The question of game contracts

[lathany]

A recent entry by smiorgan got me thinking about game contracts. Recent LJ postings (and conversations) suggest that they are The New Big Thing (TM) and that no game should be run without them. However, smiorgan was sceptical and, frankly, so am I.

Of course, it is usually a good idea to let your players know what sort of game you plan to run. This saves an awful lot of disappointment on both sides. And most GMs (that I know) do it, either informally (whilst chatting to potential players) or otherwise.

For example, bateleur's Monde website includes a Game Style section with comments from "The two focal aspects of the game throughout will be plot and roleplaying in roughly equal measure" to "Perhaps the least accessible aspect of the game style is that I don't want to run a 'beer and pretzels' game" (although onebyone broke this rather literally last session with his choice of snacks ;-) ). My Fallen Star website included the fact that I wasn't going to reveal the choice of genre to the players (their 'murder mystery' cruise included a trip to hell).

However, to me, much of the information provided in this way is to inform the players about the game so that they can choose to play or not to play. It isn't a list of guarantees, it's a set of guidelines. Roleplaying can only be planned so far; there is a certain amount of improvisation, not to mention twists and surprises in any game. When it comes down to it, I regard roleplaying as a social activity; I'll try and run a good game / play a good character and hope that the players / GM enjoys it.

A contract adds a level of formality that I'm personally not terribly keen on. If a player of mine has a problem with my game or GMing style, I'd hope that they would come and chat to me privately about it. If I agree it's broke, I'll fix it; if I think it's a question of style I'll explain and if I think they're plain wrong, I'll tell them that (as tactfully as I can manage). I don't feel that having a contract adds anything here - because it makes the initial approach more confrontational (ie. "You're doing Y where the contract states X").

Of course, the whole issue of providing any sort of feedback is controversial. There is, perhaps, a case to be made for saying nothing, staying to the end of the game (assuming it isn't a long or open-ended campaign) and then quietly noting to oneself, that that particular game-type/GMing style doesn't suit and not playing again. It avoids any sort of confrontation with the GM. However, I'm less convinced that the person who goes this route would suddenly take the feedback option just because there was a 'game contract'.

Overall I regard guidelines, information on what the game will contain, as a Good Thing. Particularly for open-invite games where players know little about the GM(s) or their likely styles/genres/session format. But I don't like the idea of making such things a contract. It adds a sense of formality which a game doesn't need.

Comments

As a big fan of such 'contracts'

[condign.livejournal.com]

...I'd point out that mostly it's an issue of terminology that people disagree with. They're not contracts in a real sense of the word, and you can't sue anyone if you breach them.

What they do accomplish quite tidily is to focus the mind, and put things where everyone can see it. Shalazar had both a player contract and a GM contract, and I think it worked very well. The 'GM contract' was more of a mission statement which broadly identified both a) how decisions were going to be made in case of conflict, b) who was ultimately responsible for things, and finally and most importantly, c) what the goal of our entire project was. Now, I also like Gantt charts and agendas, so perhaps my opinion's not much good on this count, but the contract helped us to run smoothly as a team.

Similarly, the Player Contract we had dealt with matters such as how we would deal with the players, and how we'd like the players to deal with us, and gave them a reasonable idea of what to expect from us. I suppose you could call them 'guidelines' or 'philosophies' instead of 'contracts', but it's really semantic. All in all, they eliminate assumptions regarding what the purpose of the game is, and what you should expect.

Re: As a big fan of such 'contracts'

[chrisvenus]

I think I agree with you but I think half of dawn's comments *are* on the terminology. If you call it a game contract it is a lot more imposing and gives the impression of a very strict game and not a friendly one at all. I think my suggestion was to call it "GM promises" and "GM expectations". I would have said it gets the same impression across without seeming as confrontational and so on.

Just my thought but I've never really done anything along these lines of formality.

Re: As a big fan of such 'contracts'

[condign.livejournal.com]

That may be a perception of the word 'contract': I don't see them as necessarily unfriendly at all. I certainly wouldn't have thought the Shalazar GMs were unfriendly for having put forward a contract--but it did mean that any player who complained after the game started about something we'd put there got very short shrift from us.

But whether you like the word or not, and whether you change the name, it's the same thing at the end of the day--a publicly available statement saying what you will and won't do. Again, though, both games I've written 'contracts' for have been ones where I didn't have complete control over the players who would be joining. In such a circumstance, it did help me to have a list of things to which I'd committed, that I could refer to if necessary.

One thing that contracts do connote that 'promises' and particularly 'expectations' do not necessarily are an idea of responsibility--both in Shalazar and The Midas Conspiracy I have a responsibility to continue with the game and, to the best of my ability, to complete it. For that I think a contract b is in order.

Re: As a big fan of such 'contracts'

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

This is rsomewhat similar to the idea of a "social contract" - it's fine to draw an analogy (or an equivalence) between contracts, and the agreements we make and the responsibilities we accept in respect of society or of a social group.

However, down on the small scale, I haven't actually signed a contract with, say, my housemates. That's not to say that I'd never consider doing so, but that I don't see any necessity for it. And if I don't think I need a contract (either legally binding or an informal statement of responsibilities) with my housemates, I certainly don't think I need one for a roleplaying game.

When presented with a game contract, then, the obvious conclusion is that the person presenting it *does* see the need for one. Which suggests that there is probably a difference between the way they view our relationship, and the way I view it. I can get over that (after all, we're all grown-ups), but that is one reason why it seems "unfriendly". I don't routinely have contracts with my friends, but the game contract is presented as routine, it is also compulsory, and I've not yet seen one that has been open to negotiation by both parties before signing...

it's the same thing at the end of the day--a publicly available statement saying what you will and won't do

Well that's the thing, isn't it? I've got by in the past without making public demands on the behaviour of my players. So what is it in the air which has changed, and which means that private understandings are inferior to publically-stated rules of engagement?

Re: As a big fan of such 'contracts'

[condign.livejournal.com]

I don't routinely have contracts with my friends, but the game contract is presented as routine, it is also compulsory, and I've not yet seen one that has been open to negotiation by both parties before signing...

Well, first of all I've never made a player 'sign' a contract. One assumes that by starting they game they consent, which again is a way in which this is unlike a standard contract. More to the point, though, the people for whom I write game contracts are generally not my friends, or rather not friends of mine to the extent that I would consider sharing a house or even a kitchen with them. Some of them are--but in both Shalazar and Midas Conspiracy there are players who I don't know from Adam until the game starts.

(Incidentally, unless your tenancy contract is far different from what I'd expect, you do have a contract with your housemates. Do you not have a joint tenancy?)

Finally, the fact that they're not open to negotiation doesn't make much difference to whether they're a contract. I challenge you to 'negotiate' the standard terms and conditions contract that you undertake when you request services from BT. (This is a no-lose challenge for me, in that if you don't my point is made, and if you do I'll be well-impressed and want to learn from it.) To me, a GM of a large game (and a game contract for a six-person game is sort of silly) is a kind of service-provider, especially if as in Shalazar they've undertaken it as a responsibility of a Committee post. Under those conditions, having a contract which isn't open to negotiation (negotiating with 20-some players is a pain in the arse) makes sense.

Well that's the thing, isn't it? I've got by in the past without making public demands on the behaviour of my players. So what is it in the air which has changed, and which means that private understandings are inferior to publically-stated rules of engagement?

I don't know--I think it's mainly the convenience factor, and the fact that in a game that is relatively 'open', i.e. not primarily by invitation, it would take a lot of time to put together all those 'understandings.'

Again, though, 'getting by in the past' is not a sufficient argument for such contracts being unnecessary--most contracts are put in place although they will never be used. I've found them useful in the past, and I don't think any of my players (you can correct me if I'm wrong) found Shalazar substantially less friendly because of it.

Re: As a big fan of such 'contracts'

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

Well, first of all I've never made a player 'sign' a contract. One assumes that by starting they game they consent, which again is a way in which this is unlike a standard contract.

Well, it makes it extremely similar to a software EULA. So maybe we could refer to the "game EULA" rather than the "game contract", but as you say it isn't the terminology that is really important, it's the actuality.

(Incidentally, unless your tenancy contract is far different from what I'd expect, you do have a contract with your housemates. Do you not have a joint tenancy?)

Yes. Which provides us with little or no responsibility or legal protection between ourselves, only between us collectively and the landlord. As far as I'm concerned, that means it fulfils precisely none of the criteria that are being advanced as the functional aspects of a game contract, so it's irrelevent. Unless, I suppose, you want to alter my analogy by claiming that the landlord is the GM and we collectively are the players.

Finally, the fact that they're not open to negotiation doesn't make much difference to whether they're a contract

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest I thought that it does. What it makes a difference to is whether it appears "friendly" or "unfriendly".

Basically, in addressing one set of issues concerning player-GM interaction, the game contract raises another set. This new set may or may not be preferable to the old one, but it's still useful to acknowledge that it is there.

having a contract which isn't open to negotiation (negotiating with 20-some players is a pain in the arse)

Well, if you were going to do it properly I suppose you'd have a clause in the contract concerning group renegotiation of the contract. But since you don't actually want to spend any time arguing the details of the game contract, I agree that would be very counter-productive.

I've found them useful in the past, and I don't think any of my players (you can correct me if I'm wrong) found Shalazar substantially less friendly because of it.

I'd be interested to know whether there were any players who would have chosen not to accept the contract given the option. If not, (and, technically, if there was also no-one who chose not to play as a result of the existence of contract or its contents), then obviously there's no argument on the issue - everyone wanted the contract, so it was obviously the right thing to do, it therefore probably didn't affect friendliness and it doesn't matter if it did. Otherwise, there is at least some debate to be had.

[For the record, by the way, I've recently revised my position on game contracts. I'm not inherently averse to information about game style, and acceptable behaviour, being called a "game contract". I do think that most of the clauses which seem to crop up in the things are either superfluous or harmful, and that presenting it as a service provider's ToC gives the appearance of distrust. The Midas Conspiracy contract is possibly the best I've seen - it's also rather short].

Re: As a big fan of such 'contracts'

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

Ahem, T&C or ToS, rather than Table of Contents...

Re: As a big fan of such 'contracts'

[condign.livejournal.com]

So maybe we could refer to the "game EULA" rather than the "game contract"
Being pedantic here, but that's worse. I have not authorised anyone to license the Midas Conspiracy or copy it elsewhere. :)

Well, if you were going to do it properly I suppose you'd have a clause in the contract concerning group renegotiation of the contract.
No, not really, and here may be why we consider the entire thing 'friendly' or 'unfriendly.' To me, the GM leads the game. He may wish for things to be enjoyable by his players, but at the end of the day it's his game more than the players. He might bend to suggestion, but is under no obligation to do so, especially since he knows more about the game itself than anyone else.

To me, that's what a game contract is for: it's a set of promises that are 'fair warning', because the GM isn't going to change these things for the sake of a player, and if you don't like it, don't play. For instance, I've had a couple of... not precisely complaints, but concerns in The Midas Conspiracy that I'm not setting up an IM program or something to allow players to communicate easily and directly. It's an OOC kludge because it would require me modding big bits of PHPBB and I'm not in that business. I've stated that's the case (on the board, not in the contract I think), and if folks aren't happy with the fact that the medium imposes some strictures on the game itself, they know not to play.

Again, though, Shalazar was a year of my life, and Midas Conspiracy is going to be a big commitment--if someone demands a 'friendliness level' of me that means they'd not agree to the rather basic principles in my contract, I'm probably best off not having them in the game. If you read both Midas and Shalazar contracts, they're basically injunctions to common courtesy--but that's not so common anymore.

The Midas Conspiracy contract is possibly the best I've seen - it's also rather short

Yes, although there will have to be some more detailed contractual stuff within the Boards at some point dealing with issues of Privacy, Copywrite, etc. Midas has less of a game contract problem than a real-world one: what do you do if someone starts mentioning 'McDonalds' on the boards? Functionally, this is easy--I'm going to stick the whole kit and kaboodle behind an .htaccess restriction, so that nothing can spider it and only the players know its there--we'll then hope that legally it doesn't count as 'publishing.' But that's a bit off-topic.

Re: As a big fan of such 'contracts'

[lathany.livejournal.com]

but the game contract is presented as routine, it is also compulsory, and I've not yet seen one that has been open to negotiation by both parties before signing...

True enough. Although, historically at least, this is because the GM tends to say what sort of game it will be based on their skills, abilities and interests (for example, if someone asked me to change my current game from a Swordsmaster campaign to an off-the-cuff Paranoia game the answer would be much closer to "can't" than "won't", although the latter would also be true).

However, I think you are talking more about behaviour requirements than background/game type here ?

Well that's the thing, isn't it? I've got by in the past without making public demands on the behaviour of my players. So what is it in the air which has changed, and which means that private understandings are inferior to publically-stated rules of engagement?

A good point that.

I wonder if it is more because people are trying to find alternative ways of dealing with "difficult" players, particularly in the society game and other "open" games. In the past, the GMing teams just dealt with them (and were sometimes criticised) or avoided dealing with them (and, again, were sometimes criticised). Now, the whole process seems to have become the contract (mainly to avoid criticism !).

If I'm right, I'm not sure it works any better. But it may give the GM(s) more confidence that they are doing the "right" thing if they already have pre-stated rules. Of course, whether those rules make the "difficult" players feel any better (as your point above suggests) is a different issue.

Re: As a big fan of such 'contracts'

[condign.livejournal.com]

I think that's very much a 'do you prepare for it or do it after-the-fact' question.

There's a large body of knowledge about what makes things 'difficult' for a society game--this makes it really quite easy to do a good and useful contract. Five years ago, the knowledge wasn't there, so writing such a policy document would have been 'flying blind.'

'Difficult' players usually have the advantage of also being enthusiastic--I don't think any would be scared off by my rather tepid contracts. I'm not asking for first-born sons or anything. But having had it calmly explained to me by one player (thankfully after the game) that the religion and metaphysic of Shalazar did not actually work in the way I think it did, I'm pro-anything that makes a GM's life easier. :)

Re: As a big fan of such 'contracts'

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

But having had it calmly explained to me by one player (thankfully after the game) that the religion and metaphysic of Shalazar did not actually work in the way I think it did

s/Shalazar/Inc/;
s/religion and metaphysics/economics and finance/;

;-)

Re: As a big fan of such 'contracts'

[condign.livejournal.com]

Fair enough--never thought I was anything but a difficult player.

In my defense, the laws of economics are descriptive and rather fixed (for instance, PV=MT can't really be broken). Inc. to a great degree had an inconsistent monetary paradigm. (As explained to me, it went like this: You can buy stuff; you can make stuff; the total value of all stuff at the end of Day 1 is the same as at the end of Day 2.) No real problem, since as far as I know I'm the only person who it really bothered even slightly, and I found my ways around it.

On the other hand, this was someone telling me that magic and religion didn't work in the way I had defined them, and our religion was quite remarkably consistent. This isn't really surprising, because convincing and consistent fictional magic or religion is a lot easier than fictional physics and fictional economics. (In this case, it came down to a difference between how he *thought* his magic worked, and how it actually *did*.) Economics also has a much harder time justifying things 'because God works in mysterious ways.' :)

Re: As a big fan of such 'contracts'

[cardinalsin.livejournal.com]

"(As explained to me, it went like this: You can buy stuff; you can make stuff; the total value of all stuff at the end of Day 1 is the same as at the end of Day 2.)"

Surely, while technically true, this is rather empty. I am assuming that this refers to the fact that value in economics is relative. If not, or if value in economics is not relative, please do tell me as I'm arguing from a position of relative ignorance.

I am also assuming that your complaint was the rule "do not diminish the assets of the corporation". Again, correct if wrong.

Anyway: Even if value is relative, you can clearly increase the good-ness of the total value, and not just any individual bit of it. For example, life is considerably more pleasant now than it was in medieval times (for most of us). We also can do more stuff today than we could in medieval times (mostly). So, life in the corporation can be made more pleasant and the corporation can be allowed to do more stuff. "Do not diminish the assets" then means "do not make life more unpleasant, or reduce the amount of stuff we can do".

But, anyway, weren't there other nations to compete with in Inc?

Re: As a big fan of such 'contracts'

[condign.livejournal.com]

I am also assuming that your complaint was the rule "do not diminish the assets of the corporation". Again, correct if wrong.

Not with what I said above, no. That was a discussion I had with one Inc. GM who told me that 'the amount of money in the Inc. economy remains constant', and was quite insistent on that. The problem is that it ignores the concept of adding value, and is a recipe for persistent and unavoidable deflation. (Same amount of money chasing more goods.) I'm assuming that's the discussion Steve was referring to, and had I played my Inc I character seriously, it would have had serious consequences for me not knowing that at character generation.

And, incidentally, your explanation was pretty much my issue with what you did bring up: what you state above reduces the term 'asset' to meaninglessness. You might as well say, 'You shall not reduce the fluffiness of the Corporation' or 'You shall not reduce the Zort of the Corporation.' That's fine, but it's not what the word 'asset' means.

This is an area where a player contract might come in handy--openly stating something like, 'Don't assume that any technical/managerial/economic/financial terms you know mean the same thing in Inc--we're not running an accountancy simulation' as we did with physics. Again, though, in Shalazar we had an easier fudge--it's a lot simpler to say, 'Don't count on a consistent physics in a world with magic' than 'Don't count on consistent accounting principles in a game about a company.' Similarly, we changed the name of a God, but we didn't have to redefine the term 'monotheism.' Not a complaint about Inc, just pointing out that we as a GM team were lazy and caught the path of least resistance whenever possible in Shalazar. :)

Re: As a big fan of such 'contracts'

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

It was also rather unfair of me to bring this up - telling the Shalazar GMs they were wrong about the metaphysics is closer to, say, telling the Inferno GMs they are wrong about the Illuminati than it is to telling the Inc. GMs they were wrong about economics.

As condign has said, the Inc. GMs actually were wrong about economics - the issue there was whether this could be overlooked, i.e. whether it was important to be right about that subject in that game.

In general, we're willing to overlook ludicrous inaccuracies in the combat systems of the games we play, but tend to be upset by inaccuracies concerning things we're personally familiar with in the real world.

If I were in a game about computer hacking in the modern world in which it transpired that it was impossible to design a cryptographic scheme which couldn't be broken by a talented hacker studying a piece of cyphertext, I'd be complaining on mathematical grounds in the same way condign did about Inc. That effect can't really apply to the metaphysics of an imaginary fantasy world...

Re: As a big fan of such 'contracts'

[condign.livejournal.com]

I'd be complaining on mathematical grounds in the same way condign did about Inc.

I'm hoping I didn't complain about it--as I said, I designed the character I did play so it wasn't relevant. (Indeed, my character could have been used to explain why it all *did* function, if you'd felt like it, but would have overpowered the character.) If I gave that impression, I am sorry--I try not to complain about games that aren't my own.

On the other hand, the whole hacker thing is a big headache for Midas Conspiracy...

Re: As a big fan of such 'contracts'

[smiorgan.livejournal.com]

In this case, it came down to a difference between how he *thought* his magic worked, and how it actually *did*

I'm in favour of consistent magic systems, but I'm in two minds about explaining the mechanics to the players. Get the mechanics out in the open, you risk players trying to hack them. Keep the mechanics secret, and you risk appearing to allow things to happen or not happen on a whim. I like my magic to be magical, so by default I'd keep the mystery.

Inferno had a terrific magic system. To the players it was three distinct styles. To the GMs, I understand that the mathematics were "very beautiful" and also a mystery to anyone other than Tony Short (at least for quite a while). I think the answer is to have a magic-making monkey on the GM team. Then you get consistent magic system, hidden from the players, and if the players complain to the other GMs they just point at the monkey and say "I don't know, the monkey just said it worked that way". Then when the players ask the monkey, they're just faced with a load of technobabble and pseudoscience that is meaningless, but at the same time makes it appear that the monkey has given a reasonable answer. Alternatively the monkey can just scream and throw faeces, that works as well.

[cardinalsin.livejournal.com]

We used a game contract in Colony, and it didn't seem to do anything, really. The level of player bitching, and the extent to which we got crossed-wires with players, seemed pretty much identical.

It did give us a sense of moral high ground when we were able to say to ourselves "we did warn them that this was part of the game...", though AFAIR we never actually cited the contract to a player.

Although we did call it a "contract" it was carefully stated that this was actually a set of guidelines. If you're curious, take a look at The Colony contract (http://www.physiol.ox.ac.uk/~jsf/colony3/contract.htm).

I agree that all of this can be safely accomplished with a set of guidelines or a game style section. Indeed, I think we considered doing this for Colony. However, we decided not to, because we favoured the idea that breaking the rules was a bad thing to do, and that if we ever did feel the need to ask someone to leave or similar, we could point to the contract.

This may have had a lot to do with the fact that we were running the society game, which is supposed to be open to all, however. As I recall there was quite a bit of angst about that "open to all" bit! We wanted to have unassailable grounds for any action we took, so that people couldn't moan "that's not fair, its the society game, they shouldn't have done that". I don't reckon it made any difference in the end, though.

Other games in which I've played that had a contract include Shalazar, Inheritance (I think) and Golden, which Wart has made reference to elsewhere. I can't honestly say that I remember what any of the contracts said, or that I gave them a second look/thought after reading them.

So, I think I'm saying, contracts are potentially reassuring to GMs, rather ineffective in practice, and basically harmless :)

Good point

[condign.livejournal.com]

This may have had a lot to do with the fact that we were running the society game, which is supposed to be open to all, however.

True--I've put a 'contract' into The Midas Conspiracy (http://conspiracy.morgrave.com) because it's also very broadly open to all comers until I run out of slots, and the 'open to all' nature of Shalazar was a strong incentive for the contract in the first place.

This is one way that, whatever these 'agreements' are, they are much like contracts, though: merely the fact that they are not used doesn't mean they're not useful. You miss them pretty much only if they become an issue. For instance, I can think of one of my Shalazar PCs that I did quote the contract to, twice: once to remind him that there was a frank admission in the contract that GMs would do their best to remember character names, but that we wouldn't guarantee not to make errors/mispellings (some people care deeply about this, it seems), and once to remind someone that they really shouldn't break character unnecessarily. Both times the player involved was relatively headstrong (a good thing, but sometimes a difficult one), and both times this was useful for players who hadn't been in a lot of society games, were unfamiliar with that kind of LARP, and were new to our social circle.

If I were running a game that didn't have that (e.g. I know everyone, we're all friends, and I'm familiar with all of their styles and think things will fit), then a contract would probably be wholly redundant. As with real contracts, actually: I don't make my friends fill in an application to borrow a fiver. :)

Hooray for bullshit

[smiorgan.livejournal.com]

It's all bullshit intended to make the player believe that they are buying into a quality game, not to set in stone the exact nature of the world.

That's what I said. I'm not so much sceptical as cynical. I do think they serve a very useful purpose up to a point.

(Before I go on, I'll just say that my contact with the concept of game contracts has been minimal and only very recent. I have read condign's comments, they make a good case for the activity in large scale games.)

An analogy I made was an interview I had recently where I was shown a "contract" of what would be discussed during the interview. It was quickly discarded. The point was that the interviewer knew that it would be quickly discarded - the point of the contract was not to set ground rules but to put the interviewee at ease, to give them the illusion that they were in control so that they relaxed and the interviewer could get some idea of what sort of person they were.

I look at game contracts in a similar way. I think that they are conceived out of a desire on the GM's part to demonstrate to the players that the intention is to run a professional game in which the players feel involved and in control, even when their characters are not. Just like the interview contract they're not really enforceable, but they are a useful tool in putting everyone at ease and recognising the commitment of both GM and player to the game. That's what I meant by bullshit. It's good bullshit.

I think that the concept that you must have a game contract is a bad thing, though. You can't mandate the goodwill of the GM or the players.

So, in a nutshell: offer a game contract to your players to earn their trust, it's a good thing. Overanalyse the game contract concept and insist that all games adhere to it, it's a bad thing. Game contracts are to be taken in spirit rather than letter, I think. But having said that, I only want to play games with my friends, who I know and trust, who have invited me to their game or who I have invited to mine. I am in total agreement with onebyone on this one - if you ask your friends to sign a contract it looks like you don't trust them. Furthermore, if you insist on a player behaving in a particular way (other than civilly, which is a given) then you sort of stifle their creativity. I like my players to look at the game world and interpret it and give feedback. I wouldn't want to limit them.

Now, does background material constitute a game contract? I don't think so. If your background specifically said that the game would contain certain elements of gameplay and it didn't then that could be construed as misrepresentation. But to throw terms like "contract" around tends to propagate an atmosphere where background material is viewed as contractual, and I think that can only lead to bad feeling. I personally don't like the word contract. Also, I'm increasingly concerned that if you produce contracts then you give both player and GMs a right to make demands and treat each other like services and assume rights of ownership.

That's a very negative view of contracts, and as I said, if people enter into the spirit of the contract then this sort of behaviour doesn't happen. But if people enter into the spirit of the contract, why do you need the contract?

Re: Hooray for bullshit

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

if people enter into the spirit of the contract, why do you need the contract?

Presumably, "in order to tell them what spirit it is that they ought to be entering into".

In this regard, the game contract seems to me to be a different presentation of the game style information that we're all used to. Presumably the analogy to a "style guide" here is a "spirit guide".

Spirit Guide?

[smiorgan.livejournal.com]

No crystal waving, tree hugging hippy crap in my game, thankyouverymuch