14th Class: Situated Learning

With our last class, we discussed the orientation of each player to game fundamentals of role-playing, arguing that better comprehension for all concerned would heighten the players' enjoyment and make for a more engaging experience.  When all the players are able to communicate clearly, nearly or all of the time, play is streamlined and the participants are able to invest themselves at a faster pace, on a higher game level.  This happens because conflict is reduced.

Let's move on to a discussion of the players' effects on each other during play, as the DM introduces situations that the players must resolve.  To do this, we need to consider some of the dynamics at play between the individual players - and to visualize those players, we can take advantage of the six-personality types developed by the American psychologist John L. Holland.  Obviously, this is greatly simplified and no one should imagine that players can be slotted into types so that there are only six types of players.  This is an exercise, to highlight the manner in which disparate people might communicate with each other during game play.

As indicated by the image, the six types each express a peculiar outlook or preference towards particular kinds of jobs ... and the development of a personal skill set that contributes to the performance of those jobs.  The conventional tends to like structure and to keep records; the realistic is hands on and practical, with a penchant for independent action; the thinker observes, evaluates, solves problems and is reserved; the artistic puts much of their energy into expression, creativity and a desire to act in unstructured situations; the social feels a strong need to help others, to inform or enlighten if the situation allows; and the enterprising likes to direct, influence, persuade or manage others.  For anyone who has participated in a role-playing game, it is easy to see how each character type manifests itself.

The conventional player is keeping track of everyone the party meets and keeping the dungeon map straight, while maintaining that rules are rules.  She takes notice when the DM says anything unclear, and asks questions because she dislikes anything that's ambiguous.  The realistic player is min/maxing his character, taking advantage of every flaw in the rules and pushing for more power because for him, more power means a better chance at survival.  The investigative player is puzzling and overthinking every aspect of the game so far, proposing theories, analyzing every detail and bearing down on any mystery that might be present, certain that they will figure it out before the DM makes the reveal.  He is also holding back, listening, whenever the party is taking action or discussing things with themselves and others.  The artistic player is designing the appearance of his character, and the castle he'll build one day, and the elaborate backstory of his character, while showing little interest in the campaign's mundane details, such as how much food there is or even what day it is.  The social player is anxious that everyone gets a chance to speak, she is carrying extra supplies in case someone runs out, she is willing to go along with the majority and rarely speaks up against the majority - and, in fact, only joins the majority once it has formed without her.  Finally, the enterprising character is organizing the party, directing who goes with who when the party has to separate, is the first to speak up when speaking with non-player characters and is often the first to sacrifice themselves if a sacrifice is necessary.  The enterprising player will often ensure that everyone speaks in order so that everyone gets a chance to speak (which often pleases each other personality type differently but positively).

We could continue to discuss their individual approaches to the game, deconstructing their motivations and aspirations, but none of these players exist in the game alone and none of them are immune to the influences that other players have.  Towards that end, we would do better to discuss how they interact together and learn from one another.

Towards that end, I've reworked the earlier image to give each of the personality types a name.  Since we have the images to remind us, we can quickly identify these six players and remember what they are individually.  We can imagine Ian sitting between Richard and Armand, with Connie, Ernest and Sophie on the opposite side of the table and the DM posed between Sophie and Armand.  Both these last two are more likely to sit nearest the DM, as they are gregarious and attentive.  Armand wants to show his latest creations and Sophie likes the position of being seated at the DM's left hand.

Richard and Ian are both remote; Richard because he sees his role as opposing the DM while Ian simply wants to watch everyone.  Ernest wants to watch everyone also, but positions himself so that everyone at the table ~ except the DM ~ is immediately close to hand.  Connie, too, is remote; but only because she views herself as the keeper of notes and is comfortable where she is furthest from direct inspection by the DM.

It might seem purposeful to discuss how these personalities conflict with each other ~ yet conflict is more rightly seen as a means to an end, rather than as an isolated event.  If Ernest and Richard conflict over an issue, the conflict itself is not the goal, but rather the resolution of that conflict.  Remember when we discussed earlier that shared meaning making came about through interpersonal and intergroup behaviour.  To achieve a consensus, each participant will want to give their perception of the issue ~ over time, a positive group will find a way to achieve consensus and that particular conflict will be brought to a close.  Conflicts are time-limited, whereas a consensus can potentially reach into future generations.  There are many aspects of human culture that began as bloody conflicts, but eventually resolved themselves into mutual agreements that have lasted centuries as legacies shared down through generations.

However different Richard and Ernest might be, over time Richard will see things in Ernest's management of the table that will seem appropriate and successful ~ and Richard will adopt those strategies.  Ernest will watch how Richard has chosen his weapons and skill sets and will likewise choose to incorporate the same tactics.  Sophie, who might be intimidated by Richard, will feel comfortable enough with Ernest to let the latter show her how to incorporate Richard's ideas.  Ian will puzzle it out as the tactic is discussed around the table, then suggest a point where Richard's ideas could be improved ~ and Richard will immediately incorporate Ian's suggestion. Armand will find reasons not to incorporate the change, such as the lack of personality in everyone approaching the game the same way; and both Ernest and Connie will see merit in that argument and reduce some of Richard's harsher choices.  Armand might then try a watered down version of what Sophie has adopted.  And so it goes, round and round the table.

Armand says something clever to a non-player character and Ian is impressed.  The next time, Ian tries a similar reply, which gets a slightly different response from the DM than Armand got (partly because the DM has also been thinking about Armand's earlier riposte).  Connie has been thinking about the earlier exchange also and quickly comes up with something that supports Ian this time.  Her phrase gets a big laugh from Richard, Sophie and Ernest, which increases Connie's comfort playing with this group.  Richard encourages everyone at the table to speak their minds to NPCs and gets an approval from Sophie ... so Richard tries to say something in the parley that is still ongoing; unfortunately, this falls flat.  Ian tells Richard why, Richard takes it a little hard, Sophie says something encouraging and Armand changes the subject by saving Richard's comment with a quick explanatory lie.  Ernest, ever the persuader, sees how to expand the lie and in moments, Richard's failed effort is forgotten.  If Richard feels encouraged by his peers, he'll try again ... and eventually will learn something about role-playing by watching Ernest and Armand go at it.  And so it goes around the table.

This process is called Situated Learning.  So long as the participants of any activity are busy taking part in that activity, they will habitually learn from one another and ultimately incorporate pieces of what they observe into their own behaviour, no matter who they are or whether they are conscious of doing so.  In neither example given above is any player aware that they are watching, incorporating, self-selecting material or actively teaching the others in their group.  Yet it is happening ~ and over long periods, as a result of hundreds of hours of parties acting together, players will learn immensely just from watching each other play.

Note that I have been careful not to dictate that the manner of play of any of these participants is "better" or "inferior" to another.  Whatever the personality make-up of a game's participants, the players cannot help being what they are or finding importance in the things that matter to them.  Our goal should not be to dictate which player behaviour is appropriate ... or even to dictate what all the players must do with their characters or their approach to the game.  A positively managed group of players ~ those who are encouraged to resolve conflicts, respect each other's differences and focus on the game and not their immediate emotional needs ~ will eventually create a symbiosis that will cause all the players to behave in a single, unified manner, respecting each others abilities and peculiar gifts for solving specific problems.

There are problems in game play that only Ian can solve; or that only Connie or Sophie can solve.  There are situations that call for Ernest's management of the whole party.  Sometimes, Richard will save the day with his mechanical perspective; and sometimes Armand will save the day with his creative perspective.  And each player at the table will take a little bit of the others so that they will have some of Richard's power, Connie's methodology, Ian's insight or Sophie's patience.  This is how our education happens, everyday, regardless of what we are doing that day or where we are going.  We learn by watching, agreeing, adopting, seeing it done better, refining, innovating and then adapting that innovation ... while everyone in our company is doing the same, using our processes just as we are using theirs.

This is how we reach a consensus as a whole culture, by making meaning as we go and encouraging others to do the same.  This is how millions of people steadily shift towards believing the same things.  The practice is pragmatic, complex and incomprehensibly effective.

Very well, that's enough for today.  Just a reminder, we will have one more class and the one after will be the mid-term exam.  The mid-term will count for 40% of your grade.