Trust and Communication

[TonyLB]

Folks asked me to repost this somewhere that it could be discussed without interrupting the discussion it sprung from.  Would that I had anything more to add at the moment, but I'm reduced to just quoting :(

Trust is huge in roleplaying. It goes hand in hand with communication. If you trust that your core goals for a game are not under assault, you communicate more effectively. If you communicate more effectively it is easier to convey your core goals for a game. Synergy, that.

More importantly, trust that is built upon having communicated your goals and understood those of others is bedrock, worthy to build upon. Trust that comes from hope, or the mere appearance of agreement without deeper understanding... that's quicksand.

Internet roleplaying has only a shadowy parody of real human communication. You have to be a really, really good writer to convey in words the sort of emotional nuance that can be gotten across by a single lazy wave of a hand, or a raised eyebrow.

Unfortunately, this lack of communication does not, in fact, lead to a lack of trust. I don't know why, but people are very ready to place their trust in most anyone who shares their interests.

I had a nice little mathematical exercise worked up, but it's boring. I'll skip to the conclusion: An unchanged level of trust, coupled with much less effective communication, creates an environment which disproportionately drives people into situations where misunderstandings are viewed as betrayals.

I'm beginning to wonder whether my motto for internet gaming should be "Do not trust me! You couldn't possibly know what I'm thinking!" A bit over-the-top on drama, but it does get across my general point: Making first contact with a person or group is a tricky matter of establishing a shared language and probing for cultural booby-traps. Underestimate its difficulty at your peril. The friendly natives who keep offering you wonderful food may assume that you know you're being fatted as a sacrificial offering :)

Many Indie games (Sorceror, Inspectres, MLwM, presumably others I haven't yet investigated) share a common feature: The opening of the first session (or the entire first session) is composed of out of character discussion where nothing "in-game" is at stake. In short, people have a chance to acclimate to each other socially before being called upon to live up to most responsibilities of the social contract. Good gaming wisdom there.

[beingfrank]

Internet roleplaying has only a shadowy parody of real human communication. You have to be a really, really good writer to convey in words the sort of emotional nuance that can be gotten across by a single lazy wave of a hand, or a raised eyebrow.

Unfortunately, this lack of communication does not, in fact, lead to a lack of trust. I don't know why, but people are very ready to place their trust in most anyone who shares their interests.

I had a nice little mathematical exercise worked up, but it's boring. I'll skip to the conclusion: An unchanged level of trust, coupled with much less effective communication, creates an environment which disproportionately drives people into situations where misunderstandings are viewed as betrayals.

I think there's more to this aspect.

I think that internet roleplaying (or maybe just the Amber pbem community) has a culture where there is the expectation that one will behave as though one has made the most generous interpretation of the other's intent, in an environment where, as Tony suggests, the set up can foster a climate where people think the worst interpretation.  So people are encouraged to think that they might be being screwed over, but to act on that would be seen as 'being a bad roleplayer' so that people don't raise issues of concern at early stages, but once the problem has become more serious, people have invested more of their egos in their understanding of the situation, and so on.

So it's a passtime that requires a much higher level of people management than FTF roleplaying.  Communication is more complicated, trust is harder to build and given with less build up, influencing other's behaviours is harder, and there's a greater disparity between conditioned modes of behaviour and thought.

Enough of the negative.

One thing I have noticed is that PBEM can produce a different style of play from FTF with the same system (in the written down sense) and even the same GM.  I've seen it produce a much higher level of player contribution and creative control than would be considered the done thing in FTF.

For example, I play in an email game where my character was investigating an explosion in his workplace.  The GM sends a post setting the scene for the character to investigate a number of things.  I could have gone with that, but I chose to rewrite it almost completely, incorporating in the GMs bits, but changing some of their meaning, and setting the scene on a different direction.  The GM's response?  He didn't even blink, and even apologised for not seeing that I wanted to go in a different direction even though I'd given him no indication that I wanted to, and had actually previously told him I was looking forward to the plot directions he had set up.  After thinking about this for a while, I concluded that I think that a GM would have been more put out FTF and I would have been less likely to be so aggressive in my set up.  This is Amber, it's not that it's discouraged, it just doesn't seem to happen as much as it could.  And I was pushing things a little.  Some GMs would quite reasonably be unhappy with what I did, either FTF or PBEM, because that wasn't the style of play they liked or thought they were playing.  But I think that a number of people find it easier to try things via PBEM that they'd be unhappy with FTF.

Anyway, I think that in internet games, the medium itself makes explicit that the players contribute to maintaining the flow of the game, and this can encourage players to take more control of this than they might in FTF.

Can anybody think of other aspects of internet gaming that change the style of play?

[captain_bateson]

You know, something I've really noticed is the willingness of people in games to be really nasty to each other online, though they would never act like that FTF. I think I've both done and and been on the business end of it. I think maybe this makes it much more difficult to establish trust and communication. The claws come out too quickly.

For instance, a long time ago, I was playing in a Star Trek PBP game on CompuServe. There was a guy there who hated me for some reason from the beginning of the game. I never understood why, though I think it had something to do with my communications officer disrespecting him once (which apparently was still my fault even after that player had left the game!)

Anyway, it turns out he lived about ten miles away. We found this out when we both mentioned online that we were going to a Star Trek con in our area that weekend. We ran into each other there. He was really nice! We got along just fine. I really thought this might be the end of that rivalry.

I got home and found like ten messages posted around the board about what a jerk I had been all day and that kind of thing. I was stunned.

Now, this is a guy who I think I would have gotten along with fine, and easily been able to establish a level of communication and trust, in a FTF game (as long as he didn't have a blog where I could read about him slamming me!) But online, no go.

I don't know if he felt no pressure to be civil online, or if he was acting like he wanted to act in real life but couldn't (he was really short), or what. And I would jump all over him when he said bad things in a way I would never do to someone's face. Why was I doing it? I dunno.

So, I think the fact that people tend to feel less restricted by the rules of civilized discourse online makes it more difficult to establish trust and communication in an online game. In fact, I think that may be one of the primary factors in the failure to establish trust and communication.

[beingfrank]

You know, something I've really noticed is the willingness of people in games to be really nasty to each other online, though they would never act like that FTF. I think I've both done and and been on the business end of it. I think maybe this makes it much more difficult to establish trust and communication. The claws come out too quickly.

I think this is a feature of much online communication.  The explanation I like most explains it in terms of personal space.  Most online communication is written in the writer's personal space.  Their computer, their office, their home, their set up, styles and customisations.  They're writing it in their place, that they own, and thus they take on some of the authority of communicating in their space.  But most online communication is written in the reader's personal space.  The reader's computer, office, home, set up, personal space.  The communication that they read has come into their personal space, and if it is then inflamatory in any way, it's like someone walking into your house and criticising you while they're your guest.

I think it's a matter of how we perceive the space in which we communicate.  Obviously, in FTF roleplaying the ownership of the space is much less ambiguous.  It's someone's house, and the guests show some respect for that person in how they communicate both to the host, and to the host's other guests.  Or it's a public space that all people have equal ownership of, and that is acknowledged.  But in online communication, the participants can view the space in which we communicate in completely different ways, and in ways that are conflict enhancing.

I was interested in the comment that roleplay over IRC goes better when the participants have more invested in the IRC channel, because I suspect that that investment leads to greater consensus about the ownership of the space, and that there is less conflict.

In PBEM, it would be interesting to compare the differences in trust and communication between games run on mailing lists, and games with private postings.  One of the arguments for mailing lists is that players get to know each other better.  Which can lead to 'better' behaviour and perhaps fewer problems with trust.  Maybe it also has effects on the perceived ownership of the communication space?

I haven't played PPBB, so that would be interesting to compare as well.

Hmm, ok, now I'm talking a load of unsubstantiated crap.  I'm sure there's some ideas in there somewhere.