We've probably all heard, in one form or another, about the
Social Contract of Gaming. In simple terms, it's the generally "unwritten rules" on conduct during a game. It's the reason people get together, and the expectations they bring to the table. Whether or not a player realizes it, each individual generally has some stance or reasonable expectation on what a game setting should entail.
The problems with this social contract are many... It's open to interpretation, and there's no accounting for the widely divided points of views and motivations behind why people game. After some inexplicably volatile and unintentionally hurtful game sessions, a few of my friends had extensive conversations about this social contract, and I did some reading on the topic.
I came to realize that, for the most part, the Social Contract is a beautiful thing in concept, but the actuality doesn't readily apply to me and why I play, or what I expect from the other players. But there's just enough that
does hold true, that breaches in the contract can hurt feelings, dig up old grudges and cause other unpleasantness. So here's a look at some generic Social Contract conditions, as they relate to certain games, and my point of view. These are not from any one source, but cobbled together and paraphrased from a variety of sources.
Do you have a Social Contract of Gaming?
What axims do you play by?
How do you and your players feel about these issues? (
Please note: I'm by no means stating that I'm right with any of my views -- I'm simply putting forth some information I've come across which I've found very interesting... And playing a bit of the devil's advocate to spur discussion)
Simply put, your best is your best. This is more straightforward than "be competitive" to the best players. Its more of a obligation to remain focused on the game rather than watching tv, reading a book, wandering around the house etc etc
No team has ever come back from a 35 point deficit to start the 4th quarter. Should the losing team quit and walk off the field? No, of course not.
But should they be expected to participate as fully? Or should the predetermined victor keep up his maximum effort?
Your potential for victory greatly impacts your decision making -- in the NFL, you might sub backup players, run the ball to burn the clock and make other decisions which do not take advantage of your full ability... If the winning team did play to their full ability with the outcome predetermined, most people would accuse them of poor sportsmanship or running up the score, not praise them for being competitive.
Teaching games don't count. A fair competition cannot take place until all players have full knowledge of the rules so, unless they do, this rule cannot be applied.
If you are much better than your opponent, the goal of the game is to win by 1 point. Anything more than 5, and you have lost.
The anything more than X number can vary depending on your skill, but if you think you are such a great player of a game, than you should be able to manipulate the game such that the victory is incredibly close.