Running head: SMALL GROUPS AND ROLE-PLAYING 1

Dynamics of Small Group Communication

in Role-Playing Groups

Aaron Murdock

Utah Valley University

Running head: SMALL GROUPS AND ROLE-PLAYING 2

Role-playing is a form of acting, where a person takes on an alternative persona for

purposes of enjoyment, training, or therapy. I’ve been playing RPGs (role-playing games) since I

was a child, but it has recently become more a part of my life as I’ve delved into massive

multiplayer online role-playing games, trained new employees at work, and started working with

a professional counselor for trauma. The goal of this paper is to see whether the element of role-

playing has a negative or positive affect on the processes of decision making, to observe this

functional perspective of decision making in role-playing groups, as well as to observe whether

group communication improves or degrades over time as the players create and learn more about

their own and their peers’ characters. To see this, we will track the progression of players in

tabletop role-playing games, as detailed later in this proposal.

My personal experience with Tabletop RPGs is limited to a couple campaigns of

Pathfinder, a sort of beginner version of Dungeons & Dragons. In those games I made decisions

with my peers on how to move through the world, where to go, how to solve puzzles, and who

my character persona was. Sometimes we worked well together, other times we debated over

what path to take.

Role playing takes on various forms, from acting on stage to playing a videogame or

tabletop game, to corporate training. Em Griffin (2015) researched group communication by

applying ideas from Hirokawa and Gouran. The result is his article “A Functional Perspective on

Group Decision Making”. The four steps of the theory are (1) Analysis of the Problem, (2) Goal

Setting, (3) Identification of the Alternatives, and (4) Evaluation of Positive and Negative

Characteristics (Hirokawa & Gouran, 1983).

The theory provides a common pathway taken by effective groups that starts with

Problem Analysis, splits into the simultaneous steps of Goal Setting and Identification of
Running head: SMALL GROUPS AND ROLE-PLAYING 3

Alternatives, then to Evaluation of Positives and Negatives. This will lead to a high-quality

decision. But noise and distractions can impede communication within a group. Hirokawa and

Gouran (1985) suggest three types of group communication: Promotive, Disruptive, and

Counteractive, where Counteractive is interaction used to get the group back on course. If a

group can stay in the Promotive type, or at least Counteract the Disruptive quickly, they can

maintain focus and achieve the set goal.

In this paper, when a person is in the act of role playing, they will be referred to as

“Player as Character”. When they are speaking outside of their character personas, they will be

referred to as “Players as Selves”. The latter allows participants to have conversation about the

rules and other things outside the constructed game world, but that still contribute to the

decisions of the characters. This is the dependent variable. One group will be allowed to discuss

in-game decisions and plans only as their character personas, keeping up their acting throughout.

The second group will be allowed to discuss in-game decisions and plans both in-character and

out of character.

Literature Review

Em Griffin (2015) in his above mentioned article, discussed an experiment he used to do

with eight students on a remote island. During it he would ask the students to study their own

interactions and assess their decisions. The groups that reached good decisions would follow

these four basic steps that have been set forth by Gouran and Hirokawa (1985).

Analysis of the Problem

The first question they asked is “Is something going on that requires improvement or

change?” (Griffin, 2015) This looks at the details of the problem or issue at hand. For Griffin’s
Running head: SMALL GROUPS AND ROLE-PLAYING 4

groups on the island, this was things like budgeting food and fuel, establishing ground rules for

participant behavior, and setting schedules (p. 218)

In a role-playing group, it may be an enemy that is trying to kill the party or take control

of a place. It could be a character’s story conflict to resolve, whether internal or external. The

group members analyze what to factor into their decision, such as available resources or limits to

the environment or even social constraints established inside the game world.

Goal Setting

Griffin’s (2015) groups set forth criteria by which to judge proposed solutions. Some

groups would reach consensus about what activities would be included in the schedules in order

to reach their needs. Others would not speak of goals or objectives, and would flounder

throughout the experiment (2018).

Role-playing groups often set forth rules at the start of the campaign in conjunction with

the DM. This may include limiting Player as Character behavior and choices to only a certain

alignment, such as Good instead of Evil. Such a restriction would mean that any time a character

who has declared himself as “Good” acts in an evil way, such as performing a coup de grace on a

non-playable character, there would be a consequence. It may include other restrictions, such as

how long can be spent on certain non-story aspects of the game, like shopping. In this way the

group, both as Players as Characters and as Players as Selves, will stay on track to reach in-game

story and other goals. It should be noted that such goals may not be to “win” the game. As

Waskul (2004) explains:

Unlike card games, board games, games of chance, or organized

sports, the point of fantasy role-playing games is neither merely to

Running head: SMALL GROUPS AND ROLE-PLAYING 5

play well nor to “win.” Instead, the goals of the game are survival

and character development: participants create and play fantasy

personas that, if kept “alive,” increase and advance skills and

abilities over the course of many often lengthy gaming sessions.

(p. 336)

Identification of Alternatives

Griffin’s groups with positive outcomes would hash out alternatives and allow them to be

presented and seriously considered. Those with negative outcomes would shoot down ideas and

were fixed in whatever was usually the first idea to come to mind. Even if none of the

suggestions are adopted by themselves, a final decision may consist of various aspects of the

ideas presented (p. 220).

Evaluation of Positives/Negatives

This is when the group weighs the benefits and costs, and it may not happen all at once.

Griffin’s (2015) good group looked at each alternative and its negatives and positives. For

example, they recognized that staying up late would drain the generator of power, and therefore

decided to go to sleep earlier than the other group (p. 220).

Similarly, I have seen the groups I’ve played with weigh the costs and benefits of taking

certain actions. I’ve also experienced when we don’t, and instead act hastily. Often it seems like

it is one person who acts on impulse and ruins or nearly ruins an opportunity for growth or story

progression.

Skills Needed to be Effective

Running head: SMALL GROUPS AND ROLE-PLAYING 6

Gay Su Pinnell (1984) goes over the social skills needed to be effective in group

discussion in her article Communication in Small Groups.

● Using Explicit Language

○ This is explaining things clearly. We generally only do this when

interacting with others whose frames of reference or backgrounds are

different than our own. Role-playing requires it because it is a shared

fantasy, where details can matter immensely to the story.

● Signaling Intentions

○ These are cues like words, gestures, or other actions that signal the intent

of the actor. Role-playing requires members to use these to imply meaning

while acting as characters.

● Listening

○ Every group member must listen for the group to work well. Listening

includes a level of understanding. Role-playing requires that members

listen to the DM’s narrative, as well as the intents of each other.

● Interacting

○ This is a set of skills meant to contribute to the meaning shared by the

group. It includes remediating one’s remarks, getting and keeping the

floor, maintaining the group, and changing the focus of the group. In role-

playing, this is done by each member, but getting and keeping the floor is

most often done by the DM as he/she tries to take control of the narrative.
Running head: SMALL GROUPS AND ROLE-PLAYING 7

● Sharing Meaning

○ In order to share meaning, group members may use narrative, refer to

authority, use examples, tie meanings of participants’ remarks together,

and use words which have common meanings. The DM is the authority in

a role-playing group, and is usually the main source of narrative, though

the Players as Characters also contribute.

Number of Possible Interactions

In Patterns of Communicative Patterns in Small Groups (Bostrom, 1970), the author

explains the number of interactions that can happen in a small group with up to eight

participants. If there are two people in a group, there are only two pathways for communication.

If there are three people, there are nine possible interactions. Most role-playing groups are not

larger than about eight people, which has a possible 1,056 interactions (p. 258).

In a role-playing group, the DM most often speaks to either everyone or only one person.

However, when characters are separated in the story, the DM will keep track of who is where

and will speak with a few at a time as needed. The Players as Characters will also often speak

only to a few others at a time without addressing the whole group.

Method

Following the model of the experiment outlined by Gouran and Hirokawa (1985), we will

have two tabletop role-playing groups going simultaneously. The independent variables will be

the ratio of genders playing, the classes and roles taken on by the players, the campaign setting,

and the Dungeon Master. The dependent variable is that one group will be told they are allowed

to talk out of character about the game and the decisions their characters are making. When they
Running head: SMALL GROUPS AND ROLE-PLAYING 8

are speaking outside of their character personas, they will be referred to as “Players as Selves”.

The other group would only be able to make decisions as their characters. When a person is in

the act of role playing, they will be referred to as “Player as Character”. This would be repeated

with various groups over time, each time with the same campaign, same classes and roles, and

same Dungeon Master. The unique factor of having a Dungeon Master (DM) means the story or

quest can change and adapt according to the actions of the players and/or characters. This may

influence the way groups interact. Variables unaccounted for could be previous experience with

role-playing, age, personality, and creativity.

We will draw from the tabletop gaming community and compensate them monetarily for

their time played. They will be volunteers selected from various gaming conventions around the

nation, such as Gen Con, PAX West, and PAX East. They will fill out an initial survey

explaining their past with role-playing games. Then they will meet once a week for four weeks in

a predetermined studio, where they will be recorded as they play Dungeons & Dragons for a

session that lasts approximately three (3) hours.

The survey will ask about their thoughts on the research questions to determine initial

beliefs about how role-playing affects their decisions in-game. As they play, researchers will

take notes relating the survey question topics. Some of these questions will include:

● How well do you work in a team?

● When faced with a problem, how often do you find yourself obsessed with analyzing it

for solutions?

● How often do you set goals in your life and try to achieve them?

● Would you describe yourself as one who considers all options before making a decision?

● Do you weigh costs and benefits of potential choices?

Running head: SMALL GROUPS AND ROLE-PLAYING 9

● What alignment do you find yourself most often playing in tabletop RPGs? (A chart of

the moral alignments of characters will be provided as reference).

● How has the persona/personality of your past characters influenced your moral decisions

in-game? Please provide a specific example.

● Please describe the process you go through when making decisions as a character.

The questions will be given again after the month-long campaign has ended, but with

slight variations to ask specifically about their experiences during it, as well as some extra

questions to evaluate their ideas on group dynamics.

Questions in particular that will be asked:

● Do you see ways your group communication has improved in settings outside of the

game?

● Have you found yourself making decisions in real life based on what your character

would do?

● Did you find yourself getting annoyed by other players’ comments? Why? Please give an

example.

A few questions will also be asked of the DM, who will pre-selected and used in every

campaign if possible.

● How often did you find the narrative going off course because of hasty decisions?

● Did the group members set goals for themselves?

● How did the members decide what to do next?

● Was there more disruptive or promotive speech in this group?

Running head: SMALL GROUPS AND ROLE-PLAYING 10

● Did you see a player behaving contrary to their declared alignment? Please give details.

● Would you say the decisions made by the group improved over time?

Finally, each role-playing session will be recorded and analyzed against the small group

decision-making criteria set forth by Hirokawa and Gouran (1985) and expounded upon by

Griffin (2015).

References

Griffin, E., (2015). A first look at communication theory (9th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw

Hill Education, 216-229.

Hirokawa, R., & Gouran, D. (1983). The role of communication in decision-making groups: a

functional perspective (M. Mander, Ed.). Communications in Transition, 174.

Pinnell, G. (1984). Communication in small group Settings. theory into practice, 23(3),

246-254. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1477142

Bostrom, R. N. (1970). Patterns of communicative interaction in small groups. Speech

Monographs, 37(4), 257.

Waskul, D., & Lust, M. (2004). Role-playing and playing roles: the person, player, and

persona in fantasy role-playing. Symbolic Interaction, 27(3), 333-356.

.
Running head: SMALL GROUPS AND ROLE-PLAYING 11