Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Ryan Dancey on 4E
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Banshee16" data-source="post: 3002547" data-attributes="member: 7883"><p>I simply left out my sarcasm indicators <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> My educational background consists of both sociology and psychology, so I understand the point you're trying to make. My comment had more to do with the tone of your message, which I understand may have been, to a degree, tongue-in-cheek.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Collaboration *can* be an effective way of accomplishing something....*if* the people doing the collaboration have both the background and experience....and if they have no agenda. But it does take more time, and does not always lead to better solutions, from a purely empirical standpoint. Obviously such skills are important......equally as much as competition is. But I disagree that it's unhealthy to have a group leader. A leader does not necessarily equate to being a dictator. A GM/DM who is a dictator likely won't have a group for very long.</p><p></p><p>I've had instances of losing players due to personality conflicts among the players, such as having one player in the group who's a rules fiend, and others willing to have them bent where appropriate, when it makes a better overall experience for the majority of players. With some of those trouble players, consensus does not seem possible. So, as a GM, am I doing my job by allowing a player who is using the rules completely to his advantage, to the point that it's disrupting the rest of the players from being able to enjoy the game? Or do I attempt to reach consensus, and failing that, use rule zero to force the troublesome player to comply, by overruling his interpretations? I'd rather have one player complaining, than having 3 players complaining.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Groupthink implies not only an uncritical acceptance, but compromise to the level that the solution itself becomes ill-thought out, simply so that everyone can have their say. It takes longer, and results in inefficient decisions. Any time you get a group involved in making decisions, it becomes more prone to drift from the initial objectives, take more time, and to have some members of the group riding on the coattails of others who are the strong contributors. Think back to any time you had to do group work in school. Getting 1 or maybe 2 other people to work with you could be very effective....especially with one person taking a leadership role. But trying to get something done with 5 people or 6 people? Ugh. Usually someone slacked off, there would be trouble getting people to coordinate their time, more chances for personality conflicts, etc.</p><p></p><p>By definition, I think that a DM as the authority figure is contrary to the characteristics of what you get with groupthink.</p><p></p><p>On a personal level, I think that if the DM is the person putting all the effort into the game, which is often the case, he needs to have more say in what's going on. Otherwise, why bother? And how can he prepare properly if the player(s) can simply abuse the rules, or challenge him on everything. Who wants to spend 6 hours a week preparing the next scenario, only to have a player spend an hour every session arguing with you? That's not fun for the other players, or for the GM. It takes so long to prepare for sessions if you're a DM, and so little time as a player, that the emotional and personal investment is so much greater on the DM's behalf. Obviously, the players have attachment as well, or they wouldn't be there. And the DM could be succeptible to abusing the rules, or the other players *because* of his/her emotional and personal investment. But I think being the GM/DM of a game is an excellent way for people to learn leadership and time management skills. And that is just as important as learning to collaborate.</p><p></p><p>Maybe a better term for GM's would be "referee". I've always hated the term "Dungeon Master".</p><p></p><p>Banshee</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Banshee16, post: 3002547, member: 7883"] I simply left out my sarcasm indicators :) My educational background consists of both sociology and psychology, so I understand the point you're trying to make. My comment had more to do with the tone of your message, which I understand may have been, to a degree, tongue-in-cheek. Collaboration *can* be an effective way of accomplishing something....*if* the people doing the collaboration have both the background and experience....and if they have no agenda. But it does take more time, and does not always lead to better solutions, from a purely empirical standpoint. Obviously such skills are important......equally as much as competition is. But I disagree that it's unhealthy to have a group leader. A leader does not necessarily equate to being a dictator. A GM/DM who is a dictator likely won't have a group for very long. I've had instances of losing players due to personality conflicts among the players, such as having one player in the group who's a rules fiend, and others willing to have them bent where appropriate, when it makes a better overall experience for the majority of players. With some of those trouble players, consensus does not seem possible. So, as a GM, am I doing my job by allowing a player who is using the rules completely to his advantage, to the point that it's disrupting the rest of the players from being able to enjoy the game? Or do I attempt to reach consensus, and failing that, use rule zero to force the troublesome player to comply, by overruling his interpretations? I'd rather have one player complaining, than having 3 players complaining. Groupthink implies not only an uncritical acceptance, but compromise to the level that the solution itself becomes ill-thought out, simply so that everyone can have their say. It takes longer, and results in inefficient decisions. Any time you get a group involved in making decisions, it becomes more prone to drift from the initial objectives, take more time, and to have some members of the group riding on the coattails of others who are the strong contributors. Think back to any time you had to do group work in school. Getting 1 or maybe 2 other people to work with you could be very effective....especially with one person taking a leadership role. But trying to get something done with 5 people or 6 people? Ugh. Usually someone slacked off, there would be trouble getting people to coordinate their time, more chances for personality conflicts, etc. By definition, I think that a DM as the authority figure is contrary to the characteristics of what you get with groupthink. On a personal level, I think that if the DM is the person putting all the effort into the game, which is often the case, he needs to have more say in what's going on. Otherwise, why bother? And how can he prepare properly if the player(s) can simply abuse the rules, or challenge him on everything. Who wants to spend 6 hours a week preparing the next scenario, only to have a player spend an hour every session arguing with you? That's not fun for the other players, or for the GM. It takes so long to prepare for sessions if you're a DM, and so little time as a player, that the emotional and personal investment is so much greater on the DM's behalf. Obviously, the players have attachment as well, or they wouldn't be there. And the DM could be succeptible to abusing the rules, or the other players *because* of his/her emotional and personal investment. But I think being the GM/DM of a game is an excellent way for people to learn leadership and time management skills. And that is just as important as learning to collaborate. Maybe a better term for GM's would be "referee". I've always hated the term "Dungeon Master". Banshee [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
Ryan Dancey on 4E
Top