Is the Dungeon-master part of the group?

Well, they’re not usually playing as a player character, so “no”.  But, they are at the table, running the NPCs and monsters, laying out the world, setting goals and parameters for success, so “yes”.  In D&D, without the dungeonmaster, there’s no game.  Without the players, there’s no game.  It’s a fascinating existence and role, the DM.  Maybe it’s taken me a bit long to get to this theory of group communication when I’m supposed to be writing about the group activity that is D&D, but here we are. As a team, the players and DM have a lot in common:  They hope to make good decisions and find quality solutions. Everyone hopes for a functional group. Randy Hirokawa and Dennis Gouran are here to help with their communication theory that considers how group interactions can have positive effects on the group’s decisions. In essence: what communicative functions must be accomplished for jointly made decisions to be wise/good/quality?

The functional perspective implies that in order for adventuring parties (and all other groups) to make effective decisions, they have to perform four key functions: 

1) define the problem (ex. we’re trapped in a chamber)

2) establish criteria for choosing a solution (ex. the exit has to be big enough to fit through, stable, and open)

3) identify the possible solutions (ex. open window, barred window, door, manhole)

4) evaluate the options (according to the criteria previously established).

First, they have to analyze the problem accurately, realistically, and in terms of the current conditions. It’s one thing to try and escape a sealed chamber. It’s a whole other problem when that chamber starts to fill with sand.  It’s another problem when the sand becomes an earth elemental and starts attacking. If the elemental is attacking and the players are still concerned with the chamber’s apparent lack of exits, they’re probably not analyzing the problem well. Without attention paid to the nature, extent, and probable cause(s) of the problem, errors are likely to compound.

Second, when adventuring parties have a decision to make, they should establish criteria by which they can judge the various proposed solutions.  Let’s say the party has two potential destinations: City A and City B. Without clear communication about what the party members need, the advantages and disadvantages of each destination, and the potential dangers on the road to each, they’re less likely to decide well. Instead, passion, Charisma Checks, and an unfocused discussion are likely to rule the process and mar the quality of the choice. Definitive goals help parties assess their options. 

Third, as in the example above, groups have to know what cities are possible destinations. Without creating (or discovering) options, there’s no choice to be made.  Sometimes players talk about this as “being put on rails”; a campaign without choices. Without alternative routes for action, there’s no decision to make and there is no need to gather information about non-existent choices. This is a key take-away for Dungeonmasters: Provide players with choices, the ability to get information about those choices, and consequences for choosing one path or another. Picking the only path available is likely not much of an adventure.

The fourth function groups/adventuring parties require for good decision making is evaluation. Once players know what they want (e.g., a city with access to the sea, shops, and a teleportation circle), they can then go on to assessing the relative merits of their identified options. You may find your party has a particularly negative bias in their decision making. This means they are likely to focus on the downsides of various options rather than the potential positives. I know that if I name City A “Spiderville”, that’s going to be enough of a negative to bias my players against ever going there.  The other qualities Spiderville has might matter very little to a party so negatively biased. On the other hand, a positively biased group of adventurers will focus on the more favorable characteristics of a choice and disregard the negative. “But the road to Spiderville is clear of monsters, patrolled by the King’s Guard, and has a lovely tavern  just a day’s ride up the road.”

Of these four functions, most central to making a good decision is identifying the negative consequences of the available options. In fact, sometimes the fourth function, that of evaluating the positives and negatives of the alternatives is split into two separate steps. Within each function, communication is instrumental in quality decision-making for all your adventuring parties. For players, this aspect of the game should draw you to (when possible) a thorough analysis of the options available.  Questioning NPCs, keeping notes of an option’s advantages and disadvantages, and an eye on the criteria you established in step two will likely be helpful in determining which option is optimal.

Verbal exchanges are particularly important for party members (and their DMs) to share information, catch errors in perception and judgment, and persuade each other. That’s not to imply communication is perfect, of course. There’s often error in message sharing that can impede discussion or distort ideas. Functional perspective identifies at least three types of communication within groups: promotive (“We seem to have three exits to the chamber.”), disruptive (“Look at this cat video.”), and counteractive (“Bren, I need you to make a Dexterity Save.”) Where promotive statements call members’ attention to the problem, disruptive messages ARE a problem. Counteractive messages, in turn, re-focus the group on the task at hand. Because of that, they can be a keen tool in the Dungeonmaster’s kit. If players seem to have lost their way, become distracted by off-topic conversation or out-of-character story-sharing, I have had plenty of success as a DM in re-directing them back into the game with player consequences. 

While a Natural 20 Insight Check may leave you (and your party) feeling confident in the trustworthiness of a particular NPC, this should not be applied to real-life decision-making. Unsupported intuition is notoriously bad for quality decision-making. The self-assured (and interpersonally persuasive) are often quite able to sway a group away from a more rational path and on to a less-than-optimal one. It’s one of the many ways the Insight Check mechanic does not quite capture IRL experiences of interpersonal persuasion.