Oh, drat! That’s taken too…

(Actually, I got the term “game charter” from Patrick, but I think it does a pretty good job of explaining things.)

@John Arcadian – I think the reluctance to use the term “social contract” emerges from the fact that it means many things to many people. (Blatant generalization follows) Gamers like to have concrete definitions. It comes, I would guess, from years of memorizing rulebooks. “What does ‘Hit bonus’ mean? What does ‘skill check’ mean?”

Certainly, in a sense, applying one of the foundations of republican democratic thought — that the “governed” have to sacrifice some of their freedoms to the “social contract” in order to maintain order and cohesion — is applicable, but the problem is that social contract theory doesn’t have a definition beyond that. A social contract can range from the basic application of the “golden rule” (the do unto others rule, that is) to a complex Bill of Rights. It can be immutable (like the Spanish constitution) or innately flexible (arguably like Canada or South Africa) or somewhere in between (the USA).

Similarly in gaming, as noted, a social contract can range from general assumptions brought to the table, to basic declarations by the GM (I’m not using anything from the supplements, so core rules and Forgotten Realms core books only), to outright dissertations on specific topics (well, we use the Action Die system from Spycraft, but we use them more like Fate Points from Serenity, and the world is a steampunk-western where nobody makes a big deal out of sci-fi tech, like the comic Daisy Kutter…).

Further, as many of the commenters have noted, the “gaming social contract” needs to cover a VERY wide range of topics: player interactions, GM authority, rules usage, setting details, tone, mood, character options; basically every single thing that players do needs to be covered by one form of “social contract” or another, which makes the term very fluid and therefore not very useful.

Another problem is something you noted in your reply to Patrick Benson: that “gaming social contracts” need to be flexible to feedback; I think most people hear the term “contract” and assume something fixed and immutable.

If I were going to give a name to the phenomenon we are discussing, I think “table conventions” might be the most appropriate. In politics, a “convention” is any tradition long-standing enough to be -almost- like law, but not quite. About half of the structure of Parliamentary governments like Canada or the UK are built up from convention, rather than actual written law, and the USA has some examples as well, such as much of the operation of Cabinet, which is not spelled out in legislation.

The advantage of the term “convention” over “contract” in the context of gaming, is that it explicitly notes that something is consensus-based and flexible, and that it can be overruled by an express wish of the group.

@ Scott Martin: I’ve never really been sure where I like to draw the line on things I include in a social contract. You’re absolutely right that those items can be in a social contract, but to me they seem to be part of a separate contract that deals with how the players interact with each other as friends. They aren’t necessarily about the game itself, but about the structure of the group.

You’re absolutely right about those being hard for a newcomer to pick up. Like Deadlytoque had mentioned about his Vampire group, it is often hard to be the newcomer in a group and have to work to get the feel of it down. My vampire group has been playing for most of their lives and I’m the newcomer. After about a year and a half of playing with them I’m just starting to get the feel for their World Of Darkness.

@ Kurt “Telas” Schneider : Good call on the defining your terms. I know to me High Fantasy almost means steampunk and magic, while another player in my group interprets it very differently.

@ BryanB: That is definitely the rule for life.

@ Patrick Benson: You’re right, feedback and communication are also incredibly important. I know the times when we’ve more rigidly defined social contracts in our group we change them based on feedback. Often we go the route of the implied social contract with the caveat of the GM has final say over anything if there is an issue. Then we give feedback later and the GM changes rulings based on the feedback.

Regardless of what you call it, at the end of every session try to get feedback on what is working and what isn’t. Treat your charter, contract, whatever as a living agreement that must be attended to regularly. Like others have said, communication is the key to a good gaming group.

Gaming group ground rules and social “contracts” are important aspects of group formation, no doubt about it, but I have found that my number one rule has done more for my gaming experiences (and other relationships) than any other that I have come across.

So if I can put it plainly, my number one rule essentially is: “Don’t be a jackass. Treat others respectfully. Don’t tolerate disrespect towards anyone at the table. Solve people problems away from the gaming table – Trying to solve them in-game is a huge mistake. Remember that we do this to have FUN!

The second rule is communication. The group is going nowhere pretty quick if everyone doesn’t have some kind of idea about what they want to play and how they want to play it. Keep those lines of communication open. There are plenty of good posts on Gnomestew that cover that sort of thing.

I don’t like the term “social contract” either, but it’s what we’ve got. (I’m partial to “game charter”, but hey…)

Game rules: Which game, which version, which house rules? Allowed sourcebooks? How long can a discussion can go on before a decision is made? Who makes final decisions? What genre (specifically)? What power level? How “special” are the PCs? How lethal is the campaign? How “rich” or “poor” is the gameworld? How much handwaving will there be (as opposed to realism)?

Session rules: Food, drink, and “other”. Distractions, and the limits thereof. Time of arrival/departure, and how firm they are. Limits on “out of character” discussion. What happens to your character when you miss a game? How many can miss before we cancel? Whose house, and do they have any preferences? How “in charge” is the GM (if at all)?

Group rules: Who’s playing? Who can invite new players? Who is the final arbiter of new players? How do we handle bad players? How do we handle unequal distribution of work/rewards?

When you’re talking about this kind of stuff, define your terms. “High fantasy” might mean anything, as may “pulpy” or “grim and gritty”.

To me, the purely social, outside the game social contract elements are the most critical and least likely to be explicit to a newcomer. Some elements that John didn’t mention include:
- How do we decide who is in the group? Who gets to invite new people?
- Who is responsible for ordering the food? How do you pay? Can you opt out (by bringing your own food, say)?
- May we criticize other players or the GM? Do we do it in cliques, bitch directly to the GM, or blurt it out at the table?
- Do we give each other birthday or Christmas gifts? At a session or on the side? Do you bring something for everyone or just for your friends?

Common amendments are our “standard packages” of house rules, plus mood/tone establishment. A common one for D&D, for example, will be “I want all the players to be from Place X, and have Connection Y”. In World of Darkness games, we have a handful of simple rule tweaks (more lethal firearms) and in an upcoming Hunter game I plan on running, I’m going to modify that a bit further.

One of the common problems we have that more explicit “social contracts” might resolve is totally off-theme characters. There are a core group of gamers in my circle that have been playing Vampire (both Masquerade and Requiem) together for nearly 10 years, so sometimes we make assumptions about the setting and the mood that we don’t explicitly share with new players, which can cause some jarring when those new players cross the invisible lines.

I don’t know a lot about the use of the concept of social contracts in gaming, but using that well-established political theory term grates me a bit, because it’s very -unclear- what it means in a political context (eg: Rousseau vs. Locke vs. Hobbes’ Leviathan). Hopefully it’s more solid in gaming circles.