Max Weber was this dude that made up a bunch of what has become modern sociology and political science. I think it'll probably pass muster on the board here because, well, this is an actual theory in the scientific sense rather than the usual run of stuff theory gets; there have been hypothesis-experiment cycles run around this, and it more or less stands up in politics.

He posited three basic types of political authority (he also posited many yards of other stuff, but let's leave that on the side for now):

Traditional Authority is authority vested in certain people because of their lineage or because of their position with regards to tradition.  The tribal cheif is followed because "that's how we've always done it, and it works".

Charismatic Authority is authority that comes from the perceived personal qualities of the individual.  They are perceived as extraordinarily good or smart or whatever, and acquire folowers as a result.

Legal-Rational Authority is based in laws, in institutions.  It's not personal; authority is gained and retained by meshing with the structure of governance.

.............

Now, let's say that, for the sake of argument, that these theorised types are more or less accurate.   And let's say that they apply to the internal politics of your gaming table.

If these things are true, then what how would you describe a good night at your table in these terms?  Who has which kinds of authority?  

When there are problems at your table, do they come from someone trying to claim authority of one of these types?

If this is true....   What else is true?

Levi, I like you, but I honestly think that your questions, as interesting as they may be, are one of the reasons why people who read about gaming on forums do not want to get involved in a RPG.

What you are describing in the OP is a collegiate intellectual exercise. When people usually play a game, they do not want to engage in this depth of thought problem, it isn't fun for most people. Even college students want to get away from this kind of material that they are inundated with in class and go kill things and take their stuff instead.

In short, I'd say more people want to actually play RPGs and talk about them, than they wish to deconstruct and analyze the RPG.

Quote from: jeff37923;380919Levi, I like you, but I honestly think that your questions, as interesting as they may be, are one of the reasons why people who read about gaming on forums do not want to get involved in a RPG.

I would have thought Edition wars and other similar bullshit would be a far more significant off-put.

As to the rest, there's infinite thread-space.  Others can have what they want, too.

There's no practical use for that silliness at my game table.

Simply put: some people play with others better than other people do.

If someone is a jerk or behaves badly - they leave the game table . (Or they never got invited in the first place)

There.
You got a very simple theory now.

- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;380924There's no practical use for that silliness at my game table.

So, you've never had a player go "Wait, but the rulebook says...", making a claim to legal-rational-style autority?

Never had a player that had a really forceful presence at the table, where they were treated like the boss of the party, on the charismatic end?

Never accepted or rejected a game because of the changes it wants you to make to "The way we've always done it"?

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;380925So, you've never had a player go "Wait, but the rulebook says...", making a claim to legal-rational-style autority?

Thats called a child or rules lawyer my groups are normally made up of adults. (or pretty mature teenager in one case)

QuoteNever had a player that had a really forceful presence at the table, where they were treated like the boss of the party, on the charismatic end?

There are charismatic people and there are people that are natural leaders. I have a frequent player who has been in the actual real military. Most of the time that player is trying to give the leadership to somebody else. (too much like real life) Anyone who dsesperately wants to be the 'alpha dog' at the table probably shouldn't be because they got still got issues. As my groups tenmd to be mostly women - those types rarely ever show up at my table.

QuoteNever accepted or rejected a game because of the changes it wants you to make to "The way we've always done it"?

A game can't " want " me to do anything. Its just pages in a book sitting there on the table or little booklets in a boxed set. (What a strange way to phrase things, Levi)

I don't have a way that fits " we''ve always done things ". In the last campaign we'd change things arounbd every 4 or 5 sessions just because we felt like it.

Sounds like you're actually describing game groups that are stuck in a rut or that don't really like each other - but they're too gutless to admit it. As in they'd rather be gaming with somebody else or with a different set of rules.

 Again, an example of an issue thats not normally a big deal to me or the people I play with.

In general all three of your examples sound liuke immature people are involved or people too shy to speak up for themselves.

- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;380927Thats called a child or rules lawyer my groups are normally made up of adults. (or pretty mature teenager in one case)

So, you as a GM have never been wrong about a rule, and changed your mind when someone pointed out that it doesn't work that way?

Because, uh, That's a better track record than I have.  That happens to me every few sessions for sure.

Quote from: Koltar;380927There are charismatic people and there are people that are natural leaders. I have a frequent player who has been in the actual real military. Most of the time that player is trying to give the leadership to somebody else. (too much like real life) Anyone who dsesperately wants to be the 'alpha dog' at the table probably shouldn't be because they got still got issues. As my groups tenmd to be mostly women - those types rarely ever show up at my table.

So, attempts at charismatic leadership that fail give your game some grief sometimes.

Do the 'natural leaders' ever clash with you as GM?  Or do you see natural leadership as something that happens inside the structure of "how you're running the game"?

(Do they tend to end up GMing games?)

Also, women-with-charisma-who-game just don't happen to move in the same gaming circles as you, I take it?

Quote from: Koltar;380927A game can't " want " me to do anything. Its just pages in a book sitting there on the table or little booklets in a boxed set. (What a strange way to phrase things, Levi)

A game with no GM wouldn't differ from how you do things?  Or would you just call that "not an RPG" and be done with it?

Quote from: Koltar;380927In general all three of your examples sound liuke immature people are involved or people too shy to speak up for themselves.

To a degree, sure.  

Given that we do have shy people and immature people in the hobby at large, as well as discussions on how the rules work, natural leaders, games written that say "Do it in this really weird way", groups that trade GMs, failed attempts to be leader-y, and all else besides, it strikes me that the categories in question seem to at least apply slightly to, y'know, real things.

Although they probably need rewriting for clear application to games, rather than being about politics at large.

ALL of the women that play in my games are charismatic - in their own way.
Thats a given.
They are also more intelligent than the average person.

- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;380933ALL of the women that play in my games are charismatic - in their own way.
Thats a given.
They are also more intelligent than the average person.

So, not leadership-style-charisma, but some damn charming ladies regardless?

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;380934So, not leadership-style-charisma, but some damn charming ladies regardless?

Um  you didn't connect the dots - at least two of the women in my game either are currently or 20 years ago have been in military. The age range in the group is 24 to 61. (But that one looks much younger, just ask her husband)

- Ed C.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen;380916Max Weber was this dude that made up a bunch of what has become modern sociology and political science.

Didn't he also play drums for the E Street Band?

My guess is that these categories might be difficult to apply to game groups because groups tend to be small, ad-hoc, short-term gatherings. They don't need sophisticated organizational or authority structures because they can function on a more egalitarian basis of group consensus. Even in the larger pool of a gaming community in a city or area, this might still be true, or there is often a lack of any organized community altogether.

But I'll bite.

From what I've seen of the gaming communities in Toronto and Hamilton, what organization that exists tends to be charismatic. An individual or small group takes it on themselves to organize an network of players or a con and those things live or die on the ability of the founder(s) to draw people in and manage them. I have listened in on a few discussions of people involved in the local LARP communities, and those have sounded very legalistic (often, it seems, in response to abuses of charisma-based authority), but I can't say I know enough about their inner politics to say that with any certainty.

On the smaller scale, at the table, the groups I've been involved with tend to be legal-rational, but I think this is as much a function of the fact that we try out a lot of different games--there is a desire to see the rules in play and how they function.

Quote from: The Shaman;380937Didn't he also play drums for the E Street Band?

You're thinking of Max Weinstein - he also was the music guy on the Conan O'Brien show.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;380936Um  you didn't connect the dots - at least two of the women in my game either are currently or 20 years ago have been in military. The age range in the group is 24 to 61. (But that one looks much younger, just ask her husband)

Yeah, I missed something in what you were saying, then.

Quote from: Koltar;380940You're thinking of Max Weinstein - he also was the music guy on the Conan O'Brien show.

Yes, Ed, I know. That's what made it funny.

Or so I thought.

*facepalm*