or more people who go out of their way to nitpick single sentences from eachothers' posts to create circular arguments.
And I'm gonna drop a hypocrisy nod in here, just in case someone decides to point out that the above is sort of self referential.;)
|
|
So help me understand (and I mean this honestly), in what way should I offer my comments or concerns that you feel would -not- lead to a 350+ thread about "because I said so"?Excellent question, and exactly the kind of thing I would like to avoid.
If you think a "right" I have proposed is unreasonable, say so and why. If you think one is too broad, say so and break it down a bit. If you think I flat out missed something, which is VERY possible, say so and provide it. If you have a question about where something would fit, ask.
If you disagree with the premis of the thread itself, well, I just don't know then ^__^
Okay. Three deleted posts later I have what I want to say :p
(People kept elaborating)I have/had no interest in turning this into a legal document I just wanted to avoid the groin kicking that can happen around such phrases. I also wanted to avoid people saying "because I said so is due cause". Heh.
I vote for using the "group" as the final arbiter of "due cause" because different groups and different people "feel" differently about things.
Do we need #9? Isn't this list effectively the "Bill of Rights" for the social contract?
|
|
Do we need #9? Isn't this list effectively the "Bill of Rights" for the social contract?
It might be redundant, but my purpose was different. Each gaming group has some sort of usually unspoken social contract with many small details that are not what any of us would consider "rights" save for their inclusion in said social contract. I just wanted to call out that there are probably things done in individual groups that are NOT universal, but a right of members in that group nonetheless.
*proofreads* Gee, can I GET any more verbose?
Anyway, how would you clear the language up a bit more? Or do you still think it is redundant?
Ah yes I see.
As you say, each SC is different so calling to that specifically seems appropriate...something about it seems weird but I guess much like writing the actual Bill of Rights without knowing precisely which constitution we are referring to it is better to over express rights (as many of these may also be granted by said social contract) rather than assume said rights are -given-.
Excellent suggestion. Very democratic.what is the definer of due cause?The group. Not the DM, not the player. All the players as a whole.
At the risk of rocking the boat, and I assure you that I mean this in the most constructive way possible, I just wanted to observe that I don't know that democracy is everyone's idea of a good game. Some games run happily as benevolent dictatorships.
I don't know if this is meant to be a neutral thread or not, but if so, it seems to me that the very notion of a democratic process is essentially what is being disputed. building an assertion of a democratic ideal into the premise probably won't help in smoothing feathers.
along the same lines, the prohibition of usurping/sabotaging ambitions (number 8) is likely to not compute in an autocratic game.
|
5. All gamers are entitled to have fun. None should purposely sabotage the fun of another, nor allow their own fun to be sabotaged.
I like all but this one. What is "fun" for one person just isn't for another. While this right may seem like a self-fixing issue given the way you have written it, in practice it isn't so secure. The entire "psionics is in/out" debacle in one of the threads above is essentially an argument over this point. The player wants X from the DM and the DM does not think X is right or fun so the player continues to hound the DM. Not fun for either the DM or the player. If the DM agrees to the player's demands he is no longer having fun and if he does not agree then the player is not having fun. This means that while this right looks good on paper, it can't really be enforced in a true difference of opinion.
If you completely remove 5 from the list, you don't have this problem. The other rights remain, and if there remains a difference of opinion (which really is at the heart of the issue with both sides providing evidence of a "factual error" to the other), either 1 or 2 can come to the rescue. The local social contract will establish and guide how much "due cause" is enough to continue the debate and which of the other rights gets exercised once a situation reaches an impasse.
Rights *must* be written that ensure equal opportunity not equal outcome. Right 5 as you have it is an attempt to ensure equal outcome (in this case everyone has "fun") rather than providing an environment, like the other rights you have listed, where fun is available to be had if the participant chooses to pursue it with the local social contract acting as a balancing factor to determine how far an issue can be raised before it leaves the realm of opinion and enters the world of "we suggest you exercise Right 1 - soon."
As to #8, why would that not work in a benevolent dictatorship? It's not meant to be read as "I get whatever I want". Really it's "I want that eventually, so it's improper for you to purposly sabbotage my getting it".A benevolent dictator would let them have it, if only after some hardships, unless it conflicted with THEIR asperations for the game, in which case we need to break out the conflict resolution tools.
OK, you got me. I am thinking more of malevolent dictatorships!
but, same applies in principle. I think Dictator (dick?) DMs may deny the fun and aspirations of players for benevolent or malevolent reasons without spoiling the game or being a bad dm. I think having fun (#5) is critical to having a game (and malevolent dictatorships can be fun - see the cruel GM thread) and having aspirations (#8) is maybe a good idea, maybe not (especially with a cruel DM, who might use them to comic or dramatic effect), but I would stop short at calling it a right for them to be fulfilled. Lich-Loved argues this point nicely.
|
|
I'm not sure that ex-ing the idea entirely from the list is such a good thing. I think there is an important concept there that we all should recognize: that we play to have fun. That said, I probably did not word it as well as I could. How can I change it to be more "opportunity" than "goal"?
Heh I knew you would ask me for that and I don't have answer at the moment. My weekly game starts in a hour or so, so I am going to have to get back to you on that, but I *will* try to take a cut on it shortly.
|
|
Potential replacement for 5 and 8:
All gamers are entitled to the pursuit of fun. At no point should this pursuit interfere with another's similar pursuit or any other right.
I had a more complex entry but the I thought about it and I was convinced that this simple comment pretty much covers aspirations and creates a reliance on other rights to ensure no abuse as per Lich's concerns...
What do you guys think?
Someone needs to let the pony know about this.
7. All gamers are entitled to a life of their own. None should force another to sacrifice some aspect of their life for the sake of the game.
#5 has been fixed but this one still gives me some issue.
If the GM (who usually sacrifices more time then the players combined) requests a task from the players outside of game time is that a violation of #7?
I would be more comfortable if it was stated:
7. All gamers are entitled to a life of their own. No gamer will be expected to commit more time to the game then any other gamer in their group.
If the GM (who usually sacrifices more time then the players combined) requests a task from the players outside of game time is that a violation of #7?
I would be more comfortable if it was stated:
7. All gamers are entitled to a life of their own. No gamer will be expected to commit more time to the game then any other gamer in their group.
Well, this is a sticky issue. I was actually thinking of strict GM's who actively penalize players for not showing even when they have good non-game reasons. Conversly, I was also considering players that make demands on the GM's time above and beyond what others want (like a detailed floor plan of the enemy keep, when the encounter is supposed to be entirely in the dungeon).
That said, I think a revision may be in order. Are you happy still with the revision you suggested in light of my original itentions? I so, I can make the change.
I think I understand your intentions. It might be better to add a # 10 for that.
7. All gamers are entitled to a life of their own. No gamer will be expected to commit more time to the game then any other gamer in their group.
10. The game does not always come first. Emergencies, illness, obligations and important life events are understood to come up. No gamer shall be punished for such events removing them temporarily for the game and no game shall be penalized for continuing without a gamer so removed.
I think I understand your intentions. It might be better to add a # 10 for that.
7. All gamers are entitled to a life of their own. No gamer will be expected to commit more time to the game then any other gamer in their group.
10. The game does not always come first. Emergencies, illness, obligations and important life events are understood to come up. No gamer shall be punished for such events removing them temporarily for the game and no game shall be penalized for continuing without a gamer so removed.
Additionally:
The GM is not required to spend time on the game beyond what they are willing to allocate.
But that may already be addressed in #7. So, let me try for #10:
10) All gamers are entitled to have life obligations that conflict with the game and should not be penalized for said obligations unless they demonstrate reckless disregard for others.
I threw in the last bit because I have had some who constantly schedule activities that interfere with gaming that could also be easily scheduled other times, but that would interfere with THEIR mud's (update to 2010 would probably be WoW). I found it inconsiderate and asked if they would rather just bow out of the game entirely, since they already could not be counted upon to come anyway. We changed venue to their apartment instead, so they could prep for whatever while gaming, which at least made them a regular player.
Sounds good to me. I've had similar scenarios happen to me. Very annoying and inconsiderate.
Hey, I did this in the political threads- Why not here?!?!
1. Yes, with a few exceptions. I don't know if you should start off with an exit clause straight away: these are rights of gamers, so you should start off a little more positively. Also, this bleeds a bit too much into 2, so maybe they should be combined into something a little easier to understand.
2. See 1.
3. Agreed. Good luck getting it to happen sometimes, especially where significant others are involved, but yeah.
4. This should be higher up on the list. I can't believe people have had this experience with gaming.
5. Also, should be higher up on the list. Be careful with the last part of the second sentence though, it may lead to preemptive raspberries.
6. I would also state that there should be a rules lawyer of some kind at the table(read: only one) whose job it is to act as a neutral third party to resolve disputes between the DM and any players who feel the rules are being mismanaged, misunderstood, or misused. This person is a living, breathing RAW though, placed in this position so they can look things up while the DM keeps the game itself going, and should also take notes in cases where the rules are unclear for something to be revisited later on in the evening for discussion.
7. Before marriage, I'd agree. After marriage, though... ;-)
8. Agreed, provided it fits into the story. Your character's overaching goal should not be to take over a kingdom that noone in game has ever heard of but is somewhere in the book, nor should it be to slit the throats of the fellow PCs and their loved ones in their sleep.
9. This should go without saying, but we have something similar at my day job posted which has helped us out a lot over the years.
10. Considering the amount of times we all got each other sick, oh hell yeah.
|
6. All gamers are entitled to their opinion. None should challenge the opinion of another without due cause or factual contradictory evidence.
Can you expand this one a little further? It seems contradictory to establishments like Rule 0 at face value, but I think I see where you're going. This is actually in support of Rule 0 in a variety of ways.
It might want to read more like, "You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong *I* think you are." :P
Personally, I like to keep things as simple as possible. Would it be sufficient to just have a very small list of "Rights" and a larger set of "guidelines"? Kind of like a Golden Rule, that is easy to remember and is relatively easy to apply.
In my opinion, the only Inalienable Right that gamers should have is the right to know the rules. I mean both the rules concerning game mechanics appropriate to the decisions they need to make, and also the rules of the social contract. This should cover the various other rights listed, keeps things nice and flexible, and I think accommodates all perspectives. It seems like most of the complaints I hear about GM fiat are not so much that they are at odds with the player's aspiration so much as they come as a surprise and/or are inconsistently applied.
Otherwise, I think the rights as written should work well for collaborative storytelling style of play. I still think that the aspiration right is not well conceived for other types of game (e.g. wargame, survival, horror, etc.) that aren't really concerned with character building.
|
|
also the rules of the social contract.
This is the bit I guess I don't quite see as "required". Define social contract, define its limits, and what, if any, penalty exist for its breach?
What I'm saying is that invoking terms such as "social contract" or "group dynamics" is a ponitless excerise in that if you need to start using such terms the group is basically doomed to failure. If however the above terms are just adhered to in practise without prompting (or individuals actively having think about doing) then the group will more than likely continue to have fun RPGing.
2 cents,
S.