What's the ruling, Daddy?

Roleplay gaming operates at least in part through the creation of a shared reality. The games work best when players and dungeonmasters have been oriented (in the case of Dungeons & Dragons) into a world of myth and fantasy, magic, exploration, vast wild unexplored spaces, traps, caverns, mimics, and goblins).  It typically falls upon the dungeonmaster (or gamemaster) to establish early on the bounds of that shared reality and to invite, guide, and help to maintain that reality over the session or campaign. Similarly, according to Family Communication Patterns Theory, it is the family of origin which act to socialize an individual into sharing a vision of the world.  How a family talks to, with, and about its members powerfully socializes them into a commonly-held view of the world.  And just as a dungeonmaster’s job is not done after Session Zero, neither is the family’s.

    According to Koerner and Fitzpatrick, family talk is often patterned, repeated and confirmatory of certain beliefs and behaviors. Those beliefs direct and align members toward a vision of the world around them. One key component of this theory is that it is posited as both an interpersonal theory and a cognitive one, meaning that it includes interactions that are both shared between family members as well as the private thoughts and meanings an individual has about their family communication.

Your dungeonmaster narrates a scene thusly: “Your party comes upon a small, quaint cottage nestled alongside the path. Its door stands slightly ajar. The breeze blows curtains gently, as the rhythmic sound of wood being chopped cuts through the afternoon air. Several small children play a game of tag among the trees.” One primary job of the gamemaster is to orient players to the scenes, NPCs, objects, and realities of the shared fiction of the game. Similarly, families are theorized to do this through two main mechanisms: conformity and conversation. A family system highly oriented toward conformity emphasizes parental authority. Family systems more highly oriented toward conversation instead focus on debate and open discussion. 

Applied to our narrated scene, a conformity-focused DM might deny players the ability to insert or improvise materials or objects into the scene that were not previously described. Perhaps a player wants to get a drink from the rain barrel they imagine nestled under the cottage’s eves. If I were a conformity-focused DM, I might respond “I didn’t say there was a rain barrel. So, there isn’t a rain barrel.”  In contrast, a more conversationally-minded DM might respond (granted that the PC’s imagined rain barrel is a reasonable addition to the scene) “Sure, you approach and take a cool drink from the nearly-full barrel.” Each orientation (conformity or conversation) are distinct ways of interacting with a shared reality. If you are from a family, you know these orientations to imply at least some amount of pressure to come to some level of agreement, not necessarily that all family members will always agree. Co-orientation can come from either.

According to family communication patterns theory, four family types emerge from the mix of conformity and conversation. Applied to gaming groups (which may very well come to feel like a family), four different patterns emerge. 

The first are consensual families. Consensual families/groups are high in both conversation and conformity. Players may experience a tension between the pressure to agree, preserving a DM/player hierarchy and having an interest in open communication. The DM might be interested in what the players have to say about the game, but still feel that they should have the final say over the gameplay, scenes, and rules. Time and effort may be spent listening to players and then explaining the DM’s decisions and reasoning. In such groups explosive arguments are typically considered negative and harmful, as is conflict which may remain unresolved. Collaboration, as a conflict style, might be more the norm in these kinds of groups, with cooperative problem solving typical.

Second, pluralistic families and gaming groups would measure relatively high in their orientation to conversation and lower in their interest with conformity. A table of gamers with a pluralistic orientation might be characterized by even more open and unrestrained conversations and discussions. Everyone’s contribution is welcome as are all topics. Don’t like a rule as written? Tell your DM. Want to change a skill or proficiency? Let’s hear why. The whole table will hear out the proposal, the rationale you have, and the DM’s potential objections. Dungeonmasters of these tables might not feel a great need for control of the table, or be afraid of players making their own decisions. Neither do they need to agree with the players’ decisions in order to support their choices. The power of a good argument will win the day at these gaming tables. Ideas are exchanged freely, conflicts expressed openly, and players might very well learn the value of conversation as a conflict resolution strategy.  

The third family communication pattern posited by this theory is the protective family.  These family groups are high in conformity, but low in conversation. Imagine a gaming table in which the dungeonmaster emphasizes obedience either to their own authority as gamemaster and/or to the rules as written. Open communication is minimal; conceptual play is deemphasized. I have played D&D in both home settings and at gaming conventions. At conventions the DMs I’ve experienced have run pre-written modules with specific beats, scenes, and interactions that need to be completed before the session ends (usually in 2-4 hours).  DMs constrained in such ways might lean away from long explanations of their reasoning for particular decisions, stressing the need for the party to work collaboratively, conform, and minimize conflict and discussion. At games run by protective DMs, players learn that there’s little benefit to open discussion and conversation. The DM is going to decide where the party is going next, so why even discuss it?

Fourth, and finally, laissez-faire families rank low in both conversation and conformity. I can hardly imagine a satisfying roleplay game with this kind of group. Families marked with this kind of “hands-off” approach have but a few, dull interactions. In families, laissez-faire parents think that individual members should make their own decisions, but are not emotionally invested enough to care what decisions their kids make. To me this smacks of a bored, disconnected, and passionless DM leading aimless, unsupported players. Players at such a table probably don’t feel much constraint from their DM (as they certainly would with a protective DM), but neither do they find much value in conversing with other party members or the DM, since each gets to go their own way, regardless.

As described, the four patterns of family communication (and of rpg parties) might show that different behaviors could be functional in one group and dysfunctional in another. There is no universally excellent family communication pattern or rpg group communication pattern. The group creates itself with expectations and a culture common to itself, and unique among other similar groups. Very few communication behaviors are consistently and universally functional or dysfunctional. Neither is “functionality” a single variable to be studied in which behaviors correlate perfectly with one another. Family Communication Patterns Theory remains a relatively simple, clear, straightforward theory. As there seem to be very few areas of life untouched by our early experiences in our families of origin, there are many reasons to understand the impact those early communication patterns have on our work, interpersonal, and social lives.