Comm Thoughts
Being a comm major does strange things to your brain. Here's a piece of some of the analysis I'm doing on a 7-minute section from a recording of one of my DnD sessions:
Prior to this section of talk, the players had been attacked by a small group of horse-sized ant-creatures (called Formians). We join the group during Keenan's (K) turn as he announces his next attacks to myself, the Dungeon Master (DM).
(1) dndrecord.mp3 01:15:04
01 K Alright then I'm going to put five intu-
02 K five into that one formian taskmaster af[ter-]
03 (DM) [*y-*]
04 (.)
05 K uh- no i have five left
06 (.)
07 DM OHh::: cause yur (.) hast[ed. ]
08 K [yeah.]
09 DM Figures.=
10 K =Yeah.
Keenan starts by announcing in 01 and 02 his intention to attack one of the creatures five times. In 02, it appears DM predicted “... that one formian taskmaster” to be the end of K's utterance. Syntactically, it makes sense as a transition relevant place (TRP), but K and DM end up overlapping talk before both immediately drop out, followed by a small pause. This hesitation strikes me as both participants orienting to the end of 02 as a TRP, as well as an orientation towards the ambiguity of ownership of the next turn. K self-selects to go on, but his utterance at 05 is clearly not a continuation of 02. Keenan seems to regard my failed bid to secure a turn as drawing attention to some piece of trouble in his talk, specifically the number of attacks he can perform this game-turn. According to the rules, the standard number of attacks his character should have at this point would be four. Both K and DM are well-versed in the game rules, but standard rules can often been manipulated by various in-game means. K's utterance at 05 attends to (and dismisses) what K perceives to be on objection on DM's part at 03 in reference to the number-of-attacks rule. K's assertion/dismissal at 05, however, does not actually explain the possible rule violation. In fact, the DM ends up supplying the explanation to his own objection in 07 (Keenan's character has magic boots that grant him an ability called “haste”, which allows him to make an additional attack on his turn).
Why did Keenan not offer the explanation himself? Ostensibly, the DM is in charge of the game session and makes all rulings and judgments on the interpretation and adjudication of game rules. One might expect the onus to be on K to explain any rule violations. Perhaps that would normally be the case, but a few contextual issues muddies the problem. Both Keenan and myself are quite knowledgeable about the rules of the game, but Keenan was regarded as more of an expert than myself (at least, at that time). In addition, while the group had been playing together for some time, this was only my second or third session in the role of DM. Especially in those early sessions, I relied on Keenan's superior knowledge to facilitate playing the game and would often concede concerns of gameplay to him.
The power relationship set up by the game would likely cause the preferred response to a rule violation such as this to be an explanation or account of the violation by the player who stands accused. By failing to provide an account, Keenan seems to be indicating that the violation did not require an explanation. Indeed, haste is a common ability that nearly every player in the party had at their disposal. This violation of the standard rules was perfectly accounted for in-game and in fact had long been established as a norm: the player characters are always hasted. My response at 07 and again at 09 draws attention to the explanation as obvious, something I should have known, an attitude confirmed by K with his affirmative response to my “Figures.” In this way, knowledge of the game can greatly modify the process and preferences for initiating and making repairs.
That's the kind of shit that's going through my brain *all the time*. So if I seem a little distant and distracted, this is probably why.
Prior to this section of talk, the players had been attacked by a small group of horse-sized ant-creatures (called Formians). We join the group during Keenan's (K) turn as he announces his next attacks to myself, the Dungeon Master (DM).
(1) dndrecord.mp3 01:15:04
01 K Alright then I'm going to put five intu-
02 K five into that one formian taskmaster af[ter-]
03 (DM) [*y-*]
04 (.)
05 K uh- no i have five left
06 (.)
07 DM OHh::: cause yur (.) hast[ed. ]
08 K [yeah.]
09 DM Figures.=
10 K =Yeah.
Keenan starts by announcing in 01 and 02 his intention to attack one of the creatures five times. In 02, it appears DM predicted “... that one formian taskmaster” to be the end of K's utterance. Syntactically, it makes sense as a transition relevant place (TRP), but K and DM end up overlapping talk before both immediately drop out, followed by a small pause. This hesitation strikes me as both participants orienting to the end of 02 as a TRP, as well as an orientation towards the ambiguity of ownership of the next turn. K self-selects to go on, but his utterance at 05 is clearly not a continuation of 02. Keenan seems to regard my failed bid to secure a turn as drawing attention to some piece of trouble in his talk, specifically the number of attacks he can perform this game-turn. According to the rules, the standard number of attacks his character should have at this point would be four. Both K and DM are well-versed in the game rules, but standard rules can often been manipulated by various in-game means. K's utterance at 05 attends to (and dismisses) what K perceives to be on objection on DM's part at 03 in reference to the number-of-attacks rule. K's assertion/dismissal at 05, however, does not actually explain the possible rule violation. In fact, the DM ends up supplying the explanation to his own objection in 07 (Keenan's character has magic boots that grant him an ability called “haste”, which allows him to make an additional attack on his turn).
Why did Keenan not offer the explanation himself? Ostensibly, the DM is in charge of the game session and makes all rulings and judgments on the interpretation and adjudication of game rules. One might expect the onus to be on K to explain any rule violations. Perhaps that would normally be the case, but a few contextual issues muddies the problem. Both Keenan and myself are quite knowledgeable about the rules of the game, but Keenan was regarded as more of an expert than myself (at least, at that time). In addition, while the group had been playing together for some time, this was only my second or third session in the role of DM. Especially in those early sessions, I relied on Keenan's superior knowledge to facilitate playing the game and would often concede concerns of gameplay to him.
The power relationship set up by the game would likely cause the preferred response to a rule violation such as this to be an explanation or account of the violation by the player who stands accused. By failing to provide an account, Keenan seems to be indicating that the violation did not require an explanation. Indeed, haste is a common ability that nearly every player in the party had at their disposal. This violation of the standard rules was perfectly accounted for in-game and in fact had long been established as a norm: the player characters are always hasted. My response at 07 and again at 09 draws attention to the explanation as obvious, something I should have known, an attitude confirmed by K with his affirmative response to my “Figures.” In this way, knowledge of the game can greatly modify the process and preferences for initiating and making repairs.
That's the kind of shit that's going through my brain *all the time*. So if I seem a little distant and distracted, this is probably why.