![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Trust & Promises in Role-Playing Games
Aug. 30th, 2024 05:08 pmOne of the blogs I read about Role-Playing Games (RPGs) such as Dungeons & Dragons is Gnome Stew. Recently the authors there posted an article that got me thinking, "Earning Their Trust: Keeping Your Promises". The article discusses different types of promises made by the GM in setting up a game, including those which are typically made "Out loud" versus only implied.
One thing I like to do in setting up games, especially via a Session Zero, is make implicit assumptions explicit. Thus when there are genre promises, like the expectation players have that there will be swords and sorcery and lots of dice rolling when a GM says, "I've got a great idea for a D&D game!" I like to confirm those up front— or caution the players if things will be different.
I find there are also a number of implicit promises that should be made in a game that the Gnome Stew article didn't cover. These are in the category of the social contract of gaming. Some of them are related to genre conventions, too... and some of those conventions are bad and thus really need to be addressed explicitly!
Here are some of the promises I make to my players at the start of a game. These relate to the trust I want my players to have in me, as the GM, and in the game itself so they're able to have more fun playing it.
With D&D especially all three of these are old genre conventions I am explicitly breaking. D&D from its early days in the 1970s and 1980s (I started playing in the early 80s) frequently devolved into an adversarial game. This came from tactical genre conventions like puzzles and traps with save-or-die mechanics meant to kill a character whose player made a bad die roll or failed to declare an action exactly right. Though the common nature of playing D&D shifted through the 1990s, players who remember those bad old days still worry that maybe the GM is "out to get them". Thus I use these explicit promises to build trust that they can have fun playing the game.
One thing I like to do in setting up games, especially via a Session Zero, is make implicit assumptions explicit. Thus when there are genre promises, like the expectation players have that there will be swords and sorcery and lots of dice rolling when a GM says, "I've got a great idea for a D&D game!" I like to confirm those up front— or caution the players if things will be different.
I find there are also a number of implicit promises that should be made in a game that the Gnome Stew article didn't cover. These are in the category of the social contract of gaming. Some of them are related to genre conventions, too... and some of those conventions are bad and thus really need to be addressed explicitly!
Here are some of the promises I make to my players at the start of a game. These relate to the trust I want my players to have in me, as the GM, and in the game itself so they're able to have more fun playing it.
- There are no "gotcha" traps that will result in your character's death with minimal warning or ability to avoid it.
- If you're at risk of character death because you're doing something stupid, rash, or ill-advised, I will give you warning. I won't stop you when you insist or persist, but I will give you at least one solid opportunity to rethink your actions with only minor harm.
- When your character would know something important, I won't penalize you not knowing it, too. In fact I'll strive to give you appropriate in-character cues, e.g. via clue notes. For example, a player may not know venturing into the badlands when a storm's coming is dangerous, but a character who grew up next to those badlands or has wilderness travel skill would never wander in unprepared.
With D&D especially all three of these are old genre conventions I am explicitly breaking. D&D from its early days in the 1970s and 1980s (I started playing in the early 80s) frequently devolved into an adversarial game. This came from tactical genre conventions like puzzles and traps with save-or-die mechanics meant to kill a character whose player made a bad die roll or failed to declare an action exactly right. Though the common nature of playing D&D shifted through the 1990s, players who remember those bad old days still worry that maybe the GM is "out to get them". Thus I use these explicit promises to build trust that they can have fun playing the game.
