Social Contract: Difference between revisions

From 2d4chan
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 21: Line 21:


==See also==
==See also==
* [http://www.creightonbroadhurst.com/gm-advice-5-characteristics-of-terrible-gms/ 5 Characteristics of Terrible GMs]
* [http://io9.gizmodo.com/your-most-heinous-stories-of-role-playing-games-gone-wr-1728049438/ Your Most Heinous Stories of Role-Playing Games Gone Wrong]
* [http://io9.gizmodo.com/your-most-heinous-stories-of-role-playing-games-gone-wr-1728049438/ Your Most Heinous Stories of Role-Playing Games Gone Wrong]
* [http://www.criticalmiss.com/issue10/CompSmeg1.html The Complete Smeghead's Guide to Campaign Destruction]
* [http://www.criticalmiss.com/issue10/CompSmeg1.html The Complete Smeghead's Guide to Campaign Destruction]

Revision as of 09:20, 24 December 2017

Also known as Rule 0.5, due to its close relation to Rule Zero. Can be boiled down to one sentence:

Rule 0.5:

Don't be a dick.

Often not this strict, but sometimes it should be.

We all know about Rule Zero. Everyone playing an RPG is generally there to have fun, unless you're playing FATAL or something, and if the game isn't fun the players have the right to leave the game instead of wasting time and energy on a fool's errand. However "make the game fun" isn't the whole story; the GM is also expected to not handle the group with kid gloves or pander to players for fear of hurting their feelings, because that shit makes the experience hollow and usually causes games to devolve into communal fanfic-writing sessions. Thus, a Social Contract emerges, where the GM has an obligation to the group to run a challenging, fun game and the players have a collective obligation to not be That Guy and not give the GM shit for putting their special snowflake in a situation where they could conceivably fail.

Some terms of the Social Contract

For GMs

For players

See also