The challenges of a new party - making a "party contract"

[MaximumTaco]

This is an incredibly useful piece of writing I found one day when I was searching for something to help my party (I'm the DM, they're playing through the Shackled City campaign) get through the constant party conflicts and uncooperative character interactions. By the time they'd sat down, worked together to hash the answers to these questions out and clarified what was expected of each other, it really made a big difference in terms of getting them to work together.

I really thought this was worth sharing with the community, so here's the original post, in it's entirety with a link to the source.
http://tigerbunny-db.livejournal.com/11179.html#cutid1

I hope this is acceptable, and if you're having party conflicts, or players who constantly wonder "why we're working together" - this may be a tool that could help you out. If your party is going to become 'organized' and make themselves a name and contract this should be a big leap forward.

Enjoy!



Mark Woodhouse (tigerbunny_db) wrote,
@ 2007-04-24 15:00:00
Previous Entry Add to memories! Tell a Friend! Next Entry
Current music: New Order - Perfect Kiss
Entry tags: back to the dungeon, rpg craft

Back To The Dungeon: The (Social?) Contract
Well, I've got my group together. We've met, scheduled our first session for next month, and are now engaged in the pre-game feely-outy stage via the game Yahoo-group (don't know why I never did one of those before!). One thing that's cropped up is the suggestion of a "party charter" - a sort of statement-of-purpose and setting of rules for the group. I actually think this is a neat thing to do for a game that's tightly team-focused and mission-driven, the way a lot of D&D play is. Everybody comes to the game with a set of norms they've picked up - whether from other games or from general social expectations - and when they clash it can get ugly. I'm going to try to midwife the process of this group working it out as best I can - you can't force this stuff, but I'm glad somebody suggested it (not me!).

I've been brainstorming an outline of "stuff that might come up" that you might want to cover in such an agreement.

Treasure Distribution</li>

1. Is there a “party fund”?
i. What expenses are paid out of it?
ii. How much does each member need to pay in?
iii. Who is in charge of the funds?
iv. Are there any optional surcharges
1. “Resurrection Insurance”
2. “Bail Money”
3. ….
2. Magic Items

i. Who gets them?
ii. Do they count against treasure shares, or are they divvied separately?
iii. Valued at resale value?
iv. Are some (or all) items “group property”?
v. How does the group decide what will be kept/sold/used?

3. Responsibilities
1. Are spellcasters, crafters, etc. expected to provide their services to fellow party members for free or at a discount?
2. If a character dies, what responsibilities do the rest of the company have to them? What will the party do?
3. If a character is lost, missing, captured, etc… what will the party do about it?
4. What expectations are there for sharing of resources (including information)?
5. Under what circumstances will party members come to the aid of their fellows?
i. Only in pursuit of chartered goals
ii. Under all reasonable circumstances
iii. Something in between

4. Sanctions
1. What sorts of action or nonaction might be prohibited?
2. What kind of penalties would be levied?
3. Who will judge if there is a dispute?
4. How are members expelled from the group? What happens to their share of any group resources?


5. Group Purpose
1. Does the group have an ideological purpose or goal, or is it merely a mutual aid society in pursuit of treasure, fame, and the like?
2. What means and ends are acceptable/unacceptable to the group?
3. How are new members admitted to the group?

6. Leadership and Decision-Making
1. What leadership roles exist?
i. “Face”: Legal/social representative
ii. Combat Leader
iii. Quartermaster
iv. Secretary
v. Treasurer
vi. Party Leader

2. How are they assigned?
3. How frequently can they change hands and how?
4. How does the group make decisions?

i. Voting? (Methods, who has votes…)
ii. Consensus?
iii. Other?

5. Is there an outside authority/authorities to which the party as a whole is responsible?


7. Customs
1. Does the group have regular meetings of any kind?
2. Is there any sort of common recognition sign, livery, symbol, etc.?
3. Does the group practice/train together? How often? For what?
4. Does the group have a headquarters or other regular haunts?


How have these sorts of things been handled in your games? Have there been problems when issues like this were or weren't discussed in advance?

[LotharBot]

There's a lot of good stuff here. (BTW I just finished DM'ing Shackled City; blogged about it here (http://rubblerousers.blogspot.com/).)

I'd rewrite things to cover more ground, thusly:

Section I: Player Expectations

- Gaming sessions: time and place, including rotating between locations if needed. Rules for missing sessions (call ahead of time, give your character sheet to someone else, etc.) Planning ahead of time for vacations, holidays, etc.
- Food: Is there a meal provided? Are snacks and drinks communal, or bring your own? Does everyone provide a bit of money for pizza or whatever?
- Rules of the home: smoking and alcohol allowed? Swearing? Take your shoes off before you enter? Are noise levels an issue (people sleeping in the next room, etc.)? Do dishes go in the sink or the dishwasher?
- Table rules: are you expected to stay at the gaming table for the whole game, aside from bathroom breaks? Is it OK to get up and go play Xbox or watch TV? Are there out-of-character topics that are forbidden at the table (politics, religion, etc.)?

Section II: Game and Character Setup Rules

- What books are allowed?
- List houserules, and DM's authority to institute new houserules
- allowed races, classes, alignments, and character concepts (example: "I don't allow characters to steal from each other", "I don't allow Drizzt clones", etc.)
- player / character roles: planned out as a group, or individually / in secret?
- Are backstories required? Should they be tied in to the specific campaign world / area?
- Are character conflicts dealt with in character, out of character, or both?

Section III: Party Rules

- Does the party have a name / mission statement / logo? Are there rules for joining, etc? Can party members be kicked out?
- Are party members expected to be helpful to each other "to the end" (and even beyond death) or only in certain circumstances?
- What services are expected to be shared? This includes crafting, identifying items, appraising and getting a good price on treasure, and any other services. Are there charges for these services (rogue's commission on sales, casters being paid for XP cost in item crafting, cleric charging for healing, etc.)?
- How is treasure distributed? Who gets what items, and how is this decided? How do items count against monetary-value treasure shares?
- Are there party-owned resources like a guild hall, party healing items, or a party fund? How are these funded, and under what circumstances can they be used? Who is responsible for tracking and upkeep?
- Are there expectations of party members outside of adventuring? For example, group training, sharing information or contacts, protection from personal enemies?
- How are decisions made outside of combat, and inside of combat? Is there a hierarchy, democracy, or "do your own thing"?

[Matthew]

Seems like a good list. Never had anything quite so formal in my own games, but most of the things there are worth thinking about.

[Kurald Galain]

Hm, I suspect I would shun any group with such lengthy formal contracts as that would imply that those are actually necessary to said group...

[Prometheus]

Most games that I play it is informal rules. In fact, the players are so accomodating that they often times go beyond their characters normal rp range to make it easier. That isn't to say that some people don't find making and breaking formal charters interesting, I would, but my groups really don't.

[LotharBot]

I wouldn't be particularly inclined to make a formal, written contract... but I *do* go over many of these issues when forming a group. It's good to set forth expectations like "show up when we're playing", "don't mooch", and "don't cuss when we play at my grandma's" beforehand. It's also good to let your players know they can use material from books X, Y, and Z but have to clear anything else with you.

The specific party stuff... I figure, just let the party figure it out. That's part of the fun of the game. But some parties want to be more formal, with a charter and all.

[Ceres]

For some reason when reading this post, I envision a party of stern paladins and dwarves sitting around a tavern table, nodding their heads and "mhm"'ing in unison as the leader reads up the party contract. All this while the chaotic rouge rolls her eyes and picks the dwarves’ pockets.

Still, I would recommend using this for any group where doing missions and driving the plot forward has priority over roleplaying, as having these things set in stone might leave out possible roleplaying opportunities.

Nice find, though :smallsmile:

[TheLogman]

Certainly a fix to those groups that might go overboard, or those sessions that end sour. Excellent Find.

I will probably use something like this for a game I'm Dm'ing in a week or two, maybe not something so formal, but definitely some rules. (Like no complete silliness.)

[SoulCatcher78]

Sounds like a great plan, espescially if your gaming with a lot of unknowns. Having had the same group of gamers (back when I gamed regularly that is) for years, most of this had been hammered out. Being in a rural area with limited transportation at the time, there weren't a lot of opportunities to do something like this.

Some great things about this are:
No worrying about having to reroll a character every time you die because your party members refuse to pay for the raise dead or worse yet, just want to split up your equipment.

Guidlines for time/place/conduct of play so that there aren't any problems next week/month because "you forgot".

Not having to deal with the "gotta watch that rogue fella', ya know they just can't be trusted" crap that seems to come with playing with new characters/players.

Agreeing that there is a goal in mind and not just a bunch of aimless wandering/blowing up farmhouses to watch the peasants run stuff.

[Kurald Galain]

The proper response to an overly formal party contract,

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0294.html

[MaximumTaco]

Haha - good point. Honestly, I don't actually play with a group of tightwads or hardcore roleplayers, it's the total opposite in fact. Playing with a group of fairly consistent "roll-players" who very frequently just play their characters based on a single characteristic (I'm surly! I enjoy fighting a lot! I have no personality whatsoever!), it's sometimes been hard to actually get them to work as a team.

We'd been wasting a lot of time, and I didn't use this to 'lay down the law' or anything, but more so there'd be a system to solve simple conflicts and so that they'd have a vested interest in participating in something they'd created. Honestly, they'd never really worked together as well as they had while they were talking through answering those questions, it really helped them to get a feel for their characters in those early sessions (This was about week three or four).

I absolutely see how this isn't the right thing for many groups, but maybe if you have a group that's just not quite working together very well, but you think it's solvable, this could be worth trying.

[Fixer]

Yeah, my current group wouldn't work with such a contract being formal. At this point one of our players has ticked off everyone else and refuses to alter their behavior so it might just end up that my wife's character (who is holding all the money) will refuse to give him his share when we kick him out of the party. She will allow him to fight her for his share.

(She's a druid warshaper vs. the halfling rogue who can't hit the broadside of a barn so far. He wouldn't even be a quarterling after she is done with him.)

[Matthew]

Interestingly, formal 'charters' were not uncommon amongst groups formed of disperate elements in Medieval Europe. One example I can think of off hand is the twelfth century military expedition to Jerusalem via Lisbon in 1146/7(?).

[Dausuul]

Hm, I suspect I would shun any group with such lengthy formal contracts as that would imply that those are actually necessary to said group...

In a static group, I wouldn't feel it necessary to have such a contract, but it could be a very valuable "orientation" tool for new players. I'm sure most people here have had the experience of having a new player join the group and immediately start making trouble; but most gaming groups have difficulty just kicking somebody out, especially when that person is friends with another player.

A contract like this could either avert such trouble or at least provide a clear road map for dealing with it.


Still, I would recommend using this for any group where doing missions and driving the plot forward has priority over roleplaying, as having these things set in stone might leave out possible roleplaying opportunities.

This kind of contract would be at least as valuable in RP-heavy games as in classic dungeon crawls. In my experience, what often happens when you get a bunch of RP-focussed gamers together is that they make their characters, the campaign starts, and within one session the characters have either butchered one another or split up and gone their separate ways, because everybody has their own motivations and nobody is willing to subordinate "roleplaying my character" to "going on adventures together."

With a contract laid out beforehand, everyone knows what's expected of them and they can tailor their characters' personalities so they'll be able to meet those requirements.

[Winterwind]

Huh. I don't know. To me, this seams like a pretty artifical and restricting enforcement of how the group is supposed to work, externally introduced by OOC-considerations.
If the group had no other way of working together I guess it would be preferable to the alternative, but usually I would attempt to make it work without such a contract. Why not just let the group grow together naturally and work out their relations in-play?

Also, I can't help but wonder why the majority of the posters in the Metagaming-thread condemned metagaming so much, whereas in this one most people seem to be advocating it?

[LotharBot]

To me, this seams like a pretty artifical and restricting enforcement of how the group is supposed to work, externally introduced by OOC-considerations.

The sections that were unique to my post were entirely OOC because they related more to the players than the characters. Of course "show up on time" and "bring money for pizza" are OOC considerations; the pizza guy won't take D&D gold pieces as payment. The specifics of IC party interactions... I don't think of them as "artificial restricting enforcement". They're more like, informing you of what to expect. They let you know that this group won't tolerate chaotic-stupid alignments, or that your fellow players think it's fun to have inter-party stealing, or that since you're gaming with a 12 year old you need to watch the in-game innuendo.

Traditionally, "metagaming" is used to refer to using out-of-game knowledge to gain an advantage in-game. That's generally looked down upon -- if your character doesn't know trolls are vulnerable to fire, they shouldn't act as though they do; if your character doesn't know the DM must've built an escape into this situation, they shouldn't act as they do. They should act according to the knowledge and training they've had, not the knowledge and training the player has had. I wouldn't classify anything in this thread as "metagaming", because the purpose is not to gain an in-character advantage, it's to set expectations for the group. The purpose isn't to force your character to behave according to OOC knowledge, but rather, to let you know how to craft your character IC in order to fit in with the group's playstyle. It's a subtle but important difference.

[Dausuul]

The sections that were unique to my post were entirely OOC because they related more to the players than the characters. Of course "show up on time" and "bring money for pizza" are OOC considerations; the pizza guy won't take D&D gold pieces as payment. The specifics of IC party interactions... I don't think of them as "artificial restricting enforcement". They're more like, informing you of what to expect. They let you know that this group won't tolerate chaotic-stupid alignments, or that your fellow players think it's fun to have inter-party stealing, or that since you're gaming with a 12 year old you need to watch the in-game innuendo.

Agreed. I think sometimes people lose sight of the fact that players having fun OOC is way, way more important than anything that happens IC. Contracts like this are a way of saying, "No matter what personality you write down on your character sheet, the following behaviors ruin the fun for the rest of us, so don't do 'em, and don't make a character who would do 'em."

[Matthew]

I don't think it would be entirely unlikely that an Adventuring party would draw up an agreement of this sort, even if only a verbal agreement. It's actually, in my opinion, more unrealistic for a party to go treasure hunting without first agreeing on expenses and how any booty will be divided, amongst other things.

[Kalirren]

It's all up to the players, really. I've seen groups where it has happened, I've been in groups where it hasn't. Sometimes treasure is first come first serve. Sometimes there's an unwritten contract to split treasure value equally and sell everything unclaimed. I know of one instance in which my party threw my character the books and said, "You keep track," because if they didn't do that then my character would try to milk them, but if she milked them in the open they could beat her up for it.

I'm currently running a campaign in which the first thing the party merchant did upon realizing a party had been gathered was draw up a contract - 3 parts for himself, 2 for the captain, 1 for each other officer. All the PCs got paid, and the merchant PC got to keep an airship that no one else stood up for or wanted to deal with.

In all cases it emerges naturally IC. Sometimes people metagame, and I have to say that the more Monty Haul the play style, the more meta-game the treasure division often ends up being. I purposefully attempt to make every magic item which I explicitly give a character unique and meaningful/interesting to that character in a way that gp can't measure - just my own little workaround.