Intriguingly, this is one of those moments when what is happening both within the game and at the table coincides - it is a process that happens among the PCs 'in universe', as it were, and among the players themselves in the real world. Some strange alchemy of personality, context, and luck seems to determine it.
I've been thinking about this issue a lot in the last month or so as a result of reading two books which, oddly, relate to the same theme. The first is The Lord of the Flies. I've embarked on a mission to read all of Golding's works (thanks in part to a long-ago recommendation from a commenter on here that I read The Inheritors) and have finally made my way to Flies after not having read it or thought much about it since I read it at school at the age of, I think, 12 or 13. I'm almost at the end, and I've found the experience surprisingly rewarding. Without having to read it for school, and without any pressure to discuss the contents in the light of the weary prodding of some jaded teacher, I've been able to simply enjoy its brilliance - and it is brilliant: a miracle of a book.
As you may recall, authority and how it emerges is one of the main themes of The Lord of the Flies. The boys find themelves on an island in the absence of any pre-existing framework of authority - there are no adults, parents, teachers, policemen, and so on. They are thrust together as ostensible 'equals' (although some, the 'littluns', are exempt from this). And from that, a hierarchy emerges, as well as a set of vaguely defined but fairly fixed roles - the chief (Ralph), the head of the hunters (Jack), the voice of reason (Piggy), the visonary (Simon), the clown (Morris) and so on. It is an unstable structure, to be sure, but it remains in place for a long time - the narrative implies that the boys live in relative harmony for some months.
What the book implies about the role of the leader is particularly interesting. At the beginning, indeed it is pretty much the first thing that happens, Piggy and Ralph find the conch, and Ralph uses it to summon the rest of the boys on the island. And he then provides them with a project: they are going to start a big fire and then be rescued. On this basis - the fact that he has a plan - he then becomes chief. Later - spoiler alert - the shift to the leadership of psychopathic Jack is accompanied by a similar assertion of a project: to hunt pigs and 'have fun'.
This all makes visceral some remarks made by Alexandre Kojeve in The Notion of Authority. Here, Kojeve provides some brief notes of a theory of authority, and identifies a form of authority - that of the Leader - which emerges in this type of context. He puts before us the image of a group of children in a field. They are ostensibly in a position of atomised equality - each is a child the same as any other. But then one of them asserts a plan: he suggests going to raid the apple orchard next door to steal apples. Suddenly they are united - and he is the Leader.
He becomes the Leader, Kojeve elaborates, because he is the one who had a plan - he was able to envision a future (one in which the group gets the apples) and bring it into the present in the form of a project. He orients the group, as it were, towards the otherwise empty and contentless expanse of the future, and responds to it by imbuing it with content in the present. And everybody else goes along because of this claim to be able to see further; the others, recognising that they 'see less well and less for', willingly submit.
This obviously describes something of what goes on in the assertion of leadership by Ralph (and Jack) in The Lord of the Flies - and it is something that all of us remember from our playground days. The crudest and most immediate form of human authority is that in which a group of people are suddenly united (it can happen almost instantaneously) by one of them putting forward a project and orienting the others towards a future. And this is also something that all of us will recognise from playing RPGs, too. There, authority as such seems to emerge when one player (and one PC) shows himself willing to claim to see further than the others and lay out a project - and when the others, acccepting it, go along. It is not always necessarily the same person - authority in this context is very fluid - but it will tend to be the case that it most often is. There will be one person who the others tend to look towards for decisions. And this role will be taken on very early - usually in the first couple of sessions. In a brief moment, authority will be up for grabs, and seized, at the start.
What determines the identity of the person who will take on this role is mysterious - I earlier attributed it to an 'alchemy of personality, context, and luck' - and the process is, I think, inevitable. And it has its advantages and drawbacks. Without leaders, human beings are indecisive and vapid. But leaders can direct their charges into hideous mistakes. We will all be familiar with such scenarios. One way of shaking things up and experimenting in interesting ways might be to formalise roles and deliberately, before play starts, elect one person to be the leader - or even to circulate the leadership role each session. I would be curious to learn if anybody has ever tried such experiments, and what the results have been like.
For a while when I was running a lot of games at conventions or open tables where whoever showed up was the party, I would have players roll to see who was the leader or assign it to the player of the character with the highest Charisma. I found some people did not easily inhabit the role and would look to someone else to make decisions. The alchemy of why that person became the de facto leader even when the dice said otherwise was mysterious to me.
ReplyDeleteYes. It's something indispensible and natural but we have no real understanding of how it works.
DeleteWhen refereeing a big group, I generally ask the players before each session to appoint a "caller" to translate their confused discussions and suggestions among themselves into a concise and precise description of what the party will actually do. The caller has no formal authority, anyone can dissent and act independently, but naturally they become de facto leader and the others tend to defer to them. In an ongoing game the role usually gets passed around between the same few players, who are also the more outspoken ones that dominate the tactical discussions. Voting is unnecessary and I've never seen competition for the position. If anything, I'd say the current caller usually becomes less pushy than usual, probably because they're spending more time listening to and weighing everyone else's input.
ReplyDeleteThat's really interesting. I normally rely on a much less formal method but I'd like to give the 'caller' one a try.
DeleteIn rules systems that support it, like any pre-d20 D&D and its many retro-spinoffs, I like having a rotating caller role at the table. Mechanically they roll side initiative. But organizationally they are responsible for suggesting actions if no ideas are forthcoming, or of having the say if multiple plans are proposed. The caller token moves clockwise with each new "scene" (explored room or fight).
ReplyDeleteGood idea.
DeleteAs a player, group indecisiveness ends up being the most frustrating experience. If we lose or win, there's a good story in it, but sitting around asking which corridor to walk down isn't any fun. I think this sense of needing to move things forward and keep the game going provokes me to often take on the role of "leader" as described here. Make a decision and see where it goes.
ReplyDeleteYep - any decision is often better than no decision.
DeleteFascinating post. I'll have to go back and read The Lord of the Flies.
ReplyDeleteI hate dithering and indecisiveness. When I sit in on a game (as a player), I generally wait to see if anyone will 'step up' and assume leadership. If no one does, I'll (often) take command...simply by making decisions and group-oriented plans.
Sometimes this ends up rubbing (some) players wrong. Which is ONE of the reasons I prefer to act as the DM/GM: players expect the DM to assert authority. There are some players who feel PLAYERS shouldn't do this; they want a 'company of equals.' Though in my experience, this doesn't get much done.
In the games I run, I encourage all the players to assert themselves, take initiative, etc. but (more than anything else) COOPERATE with each other. I try to push the game along at a brisk pace (keeping folks busy, giving players things to do), so that they don't have time to dither, and yet, don't fight each other for dominance. There are always one or two voices that are stronger than others, but as the DM I can manipulate the situation such that no one ends up feeling like they're in an inferior relation to other players at the table.
I should note: none of these things I'm writing are very conscious/premeditated. I'm only...just NOW...reflecting on how I handle things with regard to leadership/authority and group dynamics.
As I said: fascinating to think about. Something to consider, going forward.
Totally with you on the 'company of equals' thing. It's driven me crazy whenever I've encountered it.
DeleteIn games with (the trappings of) some sort of hierarchy (Star Trek, Twilight 2000 being examples) it sometimes is hinted that the GM assigns the Captain (or other authority persnon) role to the meekest/least outspoken player. This will "force" them in a leader role, and also prevent other, more assertive, players from always hugging the spotlight and/or making all the decisions. This can have some very interesting effects. In one of the Star Trek games in which I was a player, the Captain managed to grow into the role of command (both in the game, and becoming more sure and assertive in real life), and became a sort of Picard, usually trusting in his subordinates to do the usual stuff, but Commanding when and if appropriate. In another Star Trek game, the captain was more or less sidelined by the First Officer, who then faced a lot of pushback, from both the other players, and the Universe (i.e. the GM). So maybe a good idea, but not a perfect sollution
ReplyDeleteIt's fascinating how more 'anarchic' systems often favor aggressive and domineering types, whereas more formalized hierarchical systems can allow less pushy people to become leaders.
DeleteI played in a Star Trek game at a convention recently and while we all studiously avoided the pregen designated as Captain we still ended up deferrring to the person who had picked the next highest ranked character during the game. It was kinda nice to have that sort of hierarchy to work with and added it really added to the immersion of the game.
DeleteOne thing I've encountered is the reluctant leader. That player who all the other players are looking to for guidance and for whatever reason doesn't really want the job and doesn't offer that guidance. It can go along with the player who really wants to be the leader but no one else agrees.
ReplyDeleteYes - I've noticed both too. Or the leader who is okay most of the time but gets frustrated/bored with being the one who has to make all the decisions.
DeleteThere's so many permutations! I've found its generally the player and not the character that people look to for leadership. Multiple times I've seen a "natural leader" player play a character that is not necessarily someone who makes good choices (for roleplaying reasons - maybe they see them as erratic, impulsive or pursuing their own goals) and everyone else still just follows along!
Delete