Universal Inalienable Rights of Gamers

[Freesword]

LazarX wrote:

Mirror, Mirror wrote:

I think this might be helpful as a reference document. Many threads devolve into “you’re GMing is inferior/bad” type arguments. However, what we are REALLY arguing about is fundamental rights, and how those rights interact.

I would suggest that this is more of a forum problem than that of actual gaming groups.

That is true, mostly because in groups with a "bad GM" players will usually reach the point where they exercise their right to not play and don't have to put up with it anymore.

What we are seeing on the forums is to some degree venting by those who have had bad experiences with GMs, and in a few cases insistence that GM styles that they have had previous problems with are inherently wrong. The targets usually being autocratic GMs.

I am and have had fun playing under an autocratic GM. I have also had horror stories of GMs railroading events to their story/timeline.

An autocratic GM who mistreats their players will find themselves without players. An autocratic GM who treats their players with respect can be just as fun as a democratic GM (the best might even be more fun).

So far this list of rights has been neutral and reasonable.

[Clockwork pickle]

Stefan Hill wrote:

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

haha, yeah, "social contract" is kind of an empty term, I will fully admit. I was just using what was posted in this thread out of convenience.

what I am getting at is that almost all of the rights basically boil down to gamer groups having the same expectations of the game (in game and out of game) and that conflicts are best avoided by communicating expectations before the game begins (whatever they may be, and whether they do so on an individual or collective basis) and coming to some kind of understanding.

does that make more sense, or are the hungry dogs coming after me?

[Fake Healer]

Good lord people! It's just a playful list of "rules to live by" for gamers. It's not a legal contract or something. It's a bit of fun. I've seen the same type of thing for German Sheppard owners. I really doubt they spent much time going over the legal ramifications of their soul-binding agreement.
Why is everyone so friggin' serious anymore? It's for fun. Not a pre-nup for the group to all sign and be held legally accountable for.
God, relax. Have fun. Take a pill.

[Jail House Rock]

.

I AM CHAOTIC. I HATE RULES.

.

.

.

.

Mirror, Mirror wrote:

Universal Inalienable Rights of Gamers

1. All gamers are entitled to not play the game. None should ever force a game upon another.

2. All gamers are entitled to play the game. None should ever prevent another from playing without due cause.

3. All gamers are entitled to equal treatment. No favoritism or undue hostility should ever be manifest.

4. All gamers are due the respect owed their status as human beings. None should ever denigrate nor attempt to subjugate another.

5. All gamers are entitled to have fun. None should purposely sabotage the fun of another, nor allow their own fun to be sabotaged.

6. All gamers are entitled to their opinion. None should challenge the opinion of another without due cause or factual contradictory evidence.

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.

8. All gamers are entitled to their own aspirations, whether it be for characters or campaign story. None should purposely usurp nor sabotage those aspirations.

9. All gamers are entitled to all rights due them for adherence to the game’s social contract. None should deny, in part or in whole, the rights of gamers without justifiable due cause.

[Studpuffin]

Fake Healer wrote:

God, relax. Have fun. Take a pill.

I once played with a guy who tried to force gaming contracts on us like they were legally binding... though we never got the same thing from him in return. Suffice it to say, that group imploded at the beginning of the second session because everyone else offended *him*.

Sheesh.

[Mirror, Mirror]

Fake Healer wrote:

Good lord people! It's just a playful list of "rules to live by" for gamers. It's not a legal contract or something. It's a bit of fun. I've seen the same type of thing for German Sheppard owners. I really doubt they spent much time going over the legal ramifications of their soul-binding agreement.

Why is everyone so friggin' serious anymore? It's for fun. Not a pre-nup for the group to all sign and be held legally accountable for.
God, relax. Have fun. Take a pill.

Pretty much. Having some set-out rules and expectations can really help facilitate group interractions. Mostly for newer groups, but also for some that may be experiencing dysfunction and don't know why.

As to the forums, well, it is mostly just a way to relate back to the frame of an argument. If someone says "Bad DMing", I can link back to this list and say "Well, there is a conflict between right X and Y..." and frame quite unambiguiously my argument.