It seems that my short lived stint as a GM is weighing on my mind and has me looking closer and closer at the dynamics that are in play with the group. One of the things that I did notice the last session was that while everyone appears to get along there is an undercurrent of tension and it would seem that is acted out through the game itself; if this was 3-on-3 elbows would be up and noses bloodied. Anyway, the experience has me pulling out my old textbooks and getting refreshed on the notion of decision-making and conflict resolution.

One of the building blocks of conflict resolution is the ability of individuals to articulate their position but the challenge in that is the group as a whole might not be communication within the semantic context. Word choices and meanings will differ among peoples and groups so there is a distinct need for the group to define a common language with which to hold meta-level conversations without adding to the existing conflict. This is not to say that group cohesion is achieved through dry discourses on individual purpose and motivation followed by a tedious negotiations, instead much of the time it occurs as subtext to the overall socializing patterns of the group.

Bormann’s Symbolic Convergence Theory is one interpretation of this process that grabbed my attention as an undergrad and has held it since. Essentially, Bormann postulates that cohesion emerges through the process of shared narratives which he terms fantasies. These fantasies are actually just stories and anecdotes that reveal and transmit emotion and while they are not directly related to the overarching goal of the group they serve to create a foundation of understanding. The sharing of these fantasies serve to weave a larger tapestry of connectivity between the individuals and the group which provides the cohesiveness allowing the group to address its long term goals (Bulher).

So what to do when fantasy chaining is not enough to provide cohesion? Well, the process ought to result in a common language from which to begin the process of addressing conflict however there are many different sources of conflict and several might be in play ranging from communication difficulties, issues of force, and agreement on fact-finding. Colorado University as a great website that outlines many of these issues as well as some possible tools to resolve them at their Online Training Program on Intractable Conflict (OTPIC) website.

Getting back to the gaming group it would seem that the conflict is a tangle of three issues: communication, scope, and facts. Certainly there is a great deal of variance in the opinions as to what the source of the tension is, ranging from finger pointing to a general malaise, and that ties into the notion of what individuals or situations may or may not be at the nexus. Add to that a general reluctance to communicate and you have a smoldering fire. Greatly complicating matters is the introduction of two new players as the group needs to be flexible enough to absorb them and generate the necessary cohesiveness to keep the group together. Groups more than two get complicated quickly.

Let’s see if my math is any good. Dredging up from my memory I seem to remember that a group of two consists of six distinct relationships based how each individual sees themselves, the other, and their respective positions in the dyad.

1. A sees B
2. B sees A
3. A sees A
4. B sees B
5. A sees B sees A
6. B sees A sees B

This jumps up dramatically when additional individuals are added to the mix. The number climbs to twenty-four distinct relationships for three individuals revolving around the same pattern but expanding to encompass the inclusion of how the group sees individuals and the individual sees that group. Basically, it is three dyads that are bridged to include perceptions of the other dyads. The group I game with consists of seven individuals and it would take me all night and a day to make a map relationship network but you can get a feeling for how complicated groups really are by just looking at a dyad.

None of this is to say that the gaming group has arrived at an impasse and that civility has taken a back seat to unabashed aggression. For the most part the group is one of the more healthy ones I have been a member of. This is more of an academic exercise that is fueled by my experiences and some of the recent reading I have been doing on the subject of gaming theory (big ups to Bankuei for boiling down the work over at The Forge). One of the interesting things about the articles on gaming theory is how work in social psychology, anthropology, and communications has been co-opted and framed in terms of leisure activities. Considering that my prior studies have centered around crisis management and corporate development it is breath of fresh air.