| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey if the contract acts as a filter to find the kind of players you want to have at your table, and to help guarantee you have the play experience that you and your players expect, then bravo.
And to those that find the idea or concept of a contract being foreign to their play experience, and something they want no part of..fine you don't have to, nobody will make you play a GAME, or sign a contract you don't want to, no reason for sour grapes, or wish the OP ill will, just Carry on.
Finding dedicated players that are reliable, and committed to a agreement whether verbal or formal is not a easy task, many lack the discipline or are distracted by other personal tastes, and become a bit flakey (personal emergencies, and work related of course being the exception, happens to everyone).
At anyrate more power to you, if its a stupid idea and it works...its not a stupid idea.
I kinda suspect that the reason the Op posted this is that it was a solution he found for his problems with finding players that met his criteria, and perhaps as a idea for others that may have the same problems...and to this end it may well work for others..not all but maybe some.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hope it works out. You may lose some people who simply refuse to DM...but the odds are good that they won't stop being gamers. They'll just find a different venue where they can "only play" without inconveniencing anyone. :)@aboniks
That! Is an excellent idea. Consider it stolen, and I will absolutely be instituting this for next year's iteration of the club. I feel shamed I never thought of such a thing earlier. Must be old age. :)
Y'know, those kids who say they "just want to play" seem pretty cas. If only there was some kind of binding legal document to really cement their participation...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I used to be a highly-story-driven, RP focused GM/storyteller for a bunch of drama club wannabes and I used to play once, sometimes twice a week. Now I'm playing 1/month if I'm lucky and my fellow gamers are all hard-core tacticians who feel Descent is too much RP for a tabletop game.
Needless to say: I've made some adjustments.
But that's just it. We all compromise and grow. New players, new gaming styles, new ideas. Those ENHANCE the game. There's no need to tie your group to a set way of gaming, commit them to a schedule, or paint yourself into such a corner with a contract.
Sure, there will be players who come and go. Lots of grown adults have the attention span of a gnat and it serves them VERY WELL in our modern world. For that reason, if those are the folks who express interest in your game, why not cater TO them instead of playing against their strength? Also there will be players who aren't as committed as you are to one aspect, say optimizing or RPing. Embrace what they DO commit to and explore it yourself.
All I know is that 8 years ago I was fortunate enough to get a gamer at my new tables who has stuck it out with me this whole time. He and I started literally at opposite sides of the gaming spectrum: I grew up loathing board games, tactics and the technical side of RPGs and ran whole games where a single die was never thrown. He on the other hand was a dyed-in-the-wool board gamer who delighted in strategy and thought that the "talky-talky" bits of the game got in the way.
Had I been on these forums in those early days I probably would've quit this player after a few sessions.
Instead I went with him and played Settlers of Catan for the first time and loved it. From there I played other strategic board games. I sucked at them of course but I learned to appreciate strategy. I found myself including more and more fight scenes in my games and optimizing villains. I gravitated toward this guy's way of gaming.
An amazing thing happened. Not all at once mind you, but gradually this player came out of his shell and began RPing. It started with character backgrounds and grew into fully developed characters. He has come with me to a couple Renaissance Festivals and we've had a lot of deep conversations about our hobby in the past few years.
In our current campaign, which is nothing more than a sandbox with a megadungeon in it, this guy has single-handedly created the plotline for me. To break in a new player this buddy of mine also sent out the kindest testimonial to me as a GM that I've received in a decade, concluding that my games are always "epic."
All of that came from compromise, not commitment.
TL/DR: the bottom line, for me anyway, is this: a contract, written or even verbal, commits EVERYONE at the table to a set way of gaming. But our hobby is shared, diverse, and ever-evolving. Embrace other gaming cultures, platforms and schedules, and your experience will be that much richer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
lol!
Hopefully you'll be able to step back into a floating referee role to help the DM's out when they need it. Maybe get them up to speed running individual encounters (Combat and Non-Combat) rather than dropping an entire module on them at once? How are you pacing your sessions now?
That would be absolutely ideal. Not that I wouldn't want to still run a game of my own, but if I could turn into a floating "final arbiter," and watch as a bunch of smaller groups play, it would really fulfill the purpose of such a club.
Pacing is a great question, right now we meet about once a month (sometimes twice depending on schedules--not sure if anyone would be surprised by this, but high school kids actually have really busy schedules, even on weekends) on Saturday mornings for three to four hours. This seems to work out the best as a lot of the players have after school activities or jobs, and I try to give them enough advance notice of upcoming sessions to provide for time to adjust schedules should they desire. This schedule provides me enough time in between sessions to prepare myself, and would hopefully give me enough time to help any other GMs prepare as well.
I believe the suggestions toward conscripting new GMs is definitely the way to go, MendedWall.
But I think you should be careful not to control the assignment process of different types of games/gameplay.
I'm mentally committed to this option. I really can't believe I never thought of it myself. That's just one of the reasons a community of gamers like this is such a blessing. As to the assignment process, I'll be thinking about that quite a bit. I don't want to create a system where there's a musical chairs scenario of players at a GMs table, especially for new GMs. At the same time, as you say, I don't want to unnaturally railroad players into certain playstyles. This one will be something I'll have to muddle over for a while.
I mentioned an application process. As part of that process I do actually have a two part online "playstyle" survey that I make potential members fill out. This is both to make sure they are dedicated enough to take the time to fill out the survey, but also to help me gauge the varying playstyles I'll be encountering. If you want to take a look at the surveys you can do so: here and here.
Might I suggest using the APs with your "conscripted" GMs?
It might help some if they use "canned" campaigns and do not have to do all the grunt work we "organic" GMs do.
You can suggest anything you like, it's a free country. :) I think, though, just using my personal knowledge of how things have run in the past, and what we've been able to accomplish in any given session, I'd lean towards using published modules first, as a trial run, before using a full adventure path. I think that with GMs in training a "one-off" module adventure might be easier to grasp. I also happen to have a good supply of Paizo's published modules that I could loan to the GMs in training.
I'd like to thank all those that have offered helpful suggestions. I'd also like to apologize to the OP for derailing his thread. I take some comfort in the fact that I, at least, have proven there is a time and place where a (albeit a modified version) contract like this can fit into our hobby.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A formal contract sounds like an ideal way to turn fun into work.
I, for one, would hate to play in game in which I couldn't relax because I'd be trying to figure out if I was breaking 'The Contract'.
An implied social contract is how most groups operate. If you need to have that written down and signed to make your players adhere to your rules, then I suggest that you might be looking in the wrong direction to fix the problem.
Also, any game where someone has set The Rules, not of the game itself but of the meeting, rings all sorts of alarm bells.
I've managed to game for over 30 years and have never felt the need to a formal contract to force players to play nicely together. I've seen a small handful (maybe 3 at most) of people not asked back to games, and I've not bothered carrying on with some groups I felt were not for me. It's like making friends or engaging in any other casual social activity - some people you can happily rub along with but there is a minority you feel have to learn social skills or have personalities that clash with the established group.
If you need a formal written contract to play a casual social game, I wonder how long before you need a similar one to make friends.
Isn't it simple good manners to turn up when you are expected? It is an expectation throughout life in general so I don't see that having it written down will add anything. If someone is bad at timekeeping then they'll likely be the same at work and elsewhere, where formal contracts are the norm.
No, I don't think writing rules down for casual social occasions is the way forwards. Maybe someone with exceptionally poor social skills needs it specifically spelt out, but I would hope that that could be done verbally and in a relaxed manner, not waving a written contract in their face.
As I said, that's not what I'd want to focus on.Isn't it simple good manners to turn up when you are expected? It is an expectation throughout life in general so I don't see that having it written down will add anything. If someone is bad at timekeeping then they'll likely be the same at work and elsewhere, where formal contracts are the norm.
No, I don't think writing rules down for casual social occasions is the way forwards. Maybe someone with exceptionally poor social skills needs it specifically spelt out, but I would hope that that could be done verbally and in a relaxed manner, not waving a written contract in their face.
Well the same goes for any other aspect of the contract. The essence of a good social engagement, including a RP game, is that everyone is having fun and can relax.
If someone is being an arse at the table, it is far more effective to tell him/her than to make everyone sign a contract. If they carry on being an arse after being told that they are impinging on other players' enjoyment, then I doubt that a written contract will make them a better player.
Having said which, every group plays differently. If I was greeted with a written contract to sign as I walked in to a new gaming group, at least I'd have sufficient warning to turn on my heel and leave.
You can suggest anything you like, it's a free country. :) I think, though, just using my personal knowledge of how things have run in the past, and what we've been able to accomplish in any given session, I'd lean towards using published modules first, as a trial run, before using a full adventure path. I think that with GMs in training a "one-off" module adventure might be easier to grasp. I also happen to have a good supply of Paizo's published modules that I could loan to the GMs in training.
Off topic, I know.... but I think I agree with you here. For casual gamers, and novice GMs, especially ones who only meet once a month, I think there's too much depth in a typical AP (and it takes far too long to run) to make it practical.
I think of it like reading, or watching film. If I could only watch five minutes of TV a day, I'd much rather watch Looney Toons shorts. I don't need or want to get into the plot ("Oh, the coyote is chasing the road runner") and I don't have to remember all of those details at session break. A lightweight sitcom could also work, but I'm NOT going to be able to watch a film noir mystery in five minute snippets.
A lot of the APs start out really slowly, and by the end of the first four hours -- the first session, in this case -- you've done nothing. (Not to single anything out, but.... Skull and Shackles, I'm looking at you.)
|
Different strokes for different folks. I've seen gaming contracts used before, though I have tended to avoid those situations.
In my experience I have found that the contracts tend to be geared more towards "this is what the players need to do" while ignoring "this is what the GM needs to do" instead of being "this is what everyone in the group needs to do". The OP's gaming contract reads that same way (no sharing of resources amongst players, GM has final call over ejecting a player form the group, etc.).
While I can see certain situations where a gaming contract could be useful (MendedWall12's situation being a prime example), I think they can do more harm than good in many instances unless they are balanced documents and used more as a general guideline rather than an actual contract. This means spelling out what the expectations are for EVERYONE, what is and is not acceptable, etc.
Or, you could just play the game. Sure, you run the risk of having folks flake out, or getting ejected from the group (and this should be a group decision, not a single participant's decision), and having other folks come in to fill the opening, but that's a mirror to life. Who's to say that the PCs at the start of a campaign are going to be the same ones who are there at the end?
To the OP: Bottom line is, if a gaming contract works for you and your group, great. But it is not for everyone. So yeah, expect some, if not a lot, of negative feedback on gaming contracts, especially ones that read a bit one sided and draconian, and don't get defensive when you see that reaction. After all, they are not in your group and the contract route is not their preference. Neither way is right or wrong except on a personal level.
Turn on heel and leave...
Kinda a quick reaction for going to a place to play a game, designating time and travel expenses and making a point of wanting to participate in said game..and upon being presented with a gamer contract..up and leave.
Personally I would read the contract over, see if it matches what I am willing to commit to and be able to live with, and if it meets those requirements I would gladly sign it and "Game on"
If I was not able to meet or the contract was to restrictive , then I would maybe sit in on a game if allowed (since I drove all the way over for it) and see if maybe it might be worth moving things around to meet the requirements, if the game was good enough to warrant it.
Its a piece of paper stating what that group expects from the members of it, its not a binding legal document that you will be brought to court over, more of way to make sure all the players are on the same wavelength so to speak.
I would not let a silly piece of paper keep me from perhaps having some fun and memorable moments, but hey that's me..I got nothing but time now. :)
To the OP: I like it - thanks for posting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Turn on heel and leave...
Kinda a quick reaction for going to a place to play a game, designating time and travel expenses and making a point of wanting to participate in said game..and upon being presented with a gamer contract..up and leave.
If a group needed me to sign a contract before I could play then that alone is enough to persuade me that I didn't want to be part of that game. It tells me enough about how that group operates to persuade me that I don't want any part of it.
Same as if there was smoking at the table, players who were clearly drunk or high, a requirement to wear fancy dress to represent your character, etc, etc. I've left groups for less because I am there to have fun, and if I am not having fun then there is little point in me being there.
Turn on heel and leave...
Kinda a quick reaction for going to a place to play a game, designating time and travel expenses and making a point of wanting to participate in said game..and upon being presented with a gamer contract..up and leave.
If a group needed me to sign a contract before I could play then that alone is enough to persuade me that I didn't want to be part of that game. It tells me enough about how that group operates to persuade me that I don't want any part of it.
Same as if there was smoking at the table, players who were clearly drunk or high, a requirement to wear fancy dress to represent your character, etc, etc. I've left groups for less because I am there to have fun, and if I am not having fun then there is little point in me being there.
Fair enough, I guess I see a gamer contract a little differently, I see it as what I can expect from the group, and that can be a positive, especially if you have delt with flakey players, and GMs in the past and don't mind some structure being spelled out, I get to read it and decide, but I don't judge a group until I see the whole picture.
I like the idea of getting members a little more serious. I'm not sure I like the implementation.
I also disagree with the thought that this is more a sport than collaborative storytelling. The best games I've played have been the ones where my character didn't win. That could be my White Wolf showing...
The sports analogy also fails on a few levels for me. Don't hog the spotlight? Well, there is only one quarterback. And everyone knows who the good receivers are. What about the linemen making the blocks but never getting the recognition? Well, that's part of the game. And not everyone goes pro. Very few do actually.
I am glad that you have found something that works for you. It does, however, contain a few assumptions that aren't the same as my assumptions. I usually game anywhere from twice to four times a month, so I can be a little more lax I suppose.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I was at the WTU during my medical board, they actually ordered us to do mental health recreation, which consisted of board games, wargames, RPGs, anything that was not a video game, and required interpersonal interaction...so yes I played D&D for the army.
we had a whole platoon ordered to do it, but you know it help several soldiers that isolated to much and even helped some of them vent.
When I was at the WTU during my medical board, they actually ordered us to do mental health recreation, which consisted of board games, wargames, RPGs, anything that was not a video game, and required interpersonal interaction...so yes I played D&D for the army.
we had a whole platoon ordered to do it, but you know it help several soldiers that isolated to much and even helped some of them vent.
Lucky sods.
Mandatory fun at the Fort Gordon WTU? Let's just say ours was more of the former and very little of the latter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Y'know, those kids who say they "just want to play" seem pretty cas. If only there was some kind of binding legal document to really cement their participation...I hope it works out. You may lose some people who simply refuse to DM...but the odds are good that they won't stop being gamers. They'll just find a different venue where they can "only play" without inconveniencing anyone. :)@aboniks
That! Is an excellent idea. Consider it stolen, and I will absolutely be instituting this for next year's iteration of the club. I feel shamed I never thought of such a thing earlier. Must be old age. :)
Heh. Yes, I see what you did there.
I also see a difference between one teacher running 23 student players every week for six years with none of them willing to try sitting in the DM chair, and one home table with a handful of grown adults who play one session for 4 hours a month...
One of these things is not like the other.
Classically, great games happen when a group of friends plays together for a long time, on a consistent basis. They have the trust in each other to show up, and to accept their gaming style (whatever that may be).
When you don't have an old group of gaming buddies around, a contract like this can establish the trust.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Classically, great games happen when a group of friends plays together for a long time, on a consistent basis. They have the trust in each other to show up, and to accept their gaming style (whatever that may be).
When you don't have an old group of gaming buddies around, a contract like this can establish the trust.
A contract like this doesn't say "trust" to me, though. It says "I want to be in control." That's why I think it's absurd.
I don't have any issue with the GM of a newly forming group to gather players and send them an email of his expectations, but these expectations are over the top. It's simply unrealistic.
It could just be that I'm in a different place in life than the OP. Most of my players are late 30's and 40's, married, have small kids, have out-of-town family, have professional careers, and have other commitments. I'm not saying that the OP shouldn't be allowed to pick like-minded players for his games, but the OP seems to be throwing out a lot of babies with the bathwater.
-Skeld
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tone...
I realized after I made my changes to the original document (thanks again to the OP for the framework) that much of what probably really irked people about the "contract" was the draconian tone of the language.
I will... required... etc.
After looking over my revised document I realize that much of what I did was subtle, or maybe not so subtle, changes in tone of language. I said things like: "The club has a reasonable expectation that I will..." or "this activity may incur repercussions and jeopardize my standing in the club."
In the end I think a lot of gamers would agree that the tenets of the "contract" are reasonable expectations for any gaming group. It's the actually putting them on paper, and stating them as if they can have no exception, that is bothersome.
Just my 2cp.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the end I think a lot of gamers would agree that the tenets of the "contract" are reasonable expectations for any gaming group. It's the actually putting them on paper, and stating them as if they can have no exception, that is bothersome.
Some of them are, but a lot of them are phrased very strictly, perhaps overly so.
For example, I don't think its reasonable to demand that I arrive 15 minutes early for any session -- or indeed for almost anything. If you want me there at 9:00 and have told me to arrive at 9:00, it is no less rude for you to expect me to wait 15 minutes (starting at 8:45) for your convenience than than it is for me to expect you to wait 15 minutes for mine. While it's quite reasonable to say that I should be there on time, on time means "on time."
"Looking up items in reference materials always requires prior GM approval." Blow that. My character is a professional wizard seven days a week and almost certainly remembers what kind of saving throw Snooton's uncontrollable sneeze takes. I'm not, and I don't. If you want to slow the game down by my interrupting your handling another character's actions to ask permission to look up the details of a spell in my book, then you are slowing down the game.
"I agree to possess all required materials at the beginning of game play (as specified by the GM)." How kind of you to spend my money for me. And the fact that I'm allowed to "use legal free resources online" doesn't save me any money if I'm not allowed laptops at the table.
I agree to projectile vomit all over your books if it's not a scheduled break time but I'm suddenly afflicted by food poisoning. Are you sure you want that one in writing? Maybe you want to allow people to take breaks, then?
Basically, it seems to come down to to an agreement that I need to respect the GM, but not that the GM needs to respect me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I empathize with the OP's frustration with gamer commitment, but I must say for me personally, I think making an actual contract takes things a bit too far -- and implies an inherent distrust on behalf of the GM's part that I think would sour the relationship between GM and players. I would also think that the players have the right in the case of the use of a contract to offer their own contract to the GM that he has to agree to certain expectations they have of him.
Let me be clear, however, that if this works for the OP and his players, more power to him. I just wouldn't use something like it, and I probably wouldn't play a game with a group that used one.
As regards the commitment issue:
Up front, I tell my potential players that I expect them to give me warning when they cannot attend -- emergencies of course will be forgiven. I tell them that if they repeatedly do not show up to game sessions, they will be asked to leave the game so I can make room for another player. People who do not show up will have characters botted. By making my expectations clear before the campaign starts, my players dig what I am expecting, and normally the people who sign up for my games have no problem showing up to game.
Regarding time, we set a "doors open" and a "play starts by" time. Everyone is encouraged to arrive between "doors open" and "play starts" time. At "play starts" time, play starts, even if not everyone has shown up. Again, expectations are set, reasonable, and met. I don't need anybody to sign anything -- if they've agreed to it ahead of time verbally, I trust them to do it, and I haven't been let down.
Everything else has never needed to be really dealt with, apart from asking players to do their homework. I'm running a game with a bunch of people relatively new to the system and after several sessions where they were still asking about basic character mechanics they had lots of time to learn, I told them I needed to spend less time as GM telling them how to play their character when they should have it in front of them and plenty of time between games to read their class entry, and more time running the game, and if I found myself spending the whole time reminding people of basic class abilities, I would stop running. I also offered in the same breath to run separate tutorial sessions to anyone who asked and to go over character sheets or class abilities at times that were not during the game session. The players have responded by memorizing their class abilities.
So I can be firm about things but it feels to me to take things too far to make people sign a form, and I would feel very strange about it -- I trust and like my players and generally as long as all of us are clear up front about our expectations of each other, there's really no problem. General courtesy and common sense take care of many of the other issues.
And I can't imagine restricting players' abilities to look up rules -- generally I find that helps rather than hinders, and again with a group of newbs help them learn the game. Indeed, often someone looking up rules is directly to help me out. If someone is ARGUING with me about a ruling, I'll ask them to accept my ruling for now and then we can investigate the controversial issue and come up with a house rule we can agree upon for next time, and I've not had problems with players agreeing to that either.
As for possession of materials, I expect everybody to have their character sheet and access to dice (they can borrow if they don't own their own). Can't imagine what else they'd have to have. I put my core rulebook on the table for those who do not have access to their own or who are not accessing the PRD via laptop or phone (two of my players are blind so they use their laptops with screenreader software to navigate their character sheets as needed).
Thanks again for the comments. The original Google Document in the first post is updated with changes. I specifically separated out the "idea" of the gaming contract, from my group's own contract example.
Hopefully this works better, as I am only here really to push the idea of the gaming contract. What you want in your own contract is up to the GM and players.
I still defend my contract as working excellently for myself and my players, but looking back on it I agree with some wording changes people have posted about 'vagueness.' Should my group need to send it out again, I would likely edit it. For now I am leaving it alone so that this thread and my example contract match the comments.
|
QUOTE
"The problem with it, at least for me, is that gaming is a hobby, not a profession or para-profession or even a competitive sport. I look at it as something fun for my free time, not something that is a codified facet of life like a job. Folks will miss, folks will be late at last notice, folks will vanish without a trace, its the nature of hobbies; they take back seat to real life."
Gaming is a Hobby, this very small select group or version of Gaming is not main stream & much smaller. It ranks at best 3.5 out of 10 in the importance scale compared to XBox360 riding a Harley or going to a movie.
A gaming "Contract" as such sounds like a good idea on paper, but in reality, I would have to PAY my players a wage for them to even read it.
WHAT WE REALLY NEED
Gaming contracts aside, I would like a vertial gaming table app for say a tablet or smartphone, in theory you could have a vertial gaming contract earn Gamer points for signing up for a adventure and playing 90% of you sessions? I just like the way they do/did "MAGIC: on the XBox/PC I am sure you could do a "thing with Pathfinder and Fantasy Grounds"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sheldon Cooper is REAL!!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Orfamay Quest
No, yeah, I completely get it. I actually wholesale changed those three entries top to bottom (as well as made significant changes in just about every other section). I guess what I meant was that there are principles behind the tenets of the contract that most gaming groups already adhere to. Most of them probably adhere to them, though, because they're mature adults, not because they need a written document to guide all their social behavior. Sometimes, though, when you aren't playing with mature adults, a written set of expectations can be a helpful tool to spark discussion. Like I said, I personally wouldn't craft something with such draconian inflexibility, but if it works, it works.
@Orfamay Quest
No, yeah, I completely get it. I actually wholesale changed those three entries top to bottom (as well as made significant changes in just about every other section). I guess what I meant was that there are principles behind the tenets of the contract that most gaming groups already adhere to. Most of them probably adhere to them, though, because they're mature adults, not because they need a written document to guide all their social behavior. Sometimes, though, when you aren't playing with mature adults, a written set of expectations can be a helpful tool to spark discussion. Like I said, I personally wouldn't craft something with such draconian inflexibility, but if it works, it works.
I think that's the biggest problem of that contract; what it says about the group.
Basically, handing me that contract says that this is not a group of mature adults, or even of people who can be expected to handle issues in a mature and sensible way irrespective of age.
But it goes beyond that -- the tone of the contract is not (to me) "a helpful tool to spark discussion"; far from it, it simply shuts discussion down cold. And sows distrust, to boot.
The lawyer-like tone of the contract suggests that the only method of resolving disputes that the group is likely to respect is a written document, and the fact that it's not actually anything like a document a lawyer would have written suggests that the author (who is probably the group leader and GM) has authority issues.
So, basically, you hand me that document and you are, in effect, saying "we're a bunch of rule lawyers with serious socialization problems, and our game master is a jerk." Well, perhaps that's not what you're saying,.... but that's what I'm hearing.
I'm not sure that the people who are willing to join that group are the people I want in the hobby. I'm not sure that the people who are willing to pass out that contract are the people I want to be introducing other people to the hobby.
While I understand the animosity for most "normal" gaming situations. I do see a place for this contract, albeit a very unique place. I will actually use a modified version of the contract, but, as I said, I have a unique situation.
I am the GM/Adviser for a high school RPG club. At first it was a club started by some students that knew I was a gamer, and had an interest in gaming themselves. That was 6 years ago. As the club progressed, it eventually became too big, and I had to have a process for weeding out the dross. Which, funnily enough, is much like cutting players for sports teams. ...
Further to previous. The big issue I have -- yes, a contract can do a great job of weeding out the dross. But be careful what you consider to be "dross."
One of the big issues that corporations are grappling with in the real world is the issue of screening. If the first thing you do with a pile of resumes is throw out all of them that don't have an X, you're implicitly saying that "having an X is the single most valuable characteristic in an employee." Indeed, even saying something like "we test all prospective employees for drugs" sends the message not even to apply if you're a casual user.
And that may be fine. If you value "drug-free" more than you value "honest" or "competent" or "creative" or "able to work without supervision" or "able to solve problems."
If you think the ability to show up fifteen minutes beforehand is more important in your gaming group than the ability to apply creative tactics, the ability to role-play a character different from oneself, the ability to deal with issues in a mature and reasoned fashion, or the ability to enhance the fun of the other people at the table, by all means screen with that kind of contract.
@Orfamay Quest
No, yeah, I completely get it. I actually wholesale changed those three entries top to bottom (as well as made significant changes in just about every other section). I guess what I meant was that there are principles behind the tenets of the contract that most gaming groups already adhere to. Most of them probably adhere to them, though, because they're mature adults, not because they need a written document to guide all their social behavior. Sometimes, though, when you aren't playing with mature adults, a written set of expectations can be a helpful tool to spark discussion. Like I said, I personally wouldn't craft something with such draconian inflexibility, but if it works, it works.
I think that's the biggest problem of that contract; what it says about the group.
Basically, handing me that contract says that this is not a group of mature adults, or even of people who can be expected to handle issues in a mature and sensible way irrespective of age.
But it goes beyond that -- the tone of the contract is not (to me) "a helpful tool to spark discussion"; far from it, it simply shuts discussion down cold. And sows distrust, to boot.
The lawyer-like tone of the contract suggests that the only method of resolving disputes that the group is likely to respect is a written document, and the fact that it's not actually anything like a document a lawyer would have written suggests that the author (who is probably the group leader and GM) has authority issues.
So, basically, you hand me that document and you are, in effect, saying "we're a bunch of rule lawyers with serious socialization problems, and our game master is a jerk." Well, perhaps that's not what you're saying,.... but that's what I'm hearing.
I'm not sure that the people who are willing to join that group are the people I want in the hobby. I'm not sure that the people who are willing to pass out that contract are the people I want to be introducing other people...
I somewhat agree, though, I think having a club constitution could solve this issue. I remember the RPG club I was nominally a part of in college had some stuff in it's constitution that required club officers to run games. I'm not sure how the club functions, being a high school club rather than a college one, but this could be a way to do it.
I think the most dangerous thing about this contract is that it attracts completely like minded people.
If you only associate with people exactly like you, what room have you left for personal growth and development?
You have me still thinking and now I propose a scenario:
A rules question comes up at the table. Not just a little one but a big one. This scenario and rules clarification will result in two potential outcomes.
A. You Rule Zero, and as a result several PCs die.
B. You spend twenty five minutes looking up how the rules are supposed to work.
Do you plan to break your contract (option B) or let your players suffer (option A)
If you chose option B (which I hope you did), what is to stop your players from being late next week or having an out of game discussion? After all, you already nullified your contract.
In a separate scenario, let's say you are GMing a game and in the heart of a massive pivotal combat that can change the entire campaign, your phone rings. It's your loved one who has just been in an accident. (I hope this never happens.)
Do you have the right to leave the game early and break your contract? It is YOUR contract after all.
I understand that there are extenuating circumstances, and I hope you do too. My point is that situations like these can show you how unrealistic some expectations are.
|
|
If you're going to run your game like a professional sport, then you need to recruit like one, too. Sit in a few pick-up games at your local hobby store and make sure you get contact info from the people you identify as good gamers. When you get 4-6 of them, arrange an "all star" group from your scouted prospects.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Excellent Stuff.
Beat me to everything I'd wanted to say, and said it better.
Because Harald did so, I'm not going to comment on the contract itself.
Instead, allow me to comment on a few things tangentially related to the discussion.
Basically, handing me that contract says that this is not a group of mature adults, or even of people who can be expected to handle issues in a mature and sensible way irrespective of age.
While I understand that this is the perspective it can give off, I would like to say that this isn't true.
I empathize with the OP's frustration with gamer commitment, but I must say for me personally, I think making an actual contract takes things a bit too far -- and implies an inherent distrust on behalf of the GM's part that I think would sour the relationship between GM and players.
... and again, while understood, neither is this.
Contracts are often seen as toxic in modern Western society for various reasons. I get it. ()
But that's not their best use in social cases.
Many people refer to the Social Contract as a nebulous never-written thing. Many people prefer that. That's fine.
There are places for written contracts, however.
Part of this is communication.
Some people are just bad at it.
Some people are just good at it.
Some people are just middling at it.
Some people are bad in some areas, good in other areas, and middling in other areas.
Part of this is confidence.
Some people lack confidence.
Some people have confidence, but it may require certain "elements" (kind of "props". (This may be a placebo effect, or it may be justified.)
Some of these are consciously known to the individual in question, and some aren't.
Part of this is commitment.
All those things that apply up above apply here, too.
Part of this is self-discipline.
All those things that apply up above apply here, too.
There are other things, too. I'm just not coming up with them right now. :)
The fascinating thing is, regardless of how skilled you are, this can always help you. (It can also work against you, as this thread is evidence of.)
And, there are people who desire something of themselves that they lack. For whatever reason, formalizing things of that nature through outside methods (such as a written contract) is a very powerful motivator for many who lack "enough" (to their own satisfaction) of whatever quality is sought.
Usually this isn't supposed to be a statement of, "I don't trust you." (though it can certainly come off that way), but instead a statement of, "This is what we want; do you want the same?"
Weirdly, people who are otherwise good at communication, are often bad at communicating that question through other means. Go figure.
I would also think that the players have the right in the case of the use of a contract to offer their own contract to the GM that he has to agree to certain expectations they have of him.
Absolutely, if we're talking individual contracts. However, the best means of handling it is making the contract with the group rather than the GM, as Harald pointed out.
Let me be clear, however, that if this works for the OP and his players, more power to him. I just wouldn't use something like it, and I probably wouldn't play a game with a group that used one.
Exactly. I probably wouldn't either - but honestly, it's not for any reason other than, I can't. With my life and my schedule, I simply cannot commit to anything so solidly. It's not where I am. And that's fine - more power to those who can!
One final thing, though - grace and mercy are good things for a reason. They need to always be considered when determining whether a particular outcome is "just". Spirit of the law over the letter, in other words. Sometimes that means going with the letter. Sometimes not. Judgement must exist, though, in all things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Social contracts for gaming are always there, even if most of the time it's implied or assumed. Luckily, most folks are able to play with friends they know enough about each other that their assumptions don't make an ass of themselves and umption.
I have seen social contracts put to paper before. Usually, it's something where a particular feel for the game is asked for (like a Ravenloft or Call of Cthulu game). The idea behind putting it on paper is just to bring the players to attention that the game might deviate from the normal expectations of joviality or casualness.
It's best when you want to set the mood to something like horror, or if you are wanting to touch on normally taboo subjects (like rape, or other nasty business). Warning the players ahead of time both gives the chance for them to bow out, and puts them in the proper mindset of gaming so they aren't quoting Family Guy in the middle of your Cthulu game.
I've also seen contracts like the one in the original post for other gaming hobbies, specifically online gaming. Being in a guild in a MMORPG, where there's limited spots for raids, limited rewards, and limited time, can mean the ones that want to be the most successful (read: beat the best end-game content as quickly as possible, etc), will have a sports like contract. In order to get the consistency without screwing over 20-30 other folks, this can make sense.
It's even more frequent in more competitive games (such that have ladder play, or something like EVE online).
While I see where the document is coming from (wanting people to keep attendance, be ready for gaming and know their own character, etc), the wording can be quite off-putting in the manner it's delivered.
It feels a little "hardcore" for a non-competitive gaming hobby.
Essentially, when I read the contract listed there, I feel like the intent is to be "the best, better than all the rest" and "win".
That doesn't mean a social contract is a bad thing overall (or even the one made in the original post, since it will eventually net some folks who want to play that way), I do think a more general or tamer version would get the point across for most folks.
Something like:
Attendance: Showing up late, and canceling are inevitable, however there's the expectation that you'll notify the GM in advance so everyone can adjust. Don't be surprised if we have to talk about replacing you if it becomes too regular, as delayed gaming is impacting the 4 other people's chance at playing in an already limited time.
Disruptions: The GM makes the final call. You can ask for a quick clarification, but in the effort of moving things along, most rules discussion will be left for outside of normal game-time.
By the same token, any non-game related material should be left for out of game-time too. No reading websites, or watching youtube, etc.
Unless it's consented and part of the theme of the current game, the expectation is that the group is generally working together. Different ideals, or methods, is fine, but no stabbing other party members in their sleep to take their shiny loot. Be mindful of how your actions with your character might impact another player's fun (this goes for spotlighting as much as PVP).
Know your own character: If you are playing a spellcaster, know your spells. If you are playing a summons-focused character, pre-stat out your summons. If you intend to gain and use a bunch of animals/pets/mounts/companions, then have at least the basics on some stat cards ahead of gaming.
This will speed up play, and prevent problems with rules clarifications or disagreements mid game.
..
That's about all you need really. The rest comes from it, or doesn't matter if they hit those bases.
Taking the "warning" approach (be late too often and we'll have to talk) vs the hardcore "cancel once and you can be kicked", will change how people see this contract and feel less threatened by the tone.
While I honestly don't even play in such a game, but I could see that kind of gaming contract wanted for someone playing in say, Pathfinder Society (where they might get random folks), or in gaming groups where things might be getting a little out of control, if only to filter out the ones who are mostly there to socialize or are simply grinding in the wrong direction from the rest of the group.
If you're going to run your game like a professional sport, then you need to recruit like one, too. Sit in a few pick-up games at your local hobby store and make sure you get contact info from the people you identify as good gamers. When you get 4-6 of them, arrange an "all star" group from your scouted prospects.
Also, arrange for performance enhancing drugs* to be available and set yourself up to have more fun than the opposition so that you win at the end of the season.
*Coffee? Fizzy drink? Our group's drug of choice appears to be Walkers Sensations Lime and Coriander Poppadoms. Nobody has yet asked for a urine test, so we're in the clear.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sheldon Cooper is REAL!!!
Bazinga!
Sheldon called his an 'Agreement'
This contract was used to filter potential players before they even got to us, not handed out to someone who sat at our table ready to play.
As a vetting method it seems effective, and it sets very clear expectations.
When the "unwritten" social contract you want is different from the average, writing it down is a good thing. I also appreciate the point that you are specifically looking for players who want this type of formal commitment, so even if not generally a good idea it will work for this niche of players.I could contemplate making a 'contract' like that for a group of my own, but the content would be very different for a casual/social group than for a 'gamer' group. Also, I would never actually enforce it, just use it to illustrate my expectations on what kind of group i'd like. I've certainly played with groups where expectations were all over the place.
Formally it may be closer to a Letter of Intent than a contract. The only thing that can happen is that the GM kicks you out - which could happen just as easily without the agreement. The difference is that your players may expect to be kicked for showing up too late.
The OP is living in a fools paradise. I've had an adventure path die because a player lost his apartment and had to move away, and the other players all quit because they could not agree on a place they could all get to once a month. Anyone who signs that contract is lying. No one will miss one game. They will drop out permanently.
I'm going to hide this topic, not report it at all, and continue on like I have.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While this may work for the OP's group, I have to say just looking it over that I'd be disinclined to sign it or play in that group. Several of the lines just make my skin crawl in general, and others have clicked on several of the reasons why.
While I can sympathize with the rationale behind doing this, I could not agree with what is written.
Best wishes and good gaming to you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been playing with most of my group since 1986. Players miss games for various reasons, games get cancelled, rescheduled, cut short, players change characters mid-campaign, etc. We're in it for the fellowship and laughs. The merest mention of a "contract" would shut this party down like a firehose to a candle. Not to mention the MMA fighter in the crew would beat me up in an alley somewhere.