"Leaders" and the Real Social Dynamics of Gaming Groups

[S'mon]

If you're too self-important to check your ego before a game session, if you're not willing to get laughed at sometimes, then you're not welcome at my table.

Clearly an Alpha GM.

[snooggums]

Actually, when the tactical co-op dungeon-crawling mini-game took front stage and became the meat of my recent OD&D game, functions like "caller" and "mapper" emerged organically, with zero prompting on my part, from the players. And it made everyone's lives so much easier.

Having a caller makes a ton of sense for a certain kind of game.

Although I had to look up the term 'caller', it looks like that position has also naturally arisen whenever the group has a chance to discuss something and they have to say what their final decision is.

This tends to be either the player who is often a leader outside of the game or a character type the players assume is a leader like a fighter or paladin.

[Ladybird]

I wonder if this is why some quarters of this hobby flip their shit at the idea of a "caller" in a D&D session.

I can see the chain of logic:

1. The mechanical act of roleplaying involves telling the GM what your guy does and reacting to what they say happens
2. If there's a caller, that player is the one talking to the GM, you're just talking to the caller and asking them to relay information
3. Thus the caller is the one actually playing the game...
4. ...and you're just watching and providing the occasional comment

Clearly an Alpha GM.

I'd be massively disappointed in a player who didn't try and laugh at me; I put a lot of effort into producing set-ups for them to exploit

[Warboss Squee]

I find both ideas very distasteful and I also find the words alpha, beta and omega distasteful.

I suggest you stay away from any documentaries about pack animals then.

Funny thing though, I actually left the group I was in due to the fact that I was always the 'leader' among the players. Was tired of the role and wound up leaving after trying to get other players to take the reins.

So yeah, it's a thing.

[Kyle Aaron]

there needs to be an Omega, believe it or not. A group where there's one person who (usually unbeknownst to himself) is kind of the loser of the group, the one the rest of the group can either have a chuckle at his antics or complain about his goof-ups, is in my long experience a more stable and healthy long-term group than one where there isn't someone like that.

man what

[jeff37923]

Nah, the issue there is that intentionally creating a communication bottleneck is just dumb.

Committees do a lot of discussion, but rarely get things actually done.

[LordVreeg]

Sometimes, over simplification just papers over any truth.

I'm sure Pundit's views hold some level of veracity in teenage groups.  Later?  one doubts.

[Kiero]

For some reason, this topic is reminding me of a study I read ages ago about how people react to the fight/flight/freeze response in a crisis situation.

Essentially there's a small group of people who are able to act under their own volition (thus "leaders"). A much larger group who can't act on their own, but will act under direction from others (basically "followers"). Lastly, there's a large minority who just freeze and can't do anything ("rabbits"?).

man what

Stopped clocks and all that, yeah, I agree. Can't say that I've ever experienced the joys of having a "group's loser" for everyone to laugh/bitch at.

[ArrozConLeche]

Hello, faithful readers.  Over on therpgsite, we had a thread where someone posted a subject too interesting to pass up.

Interesting post, but I could have done without the RSD pua references.

[ArrozConLeche]

It'd be interesting to have Jesus at the table. Kill two birds with one stone.

[Spinachcat]

I belong to a game design group in Los Angeles (sadly, I've been amiss in my recent attendance). We have people who have published board games, card games and even some app games along with the rest of us wanna-be designers who haven't done our first Kickstarter or attended our first Essen.

NEVER....that would be NEVER....as in the word NEVER...has anyone ever mentioned creating rules about no leaders in a game.

We do talk about game balance to avoid dominance of certain tactics, not certain players. We playtest to find and destroy loopholes because lots of fun cool tactics in a game is great, just one path to victory is suckage.

In social games (LARPS, games involving wordplay, versions of charades, etc), we do talk about how to make the game accessible to veteran social gamers and those new to such games.

In cooperative games, we do talk about meaningful choices and interesting options each turn, and these sorts of games (Lord of the Rings, Arkham Horror, multiplayer Space Hulk, Pandemic) you can get a "leader" (or a douche) at the table who may direct gameplay BUT never have I heard anyone talk about creating rules about this utterly natural behavior.

[Spinachcat]

It'd be interesting to have Jesus at the table. Kill two birds with one stone.

Woot! Free vino!

[Malfi]

I suggest you stay away from any documentaries about pack animals then.

Heh! Nice one.
Obviously I mean used describing humans. I know humans are also animals and all that, but my experience is that there has never been a clear leader in the groups I have been, so maybe thats why I am averse to the idea.
That said I have had situations where some players didn't engage much and rarely talked and other players were very skillful in playing the game so the flow was naturally controled by the last.

[ArrozConLeche]

Woot! Free vino!

[Omnifray]

I agree that RPG groups do seem to flourish with an Alpha GM and a clearly defined Beta player, who can take on secondary GMing functions, support the GM, explain rules etc.

Is this Beta player basically my "assistant GM" or "a-ref", a glorified player with broader narrative input than the rest (subject to my GM-veto), his own subplot and occasionally reffing-in-my-absence responsibilities as discussed here? (Though with no responsibility for numerical mechanics.)

Rah, rah, me Tarzan, you Jane, me beat chest, me GM in all my games, me Alpha Male, you lucky to be Gamma, watch out or you Omega next, rocks fall, all die, bow before my might puny mortals! [Somewhat paraphrased ]

Yep, that about sums it up :cool:

Seriously, though, there might be Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Omega roles at a gaming table, but I think they are all roles, which we can chop into and out of, at any rate Alpha, Beta and Gamma. Though, I have had angst from a couple of gamers, both female, who seem to have thought I was trying to omegify them. Silly people. Power, in the trivial context of a gaming table? I care not for such things.