Sus NPCs and Creeps on the bus

 Uncertainty Reduction Theory (URT)

Ok, I know how incredibly nerdy it is to say something like “this is one of my favorite communication theories. But, I’m writing to D&D, RPG, and theory nerds, so you get me.  Imagine Session Zero. It’s the first time you’ve gotten the entire party together. Or, it’s your first night as a brand new player.  There are So. Many. Questions. Will this go well? Will the players get along? Is the DM good?...or will it be a disappointment? So much uncertainty.  So much need to reduce it. Charles Berger is keenly aware of just what a tight-rope walk (Dexterity Check DC 15) the first meeting of two (let alone six, seven or eight) people can be. According to this sweet theory, we use our communication to learn about our environment (Perception Check) and we use that knowledge to make judgements and meaning (Insight or perhaps Investigation). 

Just as in real-life not all uncertainties are created equally. Just like in Session Zero, this is acute when we meet new people. If we’re likely to see the person again, if we might benefit from knowing this person in the future, or if they act weird, we’re more likely to feel driven to try and understand them. It is a bit more relaxing to feel like we know the people around us, can predict their actions reliably (I’m looking at you Chaotically-aligned players), and explain their actions to ourselves and others. Within 5 feet of URT (and therefore granting advantage) Fritz Heider’s attribution theory focuses on behavioral (how should I act) and cognitive (what’s going on here?) questions.

Joke: Why is URT a dwarf’s favorite communication theory? Because it’s ax-iomatic. Axioms are typically considered self-evident truths which require no proof in order to have support. 

Axiom 1: The more you talk to an NPC, the more you’ll know. The more you know, the more comfortable you’ll feel. The more comfortable you feel, the more you’ll talk.

Axiom 2: Hand-shakes, hugging, and kissing feel good (when the people involved consensually judge it’s the right time). As warm nonverbals are exchanged, uncertainty decreases. High-five.

Axiom 3: A mysterious figure practically begs to be investigated.  If it’s a hot summer day, why is that woman in a heavy woolen cloak?...and what is that mysterious symbol on her back? The more uncertain a character feels, the more they feel motivated to seek information in order to reduce that uncertainty. 

Axiom 4: Information sharing between PCs, and between NPCs and PCs, is the foundation of closeness.  The more guarded characters and players are, the harder it is to get close. However, when players who may feel less inclined to share (or want to maintain a dark, mysterious backstory) those nuts can be cracked with sharing on the part of the other players, and the DM. Less uncertainty, more intimacy.

Axiom 5: When meeting the mysterious vistani seer for the first time, it feels very important to both offer and receive a similar level of vulnerability and sharing. If not, we might experience the interaction as having a serious power difference. I don’t want to give up too much sensitive personal information to someone (or something) who will not do the same. At an early relational stage, reciprocity and dialogue are typically preferred to monologues. This is especially true in relationships between people of similar social standing. The Bright Queen...she can monologue all she wants.

Axiom 6: Quick quiz: Which two are more likely to be friends? Human Warlock, Dragonborn Paladin, Gnome Wizard, Dwarf Fighter, and Dragonborn Cleric. Did you answer “the Dragonborns”? Axiom six is about similarity. All other things being equal, similarity reduces uncertainty. Difference increases it.

Axiom 7: Your rogue just started acting “weird”. She’s getting up early each morning, making a healthy breakfast for all of you, and bathing.  It’s weird. Do you feel closer to her, or more distant? Like her more or less? Likely your answer is “less”. As people’s behavior gets stranger, we go on alert and feel less close to those people. From your party’s rogue to someone who sits uncomfortably close on the bus. Uncertainty decreases liking.

Axiom 8: The new NPC who just showed up no one has ever heard of before, doesn’t seem to know the name of the local Baron, and mispronounced a local dish. Suspicious. Do not trust. We tend to trust based on social networks (in-game and out).  Knowing an old someone who knows the new someone increases our likelihood of feeling certain, and therefore feeling like we can predict that person.

Pet Peeve at the table: Players missing information because they’re distracted and not listening. Berger’s with me on this one. Social interactions are goal driven, and therefore our communication is motivated and purposeful.  The DM has a reason for describing their world as they do. A truism in life at the table and beyond: good listeners thrive and survive.

So, what to do when the DM presents a masquerade ball where the assassins will certainly strike against the dauphin? URT offers players four tips. First, observe. Roll your perception checks. Second, ask NPCs for information if you want to adopt a more active strategy.  Third, get interactive. Talk face-to-face with the dauphin himself. Ask specific questions. Fourth, get cybernetic. In real life you’d seek out information online. In game, beseech your gods, patrons, and nature for help.

While Berger’s URT is primarily concerned with meeting new people, as I alluded to earlier, uncertainty can happen in any relationship.  Consider a pair of long-term partners who experience lapses of faith, mid-life crises, or existential ennui. They may feel uncertain of their own thoughts, their partner’s, or their future. Such relational turbulence can generate uncertainty, which generates more turbulence, which generates more uncertainty which... may end up in a pernicious cycle, difficult to  break. I see this at the tabletop when questions of longevity, commitment, and priority arise. It’s unreasonable to expect that everyone at the table places the same value and priority on the game. And because those differences are felt individually, it’s quite common for some players (or one) to feel hurt, angry, or devalued when others don’t seem to value the game as they do. On the other side of that gold piece are players who resent, feel judged, or just don’t get why Ian would want to play so often. Judgements all, and potentially destructive to the table’s cohesiveness.

Critiques of URT pick at some of its axioms. Axiom 3, for instance, has been questioned as to its motivational assumption. Walid Afifi has criticized URT by theorizing that it’s not really uncertainty we really care about, but anxiety.  Who cares that the rogue is getting up early and making a nice meal?  She’s making a nice meal. Leave well-enough alone.