|
Canada11496 Posts
This will be a short one and a rather random break from my Starcraft blogs, but there it is.
I was considering this in the wake of GMing a Star Wars role-playing game with seven players.
When I was in university, I had a friend, who in a large group setting, made this observation about people in conversations.
Skyler's Rule of Three: People naturally form conversation groups of 2-3. Once four people join into a conversation, it becomes unstable and the conversation group will break into two conversations of two. This will repeat continually.
We observed this in the large group setting and found this was generally true.
However, we were forced to add this amendment:
Amendment: It is possible for a conversation group to maintain above the Rule of Three, but everyone else will be passive listeners. That is, there will only be three active people conversing, with random interjections or nothing at all by the rest.
This pretty much covered every conversation we observed. In a group that maintained four, there was typically one quiet person listening in. In a group of fifteen, either one person holds sway over the conversation with an interesting story or else three people carried the conversation with the rest listening in. The three active participants might change over time, but only three carried the conversation at any one time with a handful of random interjecions.
Some Applications
A) Book Dialogue
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9MBdMJ2.jpg)
I found this was also true in writing dialogue for stories. Two to three people going back and forth made sense in a conversation. But as soon as I tried adding a fourth or more and tried to balance the conversation equally, it no longer felt like a conversation. It took too long to go back to the first character to make it feel like there was a semblance of back and forth.
This was shift for me as I had grown up with the Lord of the Rings that had a big cast of characters and I thought to myself: I am good at names, I will have lots of characters. That is until I tried writing scenes with lots of characters and I found that necessarily, some had to drop into the background.
A Digression on Lord of the Rings+ Show Spoiler +
Going back to the Lord of the Rings, I have found this was exactly the same. We are slowly introduced to characters. Gandalf and Bilbo are introduced first as the touchstones from the previous book. Bilbo passes the torch to Frodo and we now understand that he is to be the new main character. Sam is then introduced and we get to know Frodo, Sam and Pippen before Merry joins in. Once Merry joins, Pippen fades to the background.
Then Strider joins the party and most of the hobbits except Frodo (and probably Sam) take the background. By the time reach Rivendell, we do have a large cast of nine characters, but 6/9 have already been introduced. At this time, Sam is reduced to a couple lines and Merry and Pippen only chime in a handful of times. Most of the conversation is carried by Gandalf, Frodo's perspective a bit simply as the main character and a bit with Aragorn and Boromir. Gimili has a thing or to say about Moria and Legolas almost nothing.
It really isn't until the breaking of the fellowship that the spotlight is shared because the parties have been reduced down to 2-4. Gandalf and Boromir get knocked off. Sam and Frodo together, Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimili together, and Merry and Pippen (and later Treebeard) together.
So even though I had associated in my mind "LotR's = lots of characters," the characters are introduced slowly allowing the Reader to become familiar with them before dropping into the background. But it is only when the lots of characters are reduced to smaller groups do we actually get a better understanding of what they do.
Almost immediately, I started looking for ways to drop the number of characters in a particular scene to the necessary ones and was rather glad of the result.
B) RPG Games
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/D4rk6o3.jpg)
This is what sparked the blog. I think it is no accident that the ideal number of players in a RPG group is 3-4. And even then, I think a certain member will be more in the background than the others at certain parts of the game.
Having run a game with 7 players, I can say I had them all involved at some point in the game, but very consistently there were 2 players doing little to nothing (out of combat.) And in conversations, it was usually carried by 2-3 people. Some people stepped up over time, some were content to sit back. Now partially, this may be the an issue with and inexperienced GM with such a large group. I am certain there are better ways of dealing with a large group, than my absolute first time attempting to do so. But I do think in conversations with non-player characters or amongst themselves, the Rule of Three holds.
C) Mafia
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1dcqqBA.jpg)
(Online because I haven't seen live event mafia for years.)
Esports mafia has a (in theory) lynch silent people policy, which I think is fair game. There are people that are/ were generally silent over long stretches of time, so then lynch them. I was one of them (although arguably not so much later game.) But that is a separate issue.
Even amongst the people known to be the vocal mafia players... a lot of players are not talking even as there is great furor over people not talking. The people carrying the conversation are 2-3 people talking about how other people are not talking.
I don't know how it works offline, but online, I observe the Rule of Three holds true. It is physically only possible to have about that many people talking at a time else it is a bunch of people yelling over each other. Sometimes it might be Mango grilling people, sometimes it might be shindigs going all Batman, but not even amongst the vocal players can all players talk for equal lengths without incomprehensible overtalking.
I'm sure all sorts of exceptions can be found, but I am curious how true this holds up outside the circles I frequent.
Anyways, Random Thought of the Day.
 
|
In the past I have been the one to speak seldom, mainly because I didn't speak enough throughout the day to have my speaking area of the brain active when a conversation came up. I can say this is definitely true; people do split into groups of 2-3, but interaction can also be made across the smaller groups. In two groups of 4, who makes the interaction across the two groups is hard to predict. Sometimes it will be the 4th person who feels left out and is looking for their own group of 2, and other times it is one of the three active participants just being sociable.
It's a really complex issue because the passive people are usually passive in all conversations above 3 people as there is simply not enough time for them to flip on their conversation switch while actively listening to the 3 person conversation. It's much easier to get started with 2 people talking because your brain doesn't have to put up with many tangent ideas and you can just say "I agree" a few times to get your mouth moving, to flip the switch.
I think this is a problem that has appeared in recent times due to people becoming too impatient. They are not content to wait a few seconds and then continue, and when they do, it comes as a real shock to the passive listeners in the group. More time is necessary for these people to become involved. I have actually had someone say "I'd like to hear more from Raddmiral," and then ask me a question. I could feel the tension and impatience and general apathy within the ENTIRE GROUP, with the sole exception of the questioner, as they listened to my slower form of communication. It was like they were cringing in their minds because being a part of such a slow conversation would literally be impossible for them to participate in or care about.
I think it's also true that people who sit down to write a really long post on a forum are generally quieter people, because they actually think about what they are saying and they try to form logical conclusions in conversation. So another thing I have tried doing is just make short 2-3 line posts instead of novels as I usually do.
I'd like to have more experience in conversation to become more familiar with the subtle under-communications but getting in a conversation that isn't logical is rare for me these days. It's gonna be tough to change.
Thanks for the blog. It's a cool concept.
|
I have noticed this a lot during family parties, rarely will there be more than 3 people actively conversing on a subject, sometimes shouting across the table with 20 people yet still only talking as a trio
|
Wow, I've definitely noticed this before but I've never taken the time to articulate it as well as you did and all. That's really really interesting actually :O definitely a good Random Thought of the Day, thanks for sharing haha. Soooo true though in my experience, hard to have an extended, mostly-balanced conversation with more than around 3 people. A good, lively conversation with a bunch of people would involve constant shifts among the active speakers I'd assume.
|
Thesis
Antithesis
Synthesis
Might be common characteristics of the 'trio' that you could find. Tank/Healer/DPS is sort of the holy trinity of RPGs as well. Interesting that this theme keeps running throughout things
Interesting observations. I'd bet there are tons of research papers on this
|
imo even 3 is too many, one person can get squeezed out. 2 is still the best.
|
On July 13 2013 08:46 Kalingingsong wrote:
imo even 3 is too many, one person can get squeezed out. 2 is still the best.
The dreaded Third Wheel.
|
On July 13 2013 08:46 Kalingingsong wrote:
imo even 3 is too many, one person can get squeezed out. 2 is still the best.
Conversational threesomes are the best, you just need to establish that connection, that chemistry. Next thing you know, sparks are flying, conversation is going strong all night long, everyone is euphoric, and there's no awkward feelings the next morning.
|
10387 Posts
super interesting and handy, I'll definitely keep this in mind heh
|
Very interesting read. Enjoyed this blog.
|
My group of friends tend to play D&D with normally 4-5 players, but we've had 7 PC's before. It's an easy fix to include them: when 2 or 3 people are dominating the game, stop and go around to ask the more quiet players "What are you doing during all of this, X?"
|
This blog would make a nice thesis on why sports casts are typically 2-3 people. It might also have to do with how much the people in the group like each other, let's say we have a group with persons A, B, and C.
Person A likes B 75% and C 25%, therefore he is waiting to hear more from B and less from C. In turn, C likes A more than B so is waiting for more from A. B likes C more and is waiting for more from C.
So it could be a case of how long someone is willing to wait to listen to someone else while they could be being entertained by their more favorite person.
|
Well, if there's 2 married couples talking, it can go to 4, but yea, often one is quiet and sometimes it breaks into 2on2 for a while.
|
the only place this is not true is the internet, where you can have "conversations" between tens or even hundreds of people. (although there may be an even larger magnitude still of people simply reading)
|
On July 13 2013 15:19 tl2212 wrote:
the only place this is not true is the internet, where you can have "conversations" between tens or even hundreds of people. (although there may be an even larger magnitude still of people simply reading)
most comment sections just amount to a bunch of people yelling, with a few actual back-and-forth arguments via quotes. IRCs/Group Skype are more of an online equivalent for conversations and often tend to stick to the 2-3 active speakers.
|
On July 13 2013 15:06 quirinus wrote:
Well, if there's 2 married couples talking, it can go to 4, but yea, often one is quiet and sometimes it breaks into 2on2 for a while.
i c wut u did thar
|
i have a theory which breaks your mold
ones life, or a morgan freeman narrator
it is also the dipping into stories, and inactive listening
the keanu reeves character
this changes everything, especially couples with the peter pan complexes running rampant in the western world
everyone is the center of their own universe
but hey, i interrupt anyone. "bad habit" of mine
|
Canada11496 Posts
On July 13 2013 15:06 quirinus wrote:
Well, if there's 2 married couples talking, it can go to 4, but yea, often one is quiet and sometimes it breaks into 2on2 for a while.
You know, you could be right. I am not married and the uni crowd we were observing was for the most part unmarried and a rather large crowed. So a conversation as couples in a group of four could very well be an exception, though as you say the conversation may break into pairs from time to time.
|
This was a very entertaining read. Really weird to think about how it applies to DND or GM'ing, lol. But in most respects, the theory holds!
|
In my experience, you're absolutely right. In groups of 4+ there tend to be a person or two, or even several just passively observing. Usually me, although I never really thought about it until now. When it's 3ish I can hold a decent conversation though.
|
What an interesting concept. It's pretty cool to see that this theory holds (for the most part) true across multiple areas of life, from books to video games to real life.
|
Wow! That is a really interesting idea... The more I think about it, the clearer it gets.
So strange how things in everyday life gravitate towards these numbers all the time. What's the deal with the number three?
|
I'm not very knowledgeable in this area but most of your observations are closely related to communication paradigms (maxims). There are certain mechanisms or laws if you will when it comes to (successful) communication, I think the linguistic discipline of Pragmatics deals with suchlike.
Here are some that I recall:
1. What you say is true. (without this basic assumption no one would be able to lie for example)
2. What you say is related to what has been said before. (An answer responds to a question etc. - you
can observe the breaking of this rule is some type of jokes.)
I think the second one is also related to the fact that it is considered polite to be quiet while someone else speaks and this is in part related to your observation.
|
|
|
sorry but I don't agree with this at all. If you say that other people just interject randomly, if they do so frequent enough they are part of the conversation. How much do you have to speak in order to be part of the conversation anyway? completely subjective.
|
Canada11496 Posts
Well it's more a general trend then a hard rule of person A must speak X number of times in Y minutes or they are not part of the conversation. So, yes in a sense it is subjective. But typically in a group of four, there is one person that is for the most part listening in rather than actively talking or else the conversation tends to split into two separate conversations.
|
I think you're right about this, I most enjoy talking to one or two people but if there's too many I'll usually end up sitting quietly or talking to someone else if possible.
I absolutely hate being in a room full of people and everyone is talking to someone else and I'm just sitting there watching it all happen O_O I find this happens quite a lot actually. Somehow I'm going to try and use this to change things a bit.
I don't know about you, but I find the type of conversation that goes on when there's too many people extremely boring. I don't know if it's really possible to be bored and overwhelmed at the same time but I feel that way sometimes.
If I'm in a busy situation and there's like 10 people in the room and they all seem deep in conversation it gets really loud and it's hard to follow everything that's going on. What I usually try and do then is listen to specific conversations to see if I can join in but they all seem really artificial? not sure if that's the right word but it's not the type of conversation I'd expect if those 2-3 people were alone in a room and I find I don't want to join in any of them. =(
Not sure if that's really relevant but this was an interesting read and possibly has some practical use.
edit:
On July 15 2013 04:54 CutieBK wrote:
Wow! That is a really interesting idea... The more I think about it, the clearer it gets.
So strange how things in everyday life gravitate towards these numbers all the time. What's the deal with the number three?
+ Show Spoiler +
|
hmm i never even noticed..
gonna have to see if this holds lol. would be amazing if it does
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
