In my field, relational group dynamics play an important role, both in the clinical and educational setting. Theoretically, I’m very much grounded in the work Irvin Yalom when it comes to understanding clinical group processes. He wrote The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy, and it’s now considered a classic by many in the field. I was recently reviewing passages on subgrouping (or fractionalization–the splitting off of smaller units within social organizations) after I observed some students engaging in this process.
This incident later got me thinking about subgrouping in D&D groups (or any rpg group for that matter). In my experience, this is a common and normal group process; however, it can also be disruptive. In this post, I want to explore the idea of subgrouping in D&D groups. In a follow-up post, I will address some of the ways to handle and avoid subgrouping. For now, I’m just going to discuss what subgrouping is and how it may manifest in a D&D game.
While a D&D group is not meeting for psychotherapeutic purposes, I still find that D&D relational dynamics may be better understood with reference to the field of group psychotherapy. With that said, I wish to be clear that my thoughts at this stage are very tentative and undeveloped. I really just want to get some of these ideas out while I’m still rolling them around in my head. Perhaps others may find this line of thought interesting as well.
According to Yalom, subgroup formation is not only inevitable, but often a disruptive event in the life of a group. He is speaking particularly about a therapeutic group, but I believe subgrouping can be disruptive in other group settings as well, including a D&D group. In the therapeutic setting, subgrouping “arises from the belief of two or more members that they can derive more gratification from a relationship with each other than from one with the entire group” (Yalom 327). This happens all the time in D&D groups!
Think about it. Have you, or the players in your group, ever formed a clique with select members of the D&D group? This usually begins innocently enough. The subgroup of players may have known one another prior to the formation of the gaming group. Certain players may be more comfortable with one another. Subgroups might form because some participants have more in common with certain players than the rest of the group. Other subgroups might form because the players are related, or perhaps they live or work together. Old-timers may form a clique that excludes the newbies in a gaming group. There are many variations and reasons that lead to subgrouping: similar styles of play, similar values, comparable education level, age, and so forth. I will say more about this below, but underlying much of this subgrouping is the sense of gratification players find among members in the subgroup that they feel cannot be found in the group as a whole.
Such subgroups/relationships are not in and of themselves problematic. However, it is problematic when subgroups begin engaging in group-related processes while simultaneously excluding other members of that same group.
Examples of subgrouping behavior that may emerge in a D&D game include the same two or three players having side conversations during the game (or outside of the game!) regarding their observations, strategy, planning, and so forth. Such players often make plans and come to conclusions about their course of action without seeking any real input or consultation from members outside the subgroup. Such plans and thoughts may be presented to the D&D group as a whole, but usually as a consolidated proposal in which the members of the subgroup are already in agreement with one another and form a united coalition. This can produce frustration among the players excluded from the subgroup.
Yalom wrote that the “members of a subgroup may be identified by a general code of behavior: they agree with one another regardless of the issue and avoid confrontation among their own membership; they may exchange knowing glances when a member not in the clique speaks; they may arrive at and depart the meeting together” (Yalom 327).
The implication of this behavior is that subgrouping can be disruptive to a group as a whole. Part of the reason for this is that subgrouping may create competing agendas. That is, subgroups tend to promote the interest of the subgroup instead of the interest of the entire group. When subgroups form for some kind of gratification, or when they form in a misguided attempt to address an issue occurring within a group, they ironically produce additional dysfunction because they do not include the entire group involved. Such exclusionary tactics promote allegiances and loyalty to select players rather than the group as a whole, and this affects group play. Because of these feelings of allegiance and loyalty, rarely do members of a subgroup call out other players in the subgroup about their actions and behaviors, even when such behavior affects the subgroup members adversely. Therefore, the allegiance and loyalty promoted by subgrouping enables continuing group dysfunction through silence and the avoiding of conflict. Yalom also notes that the exclusion promoted by subgrouping can produce anxiety in non-subgroup members. In short, D&D subgroups may cause excluded players to feel left out or ignored.
Other examples that might be connected with D&D play include players subgrouping in order to form some kind of alliance due to a dislike of another player or players (or the DM!). Such players may be annoyed by the style of play or behavior of certain players, and they end up subgrouping with select players that share their annoyance or concern instead of addressing the issue(s) openly with the entire group. An example might be that player playing the thief character that is always unilaterally killing innocent NPCs. Or, maybe it’s that know-it-all player that annoys the shit out of his peers.
Often, such subgroups will continue consulting one another outside of actual game time in order to vent and complain. Sometimes such venting and complaining leads to intentional and unilateral planning with the goal of taking action against other players in the group. The target, or targets, of such planning may feel blindsided or ganged up on, and this could lead to the above-mentioned frustration and anxiety for some players. Some subgroups might also form in response to the DM: a disagreement with how the DM runs the game, perceptions of unfairness, a feeling that the DM is depriving the player in some way (i.e., associating the DM with the player’s sense of a lack of gratification), and so forth. A key aspect of what is occurring in many such examples is the buildup of hostility. As Yalom has pointed out, “Subgrouping may be a manifestation of a considerable degree of undischarged hostility in the group, especially toward the leader” (Yalom 330).
Yalom’s comments on hostility toward group leaders (not necessarily the DM in a D&D group) draws upon the work of White and Lippit and may be of interest. In short, disruptive in-group and out-group factions have been shown to form when groups fall under authoritarian and more restrictive styles of leadership. Groups unable to express arising frustrations directly to the leader in a group (for whatever reason) may express “feelings obliquely by binding together and mobbing or scapegoating one or more of the other members” (Yalom 330).
Another common type of subgroup that occurs in the realm of rgp groups is the subversive subgroup that frequently violates group norms. This may be a subgroup of buddies that purposely attempt some outlandish action to accomplish something for a member, or members, of the subgroup, but not the overall group. According to Yalom, this kind of subgrouping is connected with gratification. He writes, “Patients that violate group norms by secret liaisons are opting for need gratification rather than pursuit of personal change” (Yalom 331).
In the context of D&D, this may be about a player attempting to fulfill a need gratification rather than attempting to engage in any kind of personal change necessary to become a functional member of the entire D&D group, not just select members of a subgroup that help that player meet his or her individual need gratification. Such player gratification could manifest any number of ways in the context of a D&D game. The gratification may manifest as: a desire for dominance and power (within the group and/or within the campaign setting via the player’s character), a way for vicarious character exploits, a desire to be known as the funny one in a group, etc.
Ever had a player participating in subversive acts because that player wanted to gain some of control over other players, NPCs, or over various aspects of the game in general? Ever seen that same kind of player form alliances with select members of the group in order to recruit assistance with the fulfillment of those desires?
In rpgs, such subversive acts are frequently attempted in “secret” with select subgroup members, or by attempting to subgroup with the DM. Secret messaging, notes, and private side conversations are often examples of this. Part of the reason for the secrecy may be a fear that the player’s actions (and gratifications) could be thwarted or resisted by other members outside the player’s clique. Instead of a willingness to make known such information, such subgroups elevate their own needs over those of the group as a whole. Players of such subgroups might present a thinly veiled argument around the concept of character knowledge vs. player knowledge to justify such secrecy. However, more often this is really about keeping a hidden agenda, a lack of group/player trust, and/or a fear of being called out by other members of a group for questionable actions and behavior. Another way to frame this last reason is by suggesting that it is related to fear of conflict.
Acting out is also a group dynamic relating to resistance. For Yalom, acting out as a form of resistance in a therapeutic context occurs “only when one one refuses to examine and to allow the group to examine one’s behavior” (Yalom 331). In a D&D context, this seems to apply to players unable or unwilling to examine themselves, their actions, and their behaviors (and the real reasons behind such behavior). Additionally, such players rarely want to listen to other members of the D&D group as they share how they experience such players in a game. Instead of participating in such self or group reflection and examination, these players opt to act out. In my experience, there is often a type of self-deception taking place that helps the player, or players, justify such behavior.
These are just some observations pertaining to subgrouping and how understanding subgrouping from the field of psychotherapy might provide some insight into the group dynamics that takes place in many rpg games like D&D. In my next post I will explore some of the possible ways to handle and avoid subgrouping in a D&D game.
Peace.