what causes this?

[Doctor Xero]

However, it's more like an accountants role. Accountants can handle vast amounts of money...that doesn't mean they own it or are the master of it. In roleplay, I'd say there's a position for a sort of 'lumpley accountant'.

For me at least, what you describe is more of the ideal for game-mastering.

Strangely enough, when I have been conscripted to be a leader in a gaming group, I usually find myself saddled with far more authority as a leader among the players than ever I have as a game master.  With some groups, I have asked to be the game master in part because being the game master reduces the amount of authority which the group can attribute to me!

I wonder if this means that every group needs its lumpley accountant to not only survive but to thrive.

the most motivated person in the group is going to ensure that the group gets playing (and the others, who still want to play, are happy to do this).

You're suggesting that leadership in such situations is less a socially-requisite role and more a byproduct of individual enthusiasm, yes?  That fits what John Kim and contracycle have also written.  Or have I misread you?

There might be a component of moth to flame going on, though.  After all, we've all known people who made our own gaming much more enjoyable.  In my group during college, I used to cancel games only if certain players couldn't show, because I knew that the other players weren't into it enough to make things interesting.

I have done the same as well.

I once belonged to a group in college which cancelled the games whenever I couldn't show up.  I found the pressure disagreeable, so I became game master for a while and used the privileges they granted me in that role to help the other players develop greater confidence in their own roleplaying abilities, and I slowly eased myself into a first-among-equals position.

I think there are humans that are on the far ends of the normal curve for being/not-being moths and flames alike at any one time. If groups endure enough time, who is the moth and who the flame will tend to shift.
---snip!--
I think charisma (or mojo, or mana, or life-force, if you will) is present in all community life. People in an elevator establish a pecking order within seconds. Will anyone contest this? I think we take it as a social axiom.

Good point!  (I'd never heard the elevator example before, but it very much fits.)  I think what you write holds true not only for social interactions but also for romantic interactions, whether the "romance" between lovers or the "romance" between close friends of either gender.

One possibility that occurs to me, which may not be at all correct, but is interesting to consider nonetheless, is that perhaps gaming individuals who leave aren't really identified as "The Leader" until they leave.

Ben, that's brilliant (IMHO)!

(even if it doesn't quite address the topic of hierarchy and leadership in games which fascinates me personally -- {wry grin})

A group can be doomed just as easily by lacking followers as by lacking leaders.

I agree.  While I have seen and read about this in various social groups, I have far less often encountered or read about this happening with gaming groups.

I wonder why this exception.

I don't see this as inherently heirarchical.  It's just part of how group dynamics work.

It is hierarchial in that it results, whether by intent or as byproduct, in certain individuals having greater influence and responsibility than do other members.  I agree that it may not be an imposed hierarchy, that it may simply be that hierarchy is an inherent inflection of social dynamics, but that does not mean that it is not hierarchial.

When the group suffers a loss, it re-orients to survive; this is  not always manageable.

I hadn't considered the parallel with musical groups -- danke'!  The similarities and differences between group dynamics within roleplaying gaming groups and group dynamics in many other kinds of  groups fascinates me still.

The wedge has to want to be a wedge before it needs a tip and selects someone to be such.  That is exactly why people can find themselves elevated to a leadership role against their will or even without their knowledge.

So you suggest that the conscription of leaders which occurs in many gaming groups is typical of a lot of types of groups?

I would suggest rather that the residual effect of the Heroic tradition touched on by Dr X is seen in this analysis; the presumption that without the leadership, and the divine spark it provides, the movement is nothing.  Leaders are symptoms of mass movements, mass movements are not symptoms of leaders.

Yes!  (IMHO)

What about Hitler and the Nazis?

While Hitler is a popular boogie man, most historians and social scientists concur that if Hitler had never been born, the Nazi movement would have found another someone else to fulfill the same role.  Would he have been as successful without Hitler's astonishing charisma?  Probably not, but who knows?

I see leaders in groups as being far more dynamic and variable than simply "leaders come first" or "leaders come last".
---snip!--
The "moths and candles" idea is perhaps overly simplistic, but if we assume that quantum physics are in play and whether anyone is being either a moth or a candle isn't decided until one person becomes either one, then maybe we might be getting a little more accurate.
---snip!--
But like all things human, even a clear heirachy can change at a moments notice due to new information (like someone who was previously quiet speaking up and becoming dominant).

I concur (as my comments in this posting show, I hope).  The "moths and candles" phrase was chosen because it's a popular poetic way of phrasing short-hand a certain way people relate in specific relationships.  Sorry for any confusion from the poetic phrasing.

As silly as it may sound, it actually has quite a bit to do with Attachment Theory (the non-Fruedian version).

Interesting!  Ben, would you mind going into more detail about this?

I look forward to other postings on this.

Doctor Xero

[jdagna]

the most motivated person in the group is going to ensure that the group gets playing (and the others, who still want to play, are happy to do this).

You're suggesting that leadership in such situations is less a socially-requisite role and more a byproduct of individual enthusiasm, yes?  That fits what John Kim and contracycle have also written.  Or have I misread you?

Yeah, that's pretty much it.  They're not so much a formal leader as a provider of direction (though obviously there's a lot of overlap there).

In fact, now that I think about it, it's pretty common in other cases too.  For example, when everyone goes around in a circle saying "I don't know, what do you want to do?" until someone comes up with a suggestion that interests them.  Often as not, everyone else agrees and they're all off.

[Bartmoss]

I think this overuse of the term 'leader', as I suggested before, is the reason why the quoted incident happens.

However, it's more like an accountants role. Accountants can handle vast amounts of money...that doesn't mean they own it or are the master of it. In roleplay, I'd say there's a position for a sort of 'lumpley accountant'.

In my experience it really does seem as if, wether we liked it or not, that the player we ejected directed, led, shepherded the group. He was not an accountant. In fact it can be said we ran games for him...I never ran a 1920s Cthulhu game for 10 years because he did not like the 20s genre, and when I run Cthulhu...I run it best in the 20s.

It may seem different for other people. But I do believe there is a leader in every social grouping. There is someone who all others defer. It is not always the GM, a player can exert pressure to be the one people focus. It is also a double edged sword. We gave this player his authority as we followed him. But because of it, when we gained more confidence and a desire for more for ourselves we had lost the chance. A conflict of words, wants and problems occurred. Other peoples lives changed. I left the group. I returned. We got rid of him.

Now though, we no longer trust the leader position. No on person can even seem to be pushing a direction. If it occurs we panic. And when we panic our games fold. Its got so bad I just cannot write any more. Even though they are begging me to run a 20s Cthulhu. You see one of our players is not very good at Investigation games. He'll hate it. He'll get bored. The game will end...early.

[Callan S.]

Bartmoss: Have you tried writing a social contract? An authority figure can simply be a living version of a social contract that would otherwise be written on paper. Once he leaves/is booted, most of your contract goes as well. I'm not just talking in terms of the contract being enforced, but in terms of what the hell the contract contained (such bossy people often have quite baroque/whatever they feel like at the time contract structures). If no one else but this guy knew what the contract contained, then your left to rebuild/reinvent when he's gone.

Have you tried writing down what worries your players and makes games fold? Then you could write down exactly how you'll be handling such things when youe GMing. When the players have a certainty that things will run in the way written down (by you) they will have less to fear that play is whatever you feel like at the time.

Also a smart trick is to present this with a few things half written and say 'hey, I'm quite sure how to handle this', go to every person (it's important everyone gives their input, even if its just a 'yes') and get something for it from them. That way the contract starts to be a group creation.

[Bartmoss]

In response to Noon.

The group of players which comprise my gaming group have been together for many years. As a whole two of us have gamed together since 1992 and the others since 1996. The player we removed from the group in 1999 I had gamed with since 1990. The group had grown together. We are not young people, and because of that we are fairly set in our ways, which is some of the problem.

Your social contract idea is an interesting one, I have been reading about gaming contracts for some time and I like the idea. Problem is this; two of my players will look at the idea, think I have been abducted by aliens and replaced by a wierdo. One of the reasons is they just dont like that kind of thing, the other is "we do this for fun, we dont need rules". A quote likely to come up.

We all know why our games fold, we just wont talk about it. The reason being as follows. Only two of us are willing to face the situation. Both of us are the GMs for the group. We discuss the situation, we try and correct it only to discover certain facts. Some games only worked with the old player, because some of us only played those games because he forced the issue.

You see I have realised something. The group dynamic worked with our ejected player because he was the leader of our group and we followed him. We would never have stuck together without him as we all like different games (stlyles, genres and products). For example, I personally cannot abide Vampire (because I just can't get into it..great concept, great writing and fine if you can do it), the other GM and players love it. We used to play it alot, and my characters worked well, but now...sod it I wont play it, because i dont like it and no longer have too because the old player is not there to force the issue. Why should I do something I no longer find fun as an overall experience. Another player is not good at Investigation games, so there are many games limited by that problem. Because he is not good at them as soon as he smells one he goes quiet, gets bored and oooops game ends.

What is happening is inevitable. The group is ending. Slowly but surely. Sometimes the death of a leader does this.

Thanks for your advice, if I thought it would change anything I would follow it. I only added to this thread because  my recent experience seemed to be telling me that in this instance the group was led, and that leader was required for the group to continue.