After taking 3 different leadership courses in college, I can say that I know a little bit about the topic of leadership. My working definition for leadership is the ability to envision, articulate and to inspire. What I don't fully understand is leadership in dungeons and dragons. Although anyone who says they understand leadership should be put into a straight jacket. D&D is a rather fascinating game. It's basic elements is that a group of people sit around and tell themselves a story. The fascinating aspect is that the players and DM are for the most part equals and possessing self agency. They are there because they want to be. I can't stress how strange this is compared with the traditional organizational model enough. The traditional model has a very triangle scheme while the scheme for a D&D group is extremely flat. Now most people would assume that the traditional scheme is bad for how impersonal and ridged it is, but remeber it was formed for the battle field. On battle fields orders like "Hold", "Fight", and "Fallow Me" had to be fallowed carefully because the theory was the person higher up the pyramid had a better picture of the battle and thus their orders were given based on details you may not know. The flat scheme of D&D groups however means the individual players cannot fall back on someone who sees the "big picture" but have to take on some aspects of leadership themselves: the development of information, networking and idea development/execution. This is organizationally flexible and information and ideas are shared quickly, but at the cost of being fragile. Fragile as in it doesn't have the bureaucratic inertia to survive neglect. Imagen a player who just stops communicating, or a DM who stops scheduling. So, a D&D group will remain as such so long as long as the members are self motivated.
Well what do you think? Do you have your own observations? Please post them bellow.
TTRPGs like D&D can be good for teaching teamwork and group problem-solving. And I suppose both of those are key elements of leadership.
I think you are correct that they don't try to teach management, or the type of leadership where one person "steps back" to see the "big picture." But I also wouldn't be surprised if that's only a minor element of small team success. Ultimately playing in these games is a hobby, practiced by self-motivated people. In my experience, people are less inclined to play games or run them (short of being paid to do so) if they aren't enjoying it.
I think that in reality there are a lot of interventions in D&D - particularly that there is usually a goal baked into the story that directs the action. If you're playing a published module there is usually strong guidance given. In any game the DM can manipulate things behind the scenes.
TTRPGs like D&D can be good for teaching teamwork and group problem-solving. And I suppose both of those are key elements of leadership.
I think you are correct that they don't try to teach management, or the type of leadership where one person "steps back" to see the "big picture." But I also wouldn't be surprised if that's only a minor element of small team success. Ultimately playing in these games is a hobby, practiced by self-motivated people. In my experience, people are less inclined to play games or run them (short of being paid to do so) if they aren't enjoying it.
I once heard that creativity was worth its value in gold, but I would also say that teamwork and group problem-solving skills are also extremely valuable. The Book Think and Grow Rich by Napoleon Hillsaid the most valuable skill a person can have is how well they work with others. I have done public service work for 6 years now. I can say that a coworker who doesn't has teamwork skill is pain or group problem-solving is a drain.
I think that in reality there are a lot of interventions in D&D - particularly that there is usually a goal baked into the story that directs the action. If you're playing a published module there is usually strong guidance given. In any game the DM can manipulate things behind the scenes.
Good point. The writers and DM get a vote as well in the story. Outside the story they are on their own when it comes to leadership how ever.
If the DM doesn't have some leadership qualities I believe the sessions will suffer, because sometimes the DM has to assert themselves as the leader of the session. Usually a single player becomes the recognized leader of the party, and this player is often the player that wants to play the most charismatic PC. I presume that sometimes the player that deems himself to be the best tactician will become the leader, and this is often because they have more experience with the game mechanics.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
There are tons of leadership aspects in D&D, between the leadership of the DM, leadership between the players, leadership among the PCs, leadership from the PC to NPCs and from the NPCs between themselves and towards the PC. And then there are the kind of leadership themselves, autocratic/military, Coaching, Leading, Delegative, participative, etc.
It's such a vast debate that I would be interested on some guidance at top which aspect you want to discuss in particular...
I agree whole heartedly that there is tons of leadership in D&D. So much so that it is like the Gordian knot, it is hard to tell where it begins and where it ends. The simple act of suggesting something can be described as leadership. If we are to pick a aspect to talk about I would choose the interplay between DM and Players. The DM takes on a role that I was taught was called the Facilitator. They get the session started and help set the goals of the group. But in game the players participate as well shaping the goals through interpretation and suggestion. I have never been a DM but I have noticed that while the players are talking amongst themselves the DM would keep careful attention to the ideas they are voicing.
After taking 3 different leadership courses in college, I can say that I know a little bit about the topic of leadership. My working definition for leadership is the ability to envision, articulate and to inspire. What I don't fully understand is leadership in dungeons and dragons. Although anyone who says they understand leadership should be put into a straight jacket. D&D is a rather fascinating game. It's basic elements is that a group of people sit around and tell themselves a story. The fascinating aspect is that the players and DM are for the most part equals and possessing self agency. They are there because they want to be. I can't stress how strange this is compared with the traditional organizational model enough. The traditional model has a very triangle scheme while the scheme for a D&D group is extremely flat. Now most people would assume that the traditional scheme is bad for how impersonal and ridged it is, but remeber it was formed for the battle field. On battle fields orders like "Hold", "Fight", and "Fallow Me" had to be fallowed carefully because the theory was the person higher up the pyramid had a better picture of the battle and thus their orders were given based on details you may not know. The flat scheme of D&D groups however means the individual players cannot fall back on someone who sees the "big picture" but have to take on some aspects of leadership themselves: the development of information, networking and idea development/execution. This is organizationally flexible and information and ideas are shared quickly, but at the cost of being fragile. Fragile as in it doesn't have the bureaucratic inertia to survive neglect. Imagen a player who just stops communicating, or a DM who stops scheduling. So, a D&D group will remain as such so long as long as the members are self motivated.
Well what do you think? Do you have your own observations? Please post them bellow.
Outside the Lines Fantasy – A collection of self published fiction stories.
TTRPGs like D&D can be good for teaching teamwork and group problem-solving. And I suppose both of those are key elements of leadership.
I think you are correct that they don't try to teach management, or the type of leadership where one person "steps back" to see the "big picture." But I also wouldn't be surprised if that's only a minor element of small team success. Ultimately playing in these games is a hobby, practiced by self-motivated people. In my experience, people are less inclined to play games or run them (short of being paid to do so) if they aren't enjoying it.
I think that in reality there are a lot of interventions in D&D - particularly that there is usually a goal baked into the story that directs the action. If you're playing a published module there is usually strong guidance given. In any game the DM can manipulate things behind the scenes.
I once heard that creativity was worth its value in gold, but I would also say that teamwork and group problem-solving skills are also extremely valuable. The Book Think and Grow Rich by Napoleon Hill said the most valuable skill a person can have is how well they work with others. I have done public service work for 6 years now. I can say that a coworker who doesn't has teamwork skill is pain or group problem-solving is a drain.
Outside the Lines Fantasy – A collection of self published fiction stories.
Good point. The writers and DM get a vote as well in the story. Outside the story they are on their own when it comes to leadership how ever.
Outside the Lines Fantasy – A collection of self published fiction stories.
If the DM doesn't have some leadership qualities I believe the sessions will suffer, because sometimes the DM has to assert themselves as the leader of the session. Usually a single player becomes the recognized leader of the party, and this player is often the player that wants to play the most charismatic PC. I presume that sometimes the player that deems himself to be the best tactician will become the leader, and this is often because they have more experience with the game mechanics.
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
I agree whole heartedly that there is tons of leadership in D&D. So much so that it is like the Gordian knot, it is hard to tell where it begins and where it ends. The simple act of suggesting something can be described as leadership. If we are to pick a aspect to talk about I would choose the interplay between DM and Players. The DM takes on a role that I was taught was called the Facilitator. They get the session started and help set the goals of the group. But in game the players participate as well shaping the goals through interpretation and suggestion. I have never been a DM but I have noticed that while the players are talking amongst themselves the DM would keep careful attention to the ideas they are voicing.
Outside the Lines Fantasy – A collection of self published fiction stories.