24th Class: the Didactic Contract

Before moving forward, let’s take a moment to discuss the process of the DM’s relaying information to the player ~ since in the last class we talked about conventions that would limit how much information the DM must manage in order to run the game as a novice. We can think of this information as outgoing and incoming. Incoming information is the DM’s effort at listening and interpreting the player’s game contributions. Outgoing describes the information about the setting, and the setting’s responses to that incoming information from the player, which the DM then relays to the player.

The player, too, experiences incoming and outgoing information. The individual player must take the incoming information from the DM and the other players; and the individual player must produce outgoing information to keep the game going. However, the player can afford to ignore much of what is incoming, if the player feels something isn’t important; and the player can “ride along” and let another player handle the outgoing for a piece. The players, as a group, can jointly suspend the game and settle on their combined outgoing message. Additionally, the players can afford to make errors in judgment or interpretation which they would hold the DM to task for committing. A player does not need to be accurate near as much as the DM. But then, an error in judgement can kill the player’s character; there is a consequence.

For the moment, let’s consider the DM’s outgoing: the presentation of the setting and that setting’s response to the player’s action. We can interpret this another way: in a definite sense, the DM is teaching the players what the setting is, what it looks like, what it does, how it responds and so on. The players are learning about the setting as they go. This is a very PARTICULAR knowledge, one that applies only to role-playing ~ and moreso, specifically to the particular genre and system within the game-style of role-playing.

This is what we call a “didactic contract” ~ but while the link speaks specifically of teaching in a classroom, we can easily extract the same principles for running a game as a DM. The rules are implicit: the DM and the players do not sign a charter of “rights and obligations,” but those are there and both sides know what they are and when they are broken. If the DM begins to verbally attack the players; if a player begins to engage in a video game on their phone; if either blatantly cheat about the dice or the rules of the game, it is immediately understood that the contract has been broken. The campaign will likely survive a few infringements; but over time, both the players and the DM will lose interest in continuing to engage in such activities … or will embrace a didactic contract that will seem depraved to an outsider.

Let’s look at some of the generalizations that exist in the contract, without feeling compelled to create implicit rules:

• The DM is asked to create specific information about the setting, that will empower the players with enough knowledge of their surroundings to recognize the right action to take when an action is warranted.

• The player should act believably and in accordance with the tone of the setting.

• As the game continues, the DM should feel free to ask more from the player; the player should be prepared to give more; in turn, the players should be free to ask more of the DM.

• Neither should argue their right to expect or do anything on the basis of an emotional justification. There should be a reasonable for any expectation, regardless of the source.

All that happens in a game comes down to these principles. If the DM is slack in preparing the game; if the players are slack about participating; then the contract is broken. If the players treat the setting, and the DM’s preparation thereof, with disregard and contempt, by acting in a mocking or abusive manner, then the contract is broken. If a DM or a player refuses to adapt to a new circumstance of the game due to bias or preconceived opinions based on unreason or prejudice, then the contract is broken. The DM cannot freely present a setting unless the player is prepared to freely accept what might happen in that setting. If the player tries to control what happens in the setting, the player is stepping outside the player’s scope of influence. The player is trying to be the DM.

Conversely, if the DM dictates what the player is allowed to do based solely upon what the DM would do in that situation, or what the DM feels the player must do, then again, the DM is in the wrong. The DM is trying to be the player.

Finally, the DM owes it to the player to create a setting that the player will WANT to play in. If the DM creates any setting with total disregard for the player, then again, the contract is broken.

For the most part, these “rules” are never consciously understood. That is what we mean when we say a didactic contract isn’t explicit. We don’t begin with firm, clarifying statements that dictate when someone has acted inappropriately towards us; we just know they have. Just as every relationship we have with other people is a minefield of determining exactly where the boundaries are, what we're permitted to do and what we’re permitted to expect, the DM is in a peculiar situation with regards to the player.

To return to the link above, Anna Sierpinska in her “The Notion of Didactic Contract” presents the problem a teacher has with educating her students:

“… the didactic contract puts the teacher in front of a paradox: everything that the teacher undertakes to make the student produce expected behavior tends to deprive the student of the necessary conditions for [the] understanding and learning of the notion she aims at; if the teacher tells the student what she wants, she can no longer obtain it.”

The struggle for the teacher, and for the DM, is that both must create a situation that demands that they “stay in their lane;” and this creates challenges for both the student and the player. The temptation to step out of one’s role: to fudge dice because there is a mandate for the DM to give the player a “better experience” in the short run, when in fact a bad roll might give the better still in the long run, is an example of DMs straying out of their mandate. Similarly, anytime the DM seeks to “protect” the players, or provide undue compensation for the players who have had a bad run of luck, or influence the players to act in a particular way ~ or even goes so far as to act FOR the players, by arbitrarily describing the actions of players based on a roll of the die, is guilty of patronizing the players and acting against the contract.

Sometimes, eating a player helps inspire others.

Just as a parent learns to let the child fail, or as a teacher learns not to help the child in order to teach something that requires intuition, the DM must adopt an understanding that apparently kind or helpful redress of the setting in the player’s favor is, in fact, CHEATING the player of a full, rich, complete experience. We do not ask the opposing team on the sports field to hold back with the argument that holding back will create a better experience for us. We do not ask a teacher to teach us only those things the teacher thinks we deserve to know. We do not request others to deliberately keep us in the dark and protect us against our own folly. Yet when the DM does this, with the argument that it improves our “fun,” the DM is demonstrably in breach of the same contract that governs all human interactions.

Determining how to play within this contract is the FIRST hurdle the Novice DM must overcome. It does not take long for the Novice to understand that all the conventions we might provide will not prevent the troubles caused by these very difficult and complex relationships arising between DM and player. Some DMs will suppose, early on, that they’ve “got this,” like it is no big deal to determine how a DM should act or what a DM should expect from a player. Often, we hear simplistic frameworks like, “The DM is always right,” which is clearly contrary not only to the spirit of the didactic contract but to any situation where humans interact with humans. NO ONE is ever always right; the DM who thinks that way is riding for a hard fall.

However, if the DM is open to listening to complaints from the players about their game’s presentation; and if the DM takes the time to explain their motivations in a way the players can understand; then the situational learning that occurs between players can also take place between players and DM. Both can learn a lot from each other ~ and through that learning, the Novice gains experience and ceases to be a Novice, becoming instead an Advanced Beginner.

Which is where we can begin more thoroughly with our next class.