Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="robertsconley" data-source="post: 9676577" data-attributes="member: 13383">Let’s not reframe the issue. The core fact remains: without you as the referee, the campaign doesn’t happen.It doesn’t matter what authority the rules distribute or limit, if you dislike the direction the players want to take, you can always walk away. Whether it’s “stakeless shopping expeditions” or any other type of play you don’t enjoy, the result is the same: the campaign ends. That’s a form of power no rules text can override.Unless you're using a system that flattens all participant roles, like a collaborative storytelling game where no one has special narrative responsibility, the referee's presence remains structurally essential.It’s not the same kind of leadership as in the military or a professional hierarchy. There, authority is formalized and enforceable. What I’m talking about is the kind of leadership you find in volunteer groups, where people collaborate for shared goals without coercive power. That’s a model I have extensive experience with.We can compare the styles, but ultimately, it leads to the same conclusion: different types of leadership apply in different contexts. Games, especially campaigns meant to be fun, social, and cooperative, still require leadership. Just not the top-down kind.As for it being “weird,” I strongly disagree. Leadership means making the right choices at the right time to support a shared endeavor. In games, that might look like facilitating engagement, resolving disputes, or just making sure people are having fun. That is leadership, in every sense that matters.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="robertsconley, post: 9676577, member: 13383"] Let’s not reframe the issue. The core fact remains: without you as the referee, the campaign doesn’t happen. It doesn’t matter what authority the rules distribute or limit, if you dislike the direction the players want to take, you can always walk away. Whether it’s “stakeless shopping expeditions” or any other type of play you don’t enjoy, the result is the same: the campaign ends. That’s a form of power no rules text can override. Unless you're using a system that flattens all participant roles, like a collaborative storytelling game where no one has special narrative responsibility, the referee's presence remains structurally essential. It’s not the same kind of leadership as in the military or a professional hierarchy. There, authority is formalized and enforceable. What I’m talking about is the kind of leadership you find in volunteer groups, where people collaborate for shared goals without coercive power. That’s a model I have extensive experience with. We can compare the styles, but ultimately, it leads to the same conclusion: different types of leadership apply in different contexts. Games, especially campaigns meant to be fun, social, and cooperative, still require leadership. Just not the top-down kind. As for it being “weird,” I strongly disagree. Leadership means making the right choices at the right time to support a shared endeavor. In games, that might look like facilitating engagement, resolving disputes, or just making sure people are having fun. That is leadership, in every sense that matters. [/QUOTE]

Verification