D&D General Why do people like Alignment?

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't know how many times at work we were told there was no manager, no project leader. But before too long there always was a de facto leader, usually the one that spoke loudest or refused to compromise.

Businesses do, in fact, have hierarchy. Often one actually backed up by the force of law, ultimately.

Friendships, in general, do not.

If you wish to assert that a leisure-time activity has an innate and inherent hierarchy, you'll need to defend that, not just assert it.

Because, as I said above: The GM only has authority by group consensus. How does the GM achieve anything at all, if there isn't a group consensus giving them that authority?

And if there isn't a group consensus giving them that authority, but they somehow exert it anyway, what force are they using to make people obey them who reject their authority?

 

[pemerton]

The GM only has authority by group consensus. How does the GM achieve anything at all, if there isn't a group consensus giving them that authority?

And if there isn't a group consensus giving them that authority, but they somehow exert it anyway, what force are they using to make people obey them who reject their authority?

There's a widespread view, at least among D&D players, that the GM has the sole authority to make things true in the fiction.

This leads to the idea that if the GM decides something is true (say, in their notes) then it is true, as part of the fiction, even if never shared with the other participants at the table. It also leads to the idea that every player description of what their PC does, or feels, or knows, is provisional until the GM approves/accepts it.

Once this idea about the GM's authority is accepted, it follows (more-or-less - the extra premises needed to make it a fully logical inference are probably not worth spelling out) that the GM has sole authority over the rules: because all the rules are is a means of coordinating and generating fiction, and if the GM has sole authority over the fiction then it makes no sense to give them less than sole authority over the means of coordinating and generating it.

I personally think that this way of thinking about the GM completely misconstrues the social dynamics of RPGing. But, as I said, it does seem quite a widespread view.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Out of curiosity, do you also feel that consensus-based leadership models would work in other areas of life that typically have leaders like classrooms, sports teams, fire departments, hospitals, engineering firms, video game developers, animation studios or musical theater groups?

In your estimation, which of those would also benefit from a shared group leadership model?

Well, just for one of them, Classrooms objectively benefit from incorporating some elements of collaboration in addition to hierarchy. Teaching students to express autonomy and actively participate in learning, rather than being reduced to passive rote-memorization observers with no agency, has consistently been shown to result in better overall outcomes. Disruptive students will, of course, exist; but by and large the vast majority of students respond well to having some degree of control over their own learning.

I certainly think that collaboration is of significant utility in hospitals and development studios, and probably has significant utility in musical theater groups. I don't know enough about engineering firms nor fire departments to speak to those things. Sports teams already have a mix of collaboration and hierarchy.

To turn your question around: do you feel that hierarchy-based leadership models would work in other areas of life that typically employ consensus, such as friendships, marriages, legislative bodies, professional associations (e.g. the AMA), or academic consortia?

Because I can cherry-pick associations of humans that do not have a rigid, top-down hierarchy just as easily as you can cherry-pick associations of humans which do in fact have one. For example, you forgot armies.

 

[AlViking]

Businesses do, in fact, have hierarchy. Often one actually backed up by the force of law, ultimately.

Friendships, in general, do not.

If you wish to assert that a leisure-time activity has an innate and inherent hierarchy, you'll need to defend that, not just assert it.

Because, as I said above: The GM only has authority by group consensus. How does the GM achieve anything at all, if there isn't a group consensus giving them that authority?

And if there isn't a group consensus giving them that authority, but they somehow exert it anyway, what force are they using to make people obey them who reject their authority?

In group activities of all sorts that I've participated in - whether work or leisure - it works the same. Unless there's some kind of other structure in place the person that's the most vocal or most obstinate is the one that leads. People put up with their decisions because it's just not worth the grief. Until, of course they decide that the one person just isn't worth having in their circle of friends.

Sometimes you can't get everyone to vote the same, sometimes it's just not worth the effort. I don't believe the majority of GMs are secretly power hungry tyrants who squash all attempts at cooperation.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

In group activities of all sorts that I've participated in - whether work or leisure - it works the same. Unless there's some kind of other structure in place the person that's the most vocal or most obstinate is the one that leads. People put up with their decisions because it's just not worth the grief. Until, of course they decide that the one person just isn't worth having in their circle of friends.

Then, frankly, I don't consider that friendship. This is serial acquaintance territory. If Sam can't respect you enough to heed both your interests and theirs, and try to work something out, are they even...like...actually your friend? Or are they just someone who happens to hang out in the same places you do?

Sometimes you can't get everyone to vote the same, sometimes it's just not worth the effort. I don't believe the majority of GMs are secretly power hungry tyrants who squash all attempts at cooperation.

And I don't believe the majority of friends are secretly power hungry tyrants who squash all attempts at collaboration.

 

[AlViking]

Then, frankly, I don't consider that friendship. This is serial acquaintance territory. If Sam can't respect you enough to heed both your interests and theirs, and try to work something out, are they even...like...actually your friend? Or are they just someone who happens to hang out in the same places you do?


And I don't believe the majority of friends are secretly power hungry tyrants who squash all attempts at collaboration.

If I'm gaming with friends then I guess I don't have to worry about the GM abusing their power that is given to them by default in D&D. Problem solved.

If I'm playing a game with people that I don't know then my point stands. Whoever is the loudest or most obstinate tends to get their way.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If I'm gaming with friends then I guess I don't have to worry about the GM abusing their power that is given to them by default in D&D. Problem solved.

If I'm playing a game with people that I don't know then my point stands. Whoever is the loudest or most obstinate tends to get their way.

And if I have a GM I know almost nothing about, I'm going to want more than "Trust me bro, it'll be awesome" for limits.

Now that we aren't talking about friends, what are the limits for that power? Because all you're doing now is rolling the dice on whether the GM is "the loudest and most obstinate"--meaning, a jerk. You have simply kicked the can further along.

 

[kermit4karate]

And if I have a GM I know almost nothing about, I'm going to want more than "Trust me bro, it'll be awesome" for limits.

Now that we aren't talking about friends, what are the limits for that power? Because all you're doing now is rolling the dice on whether the GM is "the loudest and most obstinate"--meaning, a jerk. You have simply kicked the can further along.

Wow! Your repeated, willful mischaracterization of other positions is intense. Where in this thread have I, @AlViking, @Lanefan or @Necropolitan said that the GM should willfully ignore the group and be a domineering, spiteful a-hole?

You've continually misconstrued "having a clear leader" with "being a petty tyrant." At this point I have to assume you aren't discussing in good faith.

 

[AlViking]

And if I have a GM I know almost nothing about, I'm going to want more than "Trust me bro, it'll be awesome" for limits.

Now that we aren't talking about friends, what are the limits for that power? Because all you're doing now is rolling the dice on whether the GM is "the loudest and most obstinate"--meaning, a jerk. You have simply kicked the can further along.

If it's a GM you don't know, there's no way any rules in a book will enforce limits other than the limits you and the other people at the table enforce by choosing to continue playing with that GM. If you don't follow D&D's advice on who makes the final call you've increased the odds of a loudmouthed jerk making the final call between 400 and 600% because it could be any individual at the table.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Wow! Your repeated, willful mischaracterization of other positions is intense. Where in this thread have I, @AlViking, @Lanefan or @Necropolitan said that the GM should willfully ignore the group and be a domineering, spiteful a-hole?

You've continually misconstrued "having a clear leader" with "being a petty tyrant." At this point I have to assume you aren't discussing in good faith.

How about the times you keep asserting that every other player is going to do that?

That's why I keep going there. Because you keep saying that that's what the players will do, unless they have their benevolent dictator to save them from their jerk behavior.

So who's going to save us from the GM when that behavior comes from them?