This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
The RPGPundit's Own Forum Rules
This part of the site is controlled by the RPGPundit. This is where he discusses topics that he finds interesting. You may post here, but understand that there are limits. The RPGPundit can shut down any thread, topic of discussion, or user in a thread at his pleasure. This part of the site is essentially his house, so keep that in mind. Note that this is the only part of the site where political discussion is permitted, but is regulated by the RPGPundit.

Author Topic: "Leaders" and the Real Social Dynamics of Gaming Groups  (Read 6595 times)

RPGPundit

  • Administrator - The Final Boss of Internet Shitlords
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48855
    • http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com
"Leaders" and the Real Social Dynamics of Gaming Groups
« on: October 11, 2014, 12:02:14 PM »
Hello, faithful readers.  Over on therpgsite, we had a thread where someone posted a subject too interesting to pass up.

Here's the relevant section of the original post, talking about whether there should be 'leaders' in a player group:

"Few months ago I bumped into a forum discussion by game designers where they were wracking their little brains on ways to prevent the dread occurrence of the group having a leader.

As far as they were concerned having a group leader was apparently akin to having a group rapist or something. The players should not be stifled and railroaded by these vile commanders of their fate. So they were coming up with game rules to prevent anyone from becoming the leader. Didnt matter if it was a board game or RPG.
"


So I've seen that before too.  Its a common mentality among fashionable game designers and other various Swine alike.

See, the problem is that these are people who've gotten a little bit of mostly shitty modern education, and have been taught by gramscian socialist college professors that "authority inherently implies illegitimacy".  In other words that we have to at all times implement social rules that DISCOURAGE rather than encourage people from becoming leaders or standing out. That what you want is to try to gradually weed out of humanity any tendency toward individual achievement, much less the notion of one person being better than others at things, because then they might get it into their head that they're better in general as people!

So like good little drones following their programming from poli-sci or phil or soc or comp-lit 101, they're trying to apply this notion that "leaders are bad" to all levels of society, right down to gaming tables and other meaningless venues of social activity (because the change must be gradual but profound to all levels of western civilization so that its collapse can be assured; because of course western civilization is the ultimate illegitimate authority!).

The fact is that Reality is the exact opposite of what they're pushing (that's always been socialism's single biggest problem)!  Human beings tend, at all time, to want leadership. And when they haven't been brainwashed into handing over said leadership to the Central Committee (and even then!), what they want is to figure out the natural hierarchy: there's someone who's an alpha, there are betas (seconds-in-command), there's a whole shitload of 'gammas' (people just along for the ride) and there's an omega (the one at the bottom, the one that makes everyone else know they're not at the bottom).

In my old blog I wrote a whole series of entries about this, about the qualities of the Alpha gamer, the Beta gamer, and the Omega gamer; the conclusion I came to is that the GM had damn well better be the Alpha of the group, and this is the most important. Second most important is that 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.

Thirdly, the group needs one or more Betas: someone who is competent, and isn't "just there for the ride" like most of the group will be, but is the hardcore player that will always show up (and usually always on time), will pay the most attention to the game, will know the rules sometimes better than the GM and act as a helper in terms of referencing and arbitrating rules, will subtly or openly get the rest of the group's act together (getting them to pay attention, helping them to make decisions), and will do all this without trying to usurp the GM's place or power.

In the set up quoted above, the 'group leader' would be the Beta. In my experience, he's not always thought of as the 'leader' by other players, or even to himself.
Shit, in my experience, players often want to imagine they're all lone wolves and an autonomous mass of rugged individuals that defy all social structuring because they're so cool.

Notwithstanding, the fact is, in almost any group I've seen the above hierarchies apply; and when they don't (when there's no beta to keep the group on-task, or no omega to help the group hierarchy feel defined, or when some player really wants to challenge the GM for the alpha spot) that's when you have fucked up gaming groups that are not long for this world.

RPGPundit

(October 9, 2013)
LION & DRAGON: Medieval-Authentic OSR Roleplaying is available now! You only THINK you've played 'medieval fantasy' until you play L&D.


My Blog:  http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/
The most famous uruguayan gaming blog on the planet!

NEW!
Check out my short OSR supplements series; The RPGPundit Presents!


Dark Albion: The Rose War! The OSR fantasy setting of the history that inspired Shakespeare and Martin alike.
Also available in Variant Cover form!
Also, now with the CULTS OF CHAOS cult-generation sourcebook

ARROWS OF INDRA
Arrows of Indra: The Old-School Epic Indian RPG!
NOW AVAILABLE: AoI in print form

LORDS OF OLYMPUS
The new Diceless RPG of multiversal power, adventure and intrigue, now available.

S'mon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13315
"Leaders" and the Real Social Dynamics of Gaming Groups
« Reply #1 on: October 11, 2014, 04:20:35 PM »
"Human beings tend, at all time, to want leadership."

I said that to an anarchist speaker at my Faculty staff seminar (a regular champagne lunch & presentation by visiting academics) one time. He had just been telling us how they were going to take power and force everyone not to have leaders (the guys with guns forcing the populace not to have leaders, would of course not be leaders).
He said I had an Authoritarian Personality (TM Adorno). While I did survive, I could tell I was going to be First Against The Wall When The Revolution Comes.

S'mon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13315
"Leaders" and the Real Social Dynamics of Gaming Groups
« Reply #2 on: October 11, 2014, 04:32:45 PM »
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.

I'm less sure of the need for an Omega, or that there is much benefit. However I'm not saying you're not right. It may well be that the absence of a clear Omega causes stress as the Gammas jostle to not be the Omega, but in friendly & relaxed groups I'm not sure if it's necessary.
My Loudwater group functioned without an Omega for a long time, though perhaps there was more stress & jostling when we were all cool :D - a couple players did have friction with me and quit; in one case it was clearly a dominance issue. Later on we got a couple players who could each take the Omega role if necessary, and yes the group has been extremely stable since then.
My Crimson Throne group definitely doesn't have an Omega IMO (err, I don't think it's me!) :D and seems to do ok. On reflection it does have a Beta, a player who tends to take that role in all the groups they play in, but less so in this game than previously I think.

TristramEvans

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8440
"Leaders" and the Real Social Dynamics of Gaming Groups
« Reply #3 on: October 11, 2014, 05:43:57 PM »
Meh. The best leaders are those that lead without others being generally aware of it.
"Playing Role-Playing Games counts as partying."
-Andrew WK

Visit my website at Pariedolia
Come visit Doodling D&D's new home!

Lynn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1982
"Leaders" and the Real Social Dynamics of Gaming Groups
« Reply #4 on: October 11, 2014, 07:27:11 PM »
The larger the gaming group at the table, the more benefit there is to having a party leader.

But if the group is small, I don't see a reason for it. Ive played in a number of games in which the GM assigns a party leader based on nothing relevant to the game (like its the GM's best buddy who they give extra-game knowledge,  again and again). That makes me wonder if I really want to play in their game.
Lynn Fredricks
Entrepreneurial Hat Collector

Ladybird

  • \"Demonic cleric\"
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2875
"Leaders" and the Real Social Dynamics of Gaming Groups
« Reply #5 on: October 11, 2014, 08:24:54 PM »
A group with an "omega gamer", or "group bitch" to be accurate about it, is dysfunctional by definition; it's basically inviting someone to the session to bully them. Eventually they'll quit, there'll be a squabble as everyone tries to prevent becoming the bitch, someone new has to be bought in, etc. These games are meant to be played with friends; if your group of friends needs to define someone to dump on all the time, you have shitty friends.
Similarly, a single dominant player distorts play around them; the game will become about their exploration of the game world, whether through their characters or bossing around the other players / characters and interacting through them.

No. A group is much better when everybody takes turns to take their lumps and to take the lead; managing the table, to give every player and character an opportunity to shine, is kinda one of the GM's jobs. If they don't do it, they'll end up without a game soon enough, one way or another.

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.
one two FUCK YOU

Ladybird

  • \"Demonic cleric\"
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2875
"Leaders" and the Real Social Dynamics of Gaming Groups
« Reply #6 on: October 11, 2014, 08:31:52 PM »
In terms of an actual in-character party leader, yeah, that's something that most teams will just naturally assign amongst themselves. If I'm in a party where we don't have one, I have a tendency to decide one of the characters is the leader, and the rest of the party tends to go with it; if I'm playing the party leader (And I've got a few characters who are party leaders), sure, I'll lead.

Out-of-character, a group with an "omega gamer", or "group bitch" to be accurate about it, is dysfunctional by definition; it's basically inviting someone to the session to bully them. Eventually they'll quit, there'll be a squabble as everyone tries to prevent becoming the bitch, someone new has to be bought in, etc. These games are meant to be played with friends; if your group of friends needs to define someone to dump on all the time, you have shitty friends.
Similarly, a single dominant player distorts play around them; the game will become about their exploration of the game world, whether through their characters or bossing around the other players / characters and interacting through them.

No. A group is much better when everybody takes turns to take their lumps and to take the lead; managing the table, to give every player and character an opportunity to shine, is kinda one of the GM's jobs. If they don't do it, they'll end up without a game soon enough, one way or another.

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.
one two FUCK YOU

Gronan of Simmerya

  • My member is senior
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8769
"Leaders" and the Real Social Dynamics of Gaming Groups
« Reply #7 on: October 11, 2014, 08:48:41 PM »
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.

Also, I agree about the "group bitch" being horribly dysfunctional.  In my groups we all hold the "idiot ball" from time to time, and laugh about it.
You should go to GaryCon.  Period.

The rules can't cure stupid, and the rules can't cure asshole.

BarefootGaijin

  • Champion of Thac0
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 740
"Leaders" and the Real Social Dynamics of Gaming Groups
« Reply #8 on: October 11, 2014, 09:07:27 PM »
Quote from: RPGPundit;791298
"Few months ago I bumped into a forum discussion by game designers where they were wracking their little brains on ways to prevent the dread occurrence of the group having a leader."

The problem with these game designers and altruists (is that appropriate.. googles.... sort of.) is that they only have a limited education and limited life experience. Yeah, I know grognard telling people to get off their lawn, but bear with me.

Groups come together and find their own way of working. Bruce Tuckman looked at this in the 1970s and his work (as has others) has gone on to inform business and education. Basically, it's about how groups come and work out how to do stuff and the roles people take on.

So, groups will come together and they will find their own way of working together regardless of externally imposed rules or rulings, though they may operate within a certain framework. If the Game Designer wants to develop something that is fun, exciting and gives value in play, they may wish to look at how to use some of these theories to help.

Next up, roles in groups. The game designer needs to look at the kinds of leadership roles that they are thinking of. I expect they are thinking purely of Autocratic leaders. There are five types listed here. Once the type of leadership that is detested is identified, then the designer can move on. But this still leaves the problem of leadership.

Sorry game designer. You cannot get rid of it. Good business leaders, educators and, Shock Horror, GMs utilise and exploit all people in all roles to maximum effect. If they didn't, we'd have large groups of people appearing with no direction or purpose suddenly finding they've been co-opted, and their members are being driven by external agents.... CNN link to Occupy and its "problems". Oh, and don't cry about it being CNN, engage with the task, search out new and different sources. :rolleyes:

Some thoughts: Meredith Belbin talks about the different types of people within groups. Though "leaders" have been renamed "facilitators" to make them sound more appealing (I think it's about appeal, ask your designer chum).

Quote
Shaper
The Shaper is a dynamic, outgoing member of the team; they are often argumentative, provocative and impatient.

Implementer
Implementers get things done – they have the ability of transforming discussions and ideas into practical activities.

Completer-Finisher
The Completer/Finisher is a task-orientated member of the group and as their name implies they like to complete tasks.

Coordinator/ Chairperson
The Coordinator is often a calm, positive and charismatic member of the team.

Team Worker
The Team Worker helps by giving support and encouragement to the other members of the team.

Resource Investigator
The Resource Investigator is a strong communicator, good at negotiating with people outside the team and gathering external information and resources.

Plant
The Plant is an intellectual and individualistic member of the team.

Monitor Evaluator
The Monitor Evaluator is unlikely to get aroused in group discussions – they tend to be clever and unemotional, often detected from other members of the team.

Specialist
The Specialist has expert knowledge in some area that is vital to the success of the group.

Summary of Group Roles
It is perfectly possible for people to adapt to different team roles at different times.  Although you may recognise your personality type in the descriptions above you will almost certainly adopt different roles in different scenarios.  Team roles often become more prevalent when a team or group has had time to reach maturity and develop cohesiveness.

The above is quoted from here.

I only have limited knowledge of these things, but it is a fascinating area of study. People have been looking at it for decades. There are different levels of leadership around an RPG table. Whilst some don't like it there is the leadership role of the GM, there will be a leader amongst the players, there will be a leader amongst the characters. Within a group there will be changing roles, the players will negotiate and change roles as will the characters. For me, a good system allows for these things to happen organically. A system that proposes to "fix" perceived problems with a mechanical design hammer is either going to appeal to a minority or none at all (in my oh so very humble opinion).

Quote from: TristramEvans;791333
Meh. The best leaders are those that lead without others being generally aware of it.

You sir, are quoted for truthiness!
« Last Edit: October 11, 2014, 09:19:32 PM by BarefootGaijin »
I play these games to be entertained... I don’t want to see games about rape, sodomy and drug addiction... I can get all that at home.

TristramEvans

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8440
"Leaders" and the Real Social Dynamics of Gaming Groups
« Reply #9 on: October 11, 2014, 09:17:02 PM »
What is the "plant" 's role in the group, i.e. how do they contribute?
"Playing Role-Playing Games counts as partying."
-Andrew WK

Visit my website at Pariedolia
Come visit Doodling D&D's new home!

BarefootGaijin

  • Champion of Thac0
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 740
"Leaders" and the Real Social Dynamics of Gaming Groups
« Reply #10 on: October 11, 2014, 09:22:53 PM »
Quote from: TristramEvans;791356
What is the "plant" 's role in the group, i.e. how do they contribute?


From the linked page above, you get this:

Quote
Plant
The Plant is an intellectual and individualistic member of the team.

The Plant is innovative and will suggest new and creative ways of problem solving within the team.  Sometimes the ideas of the Plant may be impracticable due to their highly creative nature – they may ignore known constraints when developing their ideas.  Plants are often introverts who may have poor communication skills, they are loners and enjoy working away from the rest of the group.


I saw "Shaper" and I did think of the recent D&D design team and our beloved forum owner's role in the whole affair.

Quote
Shaper
The Shaper is a dynamic, outgoing member of the team; they are often argumentative, provocative and impatient.

These traits may mean that they cause friction with other, especially people-orientated, members of the group.  Due to the personality of the Shaper they push the group towards agreement and decision making, keen to remove barriers and embrace challenges.


Too lazy to scroll up? Those are (again) listed here.

As with everything: It's "A Theory", not "THE Theory".
I play these games to be entertained... I don’t want to see games about rape, sodomy and drug addiction... I can get all that at home.

mAcular Chaotic

  • All Evils of this World
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2263
"Leaders" and the Real Social Dynamics of Gaming Groups
« Reply #11 on: October 12, 2014, 01:32:48 AM »
Quote from: RPGPundit;791298
In my old blog I wrote a whole series of entries about this, about the qualities of the Alpha gamer, the Beta gamer, and the Omega gamer;


Do you have a link to any of these posts or the old blog? I'm interested in reading them.
Battle doesn't need a purpose; the battle is its own purpose. You don't ask why a plague spreads or a field burns. Don't ask why I fight.

Malfi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • M
  • Posts: 75
"Leaders" and the Real Social Dynamics of Gaming Groups
« Reply #12 on: October 12, 2014, 05:34:57 AM »
Though I absolutely agree that its unnecessary and unrealistic to create a game that discourages an npc from being a leader, I also disagree with the claim that in a game there has to be a whole structure of alphas,betas and omegas. I find both ideas very distastefull and I also find the words alpha, beta and omega distasteful.

Yes the dm has to possess more skills and invest more time in the game than a player has, but its not necessary to have a whole fucking baboon hierarchy.
Personally I prefer a group where everyone is competent and the dm is competent enough to run the game.

All that said I am toying with the idea of being more firm in my games. I have noticed players will take advantage of indecision to repeatedly complain about the same things.

Kiero

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • K
  • Posts: 2989
"Leaders" and the Real Social Dynamics of Gaming Groups
« Reply #13 on: October 12, 2014, 12:16:52 PM »
Quote from: Old Geezer;791351
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.


Nah, the issue there is that intentionally creating a communication bottleneck is just dumb.
Currently running: Tyche's Favourites, a historical ACKS campaign set around Massalia in 300BC.

Our podcast site, In Sanity We Trust Productions.

The Butcher

  • Cyborg Shock Trooper
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7183
"Leaders" and the Real Social Dynamics of Gaming Groups
« Reply #14 on: October 12, 2014, 01:57:27 PM »
Quote from: Kiero;791461
Nah, the issue there is that intentionally creating a communication bottleneck is just dumb.


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.