Is a social contract right for your D&D group?

During a recent conversation with Stupid Ranger (who, despite the moniker, is a highly intelligent person), the topic of social contracts for gaming groups emerged. Such contracts set clear expectations about how players should behave at the gaming table, and by signing them, players agree to abide by those expectations. While these contracts are not a new concept – a definitive post on the topic appeared on Treasure Tables three years ago, and the earliest online reference to the term I found was dated 2001 – I noted that no version of the Dungeon Master’s Guide had ever identified such an agreement as a dungeon master’s tool, and inexperienced DMs may consider drafting one for the purposes of improving the play experience for everyone.

Group composition is a key element in determining if a formal social contract is necessary. Many groups are composed of family members and close friends; relationships of that sort are well-established, and tend to have higher levels of personal acceptance, easier communication, and higher tolerance between players. For such groups, these close relationships can naturally address most play aspects a social contract would cover on an as-needed basis, so specifically writing out how people should behave during the game may not be necessary.

For groups that develop more spontaneously, like those that emerge through gaming clubs, online “meetup” groups, social networking sites or other instances when those at the table may not know each other well, sitting down as a group and creating a social contract may be a much more useful exercise.

A little research into this topic yielded this list of typical contract topics (basic courtesy and respect are, of course, expected at all times):

  • The game system or edition to be played;
  • Supplemental materials that will be employed or specifically ruled out;
  • Explanation of DM-created “house rules” that will be used;
  • The number of players, and a process for adding new players or “writing out” players who leave the group;
  • Logistics of meeting places, provision of snack foods or meals, or sharing expenses;
  • The expected duration of the campaign;
  • Meeting days/times, session frequency and duration;
  • Attendance expectations, and what happens if a player is chronically absent;
  • Procedures for canceling a session;
  • The overall tone of the game, and expectations that characters will contribute to that atmosphere instead of undermining it;
  • Table conventions, such as how often a person can speak out-of-character or, my personal favorite, the you-said-it-you-did-it clause, for players who try to make everything into a joke;
  • A stance on whether or not player characters may attack each other;
  • Policies about note-passing, whether or not die rolls must be made in plain view, and ethical concerns such as allowing evil player characters;
  • Procedures for handling player-DM disputes; and
  • Rules regarding physical contact between players.

It seems that we, as players, tend to expect others to instinctively know what we want in our games, and we can become frustrated when other players act in opposition to our expectations. If most of the players want a grim, mercenary campaign and one player creates a gnomish jester who enjoys practical jokes, it unlikely that anyone at the table will have fun: the DM sees the dramatic tension he’s trying to develop canceled by rubber chickens, the gnome player is annoyed that no one appreciates his jokes, and the other players see their heroes effectively knocked offstage by what amounts to the gnome’s bad Vaudeville.

It is for this reason that even seasoned groups can benefit from having a frank discussion about some or all of these topics, if for no other reason to review expectations or to revise the manner in which the game is played to reflect the collective preferences of the group. If one player has very different expectations for a role-playing game, it may be better for everyone if that player sought another group of like-minded players.

A very important note to remember in dealing with these “mismatched” players is that we must clearly distinguish that the mismatch is not a judgement of that player’s ability, social skills, intelligence or value as a person. It’s easy to take being told, “you don’t really fit our group” very personally.

One analogy to help a mismatched player to understand the group’s feelings involves vehicles. Whether a four-wheel-drive vehicle or sports car is “better” is largely determined by the road ahead. A player whose style doesn’t match the rest of the group has the same effect as a person who shows up in a Ferrari to go off-roading with friends; while there’s nothing inherently wrong with the Ferrari, it’s not going to work in that environment. 

For newer groups, establishing such a contract can avoid misunderstandings before the first die roll, and help ensure that everyone has fun playing Dungeons & Dragons.


9 comments on “Is a social contract right for your D&D group?

  1. Max.Elliott says:

    My usual GM makes up a single sheet with these points on them and discusses it with players before each game. We never called it anything, and he ran it more like an interview. Some of the long time players would get invites and look at the sheet to see if the game interested them, and newer players would get to meet everyone and see if they liked things before committing a whole lot of time to it.

    He also runs an “at cost” soda reselling table. Very popular fellow.

    • Alric says:

      Nice to hear from you again, Max.

      The thought of a single-sheet summary – kind of like an “About Us” page – is a great idea. It’s a lot less intimidating than making folks sign a contract, and a worthwhile option for people who are new to the game. After all, how many newbies know the difference between “wargaming style,” “hack-n-slash” and “role-playing intensive?”

      And selling not-for-profit D&D concessions is inspired.

  2. Syrsuro says:

    I see a formal Social Contract as being not unlike a Prenuptial Agreement. One’s first thought upon being asked to sign one is not “what a great idea”, but rather “what is going on here that they think this is necessary.”

    Not that social contracts, as a concept aren’t a good idea.

    I just don’t see any need for them to be written out formally and see such an effort as being counterproductive.

    To put it another way: Not all contracts need be written. Verbal contracts [i.e. simply bringing up the mutual expectations] are equally ‘binding’.


    • Alric says:

      Welcome, Syrsuro, and thank you for reading my blog.

      Your point is well-taken. I was thinking that the written sort of agreement may be suitable for large groups and gaming clubs, where problems would naturally be more common due to the increased number of participants.

      Your comment does raise an interesting thought, though, regarding smaller groups that had problems that made members feel that a writen agreement was necessary. In a campaign I once played in, a fellow male player was constantly touching the female players, and justified it by saying he was a “tactile” person when confronted. One of the two females left, and I left soon after. In such a case, if a written agreement was presented along with such an explanation, would it still smack of “pre-nup?”

      • Philo Pharynx says:

        If he was just a tactile person, then why was he only touching the female players? This sounds like harassment and I hope that these women found gaming groups without a guy like this. I’ve met a few women who were interested in gaming but had been put off by guys like this. Of course this is something that’s hard to handle. The women obviously didn’t feel comfortable bringing this up. While I doubt many groups will put in a no touching clause, it might help to figure out a way to handles disputes non-confrontationally.

      • Alric says:

        You’re preaching to the choir on this one, Philo. Just hearing that made me want to knock out the guy’s teeth…

  3. […] I also decided to create a Campaign Charter, which is my fancy version of one of those social contracts that received a decent amount of attention on the RPG Blogs last year (well, that is at least when I read the most about them). If you would like to read more about social contracts, I recommend RPG Ahtenaeum’s social contract article. […]

  4. […] good commentary on and sample of social contracts can be found here and the note at the end of the list plays well into my leitmotiv of empathy; mismatched players […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s