Pippin's Pints & Personal Privacy

 Thinking about the little gnome wizard that I play, I can see her personal information and backstory as a kind of map that, like in “Breath of the Wild” has some parts labeled, filled-in, and visible also has large sections that are inaccessible, obscured, and private. Sandra Petronio focuses her theory on the ways we each manage which areas of our personal information are visible and which are invisible to others.  It’s all about privacy, what we choose to communicate to others, what happens when we opt to let others see the hidden parts of our maps, and what inevitably happens when we don’t manage our privacy well, and things go pear-shaped.

Communication Privacy Management (CPM) Theory has three main parts. It is the magic number, after all. Privacy ownership establishes the boundaries of what is private and what is not.  It’s what I know about my gnome that no other PC knows; it’s the DM knowing what’s behind the next dungeon door. Privacy control is the theory’s second leg: deciding what to reveal to others and what to conceal.  Was the players’ Perception check high enough to discern noises from behind the door? Finally, privacy turbulence is what you can expect when what you hope to keep private is revealed. As a DM, I ve certainly felt some turbulence over Nat 20 Perception checks that reveal more than I had hoped to about what is behind that dungeon door.

When it comes to privacy, most of us make several basic assumptions. We assume we have the right to control our privacy and personal information through rules that we, ourselves, determine. Others will not disclose what we told them in private or they will negotiate mutually-satisfying privacy control rules with us. If secrets get told; there will likely be relational consequences. The consequences emerge because information has value and personal information has personal value. Owning information (the location of a secret entrance) comes with rights (you may use the secret entrance) and responsibilities (you may not lead others to the entrance). Information has a tendency to boost our feelings of independence and free us from some potential vulnerabilities.

As mentioned above, we each create different rules or guidelines for sharing our private information (or the private information of our characters or NPCs). At least five factors may play a role in how we each construct these rules: context, culture, gender, motivation, and risk.

First, context is the realtor’s advice for privacy: location, location, location.  Uncomfortable and unsafe contexts typically inhibit disclosure. In contrast, safe, common interactions and scenarios are fertile spaces for conversation and disclosure.  Even more powerful in terms of context is the effect a traumatic event might play in the life of your character’s backstory (“My home village is not something I talk about”). Further, if we are communicatively competent, we may also see this as a way to better understand the private lives of others.  

Next, a question for the Dungeonmasters: do you ever tell your players the Difficulty Check (DC) before they roll, “You’re looking to roll 14 or better, Delpha”? Until recently I never did this because of the power that came from owning and controlling that information (the DC) until after the player had cast her/his die. The Players Handbook does have some sample gameplay narration, if we want to consider what WoTC officially gives as an example. In the sample, the DM asks for an Intelligence check. Player rolls a 7. The DM narrates the result (p. 5). After listening to a few recent episodes of Exandria Unlimited, I have changed. When DM-ing, I have begun to announce the DC before the roll. Why? Integrity and co-ownership. By making public a previously private piece of information (the skill check DC), I signal openness to the players and relieve myself of any potential pressure to decrease a check for a close failure. Since everyone knows the DC in advance of the roll, everyone is equally vulnerable to the drama of the dice roll. I would suggest this as an interesting tabletop rpg cultural change for me as a DM precisely because it speaks to openness while maintaining the drama of the rolls’ success or failure.

Third, while there might be anecdotal evidence to suggest that women share more than men, and perhaps we can think of a person (or an NPC) who fits that stereotype.  However, the best evidence for the relationship of how gender relates and privacy confirms that regardless of the person’s gender identity, she/he is more likely to communicate private information to a woman than to a man. For DMs, this might lead you to lean on NPCs who appear feminie if you’re hoping to get your players to spill their guts.  Maybe players might want to Bugs Bunny in a Dress their dashing masculine bard before sending him in to pry information from the love-lorn aristocrat.

Fourth, as fun as it would be to always stick the masuline bard in a dress, you’re probably doing it for a reason, hopefully a good reason. We can morph our privacy rules if and when we feel motivated to do so.  What motivation does the love-lorn aristocrat have for sharing information with our bard? In real life, the more we like someone, see ourselves in that person and perceive similarities, the more we tend to disclose. We feel right in making those others co-owners of our private information. Unlike D&D though, we are allowed no Insight checks to determine whether someone is trustworthy.

Finally, we may vary our privacy rules based on the cost-benefit analysis, risk-reward, and calculus of the situation. Expanding the circle of trust to include new others can be both rewarding and dangerous.  It adds the vulnerability of potential betrayal against the blessings of shared understanding and purpose.

This theory is not content to just describe how we manage privacy, but it also gets prescriptive in the necessity of co-owners of private information to negotiate shared rules for telling others. Your private information has a boundary that exists inside your head (or in your DM’s notes).  Shared information has a collective co-shaped boundary. This has a number of implications. First, in D&D, as well as in life, someone eager to be confided in is to be suspected. Second, a reluctant listener you share with (who never wanted to know in the first place) probably won’t feel a whole lot of responsibility to keep that information private. Third, a strong confidant is one who acts as shareholder of the information with commitment to its rules for sharing. Of course, the rules for sharing, the permeability of who is in and who is out, as well as who might be included in future interactions are all in constant flux. Private information may not remain private forever. Who knows, one day the Thieves’ Guild may just tell you how to get into their hideout (Here).

Your party enters a new town, having previously agreed to conceal your identities. Later that evening, you overhear your party’s over-drunk halfling laugh, “Baggins, my mother was a Baggins…” You are experiencing what CPM calls turbulence. That halfling didn’t do what we all agreed to do; he shared private information with total strangers. Boundary turbulence isn’t always intentional, but there are implications regardless.  These kinds of breaches create ripples as the now-disturbed relationships try to reestablish shared boundaries, trust, and stability. Often we’ll face the dilemma of whether to trust that person again. Other conflicts may arise when we must choose whether a personal privacy boundary can be breached for a collective good. Your roommate told you they believe themselves to have a drinking problem but swore you to secrecy. Later, their significant other asks you about it.  Do you feel yourself to be a reluctant confidant, burdened with information you did not want or a shareholder to the privacy? Should you disclose what you know to the significant other?

The final element to consider with CPM and tabletop roleplaying is the value in carefully executed timing. A DM’s use of a good reveal as a cliffhanger can be an excellent way to throw some dramatic turmoil at your players.  Players, this is a tool in your backstory build as well. Don’t throw “gotchas'' at your dungeonmaster, but having a few bombs to toss at the rest of your party’s feet can be a wicked player move. Don’t deny yourself that fun.