sullivan said:
Sociology of gaming actually. But since sociology underlies a lot of politics, both of these involving people functioning in a group, your confusion is understandable.
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.
sullivan said:
Collaboration is not a horrible way to accoplish something. It is an extremely powerful way. On a larger scale we, meaning humans, currently lack the interpersonal communication abilities, technology, and methologies to successfully function this way. But at the level of 4 to 6 people? Who at the very least pass for marginally mature and intellegent? In a limited senario where actual life and limb are not on the line? These are lifeskills, and if found lacking then what a great way to learn them and enrich the rest of a life.
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.
sullivan said:
Groupthink implies an uncritical acceptance, which is certainly not something I'd advocate. Groupthink is something that can occur just as easily, if not more readily, in a situation of a DM as the authority figure. Because often the players are encourgaged to NOT complain or question or act on their own. Not to pick on him because he's not alone, nor can I say I've lived a life without sin, but just look at Lanefan's comment above.
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