This post continues my exploration of subgrouping in D&D by offering a few straightforward suggestions for handling and avoiding disruptive forms of subgrouping. I’m going to keep this short and sweet. For those of you that missed my first post on the topic, you can find it here.
I want to begin by restating, a bit more firmly, that not all forms of subgrouping are disruptive to the parent group. This is especially true if a subgroup’s goals happen to align with the parent group’s goals, or at least the goals of the parent group are not undermined or relinquished by the subgroup. However, this was not the kind of subgrouping that I focused on in my previous post.
The disruptive kind of subgrouping I explored involved subgroups that undermine the goals of the gaming group (knowingly or unknowingly) by elevating the subgroup’s own personal goals, needs, or agendas. As previously discussed, such subgrouping may result in feelings of anxiety or frustration, especially for players excluded from the subgroup. I also discussed how subgrouping can create problematic player allegiance and loyalty issues since disruptive subgrouping can prioritize personal bonds among subgroup members over the needs and goals of the gaming group.
How might this kind of subgrouping be handled or avoided in a D&D group? Well, there are lots of ways to approach subgrouping issues. But since I don’t want to bore you to tears, and since I cannot hope to account for all the various special circumstances in a blog post, I’m going to limit my ramblings by discussing only three possible approaches that tend to have broad application.
Tip #1: DMs Should Acknowledge and Address Subgrouping
DMs should name disruptive forms of subgrouping when they see it and bring it to the attention of the entire group. Ignoring the issue will not resolve it. If this direct approach sounds unappealing, or if your worried about the tension and/or conflict that may arise from a direct approach to disruptive group behavior, then (in all honesty) you probably shouldn’t be a DM. The silence that results from a DM’s own fear of conflict will only enable disruptive subgrouping and other forms of dysfunctional play.
I’m not saying you have to be an asshole about it (although, being an asshole can be a valid approach in some situations). The issue, however, needs to be addressed directly. This can be done without personal criticism by simply acknowledging openly what you see the players doing and what you, the DM, want done instead. “Hey Bob and Julie, I see that you two keep having a private conversation over there. If it’s related to the game, let’s involve everyone. I’m sure the other players would like to hear your thoughts. If it’s not related to the game, then I would like you both to cut that shit out.”
DMs don’t have to keep players in the dark when it comes to why they are enforcing particular approaches to the game. Here’s a mindblower. . . talk to your players! Though I’m sure there are critics, I feel there is absolutely nothing wrong with sharing your approach to the game with your players, nor is there anything wrong with being clear about how you expect the game to function in terms of group dynamics. In fact, sharing your views on things like subgrouping is a proactive way to prevent its occurrence, or at least limit it. Additionally, open and transparent dialog may have the added benefit of players not viewing your decisions and approach to the game as capricious and/or authoritarian.
Tip #2: Players Hold Players Accountable
While the DM plays an essential role with important responsibilities in a D&D group, the DM is still only one invested member of that group. Players are also invested members of the group, and players have responsibilities as well. Therefore, players witnessing disruptive subgrouping can hold other players accountable by drawing attention to the behavior and reminding such players that they are part of a group.
Receiving feedback about disruptive behavior from more than one person has the additional benefit of possibly bringing about what Jack Mezirow called a “disorienting dilemma.” I won’t go into depth about Mezirow’s theory of transformative learning. In short, he posited that we all operate within a frame of reference consisting of assumptions and personal experiences that inform our thoughts, feelings, behaviors, and so forth. This includes our dysfunctional ways of seeing the world and interacting with others. For Mezirow, transformative learning comes about through critical self-reflection and re-examination about one’s way of seeing the world and interacting with others. The catch, however, is that we are often blind to such dysfunctional ways of being because we may not have experienced enough situations in which our of ways of seeing and behaving have been challenged.
A “disorienting dilemma” is an incident (or the result of multiple incidents) in which our current beliefs and practices don’t fit, don’t work, or are challenged. Ideally, for Mezirow, an individual experiencing such a dilemma will be forced to reconsider their views and ways of being in order to adapt/transform to the challenging experience, and this critical reexamination often takes place in dialog with others.
In the context of a D&D gaming group, players that hear messages from multiple sources informing them that their ways of behaving in a relational group context are not working as expected may experience a disorienting dilemma that forces critical self-reflection and, ideally, a change in habit. In short, hearing from multiple people that a particular behavior is unappreciated or not acceptable may prompt a player to consider more seriously his or her behavior.
Tip #3: Explore the Need
As discussed in the previous post, subgrouping is usually grounded in some type of need gratification. Taking time to openly explore what players in a subgroup are seeking to gratify offers another possible method for addressing the dysfunction.
For example, say you notice that three of your players have formed a subgroup. You notice that these three players have formed a loyal coalition in which they tend to gang up on another player. They always jointly disagree with the other player; they undermine that player’s actions; they tend to exclude the player from conversations, and they have even begun plotting against the player’s character. In addition to calling attention to this behavior, exploring the reasons for the behaviors (i.e., the needs that are seeking gratification) might reveal any number of underlying issues that could help resolve the dysfunction and improve the quality of the gaming group.
For example, maybe the subgroup is really just dissatisfied with the DM and is scapegoating because the targeted player has received the last three magic items. Or, perhaps the targeted player is notorious for being a pretentious ass. In this case, the subgroup’s behavior might then reflect their frustration and need for retaliation. Alternatively, maybe the targeted player was previously in the habit of undermining the group’s carefully agreed-to plans, and now the subgroup is excluding the player because of those previous offences. Whatever the reason, demonstrating a willingness to openly explore what’s going on as a group might help resolve the issues and alleviate the need for select players to seek alternative solutions in a subgroup.
Granted, this kind of approach demands a certain amount of emotional maturity; otherwise, attempts at honest and open dialog may succumb to blame-talk and defensiveness.
The astute reader will notice that all three of these tips essentially stress open communication. More specifically, the tips all involve communication characterized by direct and honest feedback. This shouldn’t come as a surprise since the success of any group endeavor ultimately depends upon effective and open communication. D&D groups are no exception.
Well, that’s it for now. Part of me is itching to include a fourth tip on eliminating “secret” subgroup messaging, but I fear that might turn the post into a rambling rant. Maybe I’ll come back to that topic in another post.
Peace.