The Power Dynamics In RPG Gaming Groups
by
, March 7th, 2018 at 06:57 (30705 Views)
An incident occurred recently (that I won't go in to) that has caused me to think long and hard about the power dynamics of a role-playing gaming group. Being of a philosophic bent, I've decided to write down my mental deliberations and see if others come to the same conclusions as I have. So here goes.
RPG groups are not Democracies[1]. They may appear to be Democracies on the surface, and they may even strive to act like Democracies in practice, but they are not. They are also not Republics[2], Anarchisms[3] nor Totalitarianism[4]. By their very nature they have some Autocratic[5] tendencies, so perhaps they are best described as Despotisms[6] or Dictatorships[7]. Personally, I believe that the best run RPG groups are run as and described as Enlightened Despotisms[8] or, even better, Benevolent Dictatorships[9]. Let me explain.
I'll start with the most common form of RPG group and then expand out to cover the other variants.
The typical RPG group consists of a single Game Master (GM) and a set of half-a-dozen Players (PCs), give or take. Focusing on the GM for the moment: there are relatively few GMs when compared to the total number of RPG enthusiasts - anecdotally I would estimate that only 1 in 10 RPGers is a GM. There are a number of reasons for this, including desire and the incredible amount of work required when compared to the efforts of a PC (or of all the PCs in a group, for that matter). And yet, without these dedicated individuals (the GMs) there would be no RPG gaming taking place.
This gives the GM an incredible amount of (social) power, more so than the rest of the group combined. Now, that power is normally wielded for the benefit of the group as whole, so that everyone has a fun and enjoyable game, and is also often wielded subtly and with the veneer of consensus (hence groups appearing to be Democracies) but in actuality the GM is an Autocrat, a Despot, and a Dictator. Hopefully, and especially if there is a veneer of consensus, the GM acts as an Enlightend Despot or a Benevolent Dictator - but make no mistake, a Dictator they are!
Let us look at what happens when there is conflict within the group. If a PC falls out with the group or the GM then the PC is free to leave and to try to find another game. We all know how difficult it is to find a game, especially a game run by a good GM. On the other hand, the idea of the GM leaving the group is nonsensical, because the other PCs will want to continue to game with the GM and so "follow" him, thus the group is not broken up at all and we are back to the case where it is the PC who leaves the group.
Let us suppose, however, that the group does break up. The GM still retains the power in this situation as it is relatively easier for the GM to start a new game with new (or even some of the old) PCs, while the PCs from the broken-up group need to find other GMs to game with or re-submit themselves to the authority/power of their original GM, or give up playing RPGs all together.
A further example of the power that a GM holds is in what RPG the group actually plays. While some groups may vote on the RPG system that they want to play, the final decision is not up to the group, but up to the GM. The GM may go along with the group's desires, but he may instead decide to run whatever RPG he wants, regardless of the desires of the group. Again, because of the GM to PC ratio in our hobby, there is not much the PCs can do about this: they can either capitulate and play the RPG the GM is willing to run, or they can leave the group to try to find another game, or again, they can give up the RPG hobby entirely. The GM, on the other hand, will always be able to find PCs willing to game with whatever RPG system the GM has decided to run.
Thus, I hope that it is now obvious that RPG gaming groups are in fact Dictatorships. I maintain, of course, that the best gaming groups are Benevolent Dictatorships. Here's why.
We've focused on the group with a single GM. This, however, is not the only possibility. If we introduce a second individual into the group who is prepared to GM (even if they are only acting as a PC) then the power dynamic shifts somewhat. While the majority of the power still remains with the original GM, the PCs in the group have another option if there is a multi-PC conflict with the GM. While a single PC is still at the mercy of finding a new group, if the original GM alienates a majority or even only a significant minority of the PCs, they have the option of splitting from the group and gaming with the second GM (assuming, of course, that the specific PC wants to stop being a PC in the group and wants to GM for the other PCs instead). At its extreme this senerio could play out such that all of the group's PCs decide to game with the second GM, effectively ousting the original GM from the group. While this means that the PCs have more (collective) power in this scenario the original GM still retains all of his, as he can start a new group just as before - remember, there are always more PCs looking for a game then there are GMs and games available - simple supply and demand dictate that the "ousted GM" will be able to continue with a minimum of trouble.
That minimum of trouble does have a cost involved, however - namely the "opportunity cost" of the time and effort required to start a new gaming group and recruiting new PCs. This is why the GM holds most of the power but not all of it - the PCs can cause the GM some opportunity cost, singularly or collectively.
It should be obvious that a "PITA" GM is at a disadvantage (when compared to other GMs) because of these opportunity costs, but that such a GM is still in a position of more power than any PC because of the supply and demand aspects. It should also be obvious that a well run group is a Benevolent Dictatorship precisely because not acting in a benevolent fashion causes groups to dissolve or split up.
Finally, if we take the case where GMing duties is split or rotated between two or more group members on a regular or semi-regular basis, then it should be obvious that the GMs in this scenario share the power pretty much evenly. PCs in this scenario still have less power than the GMs, and all of the causes and consequences outlined above still apply. You may be thinking that if everyone in this scenario shared the GMing duties then the group would be a Democracy, but this is still not correct. If you examine things closely, you discover that what happens is that instead of the group being a Democracy it is instead a series of Dictatorships (almost certainly Benevolent Dictatorships) with all of the above detailed conflict-resolutions applying.
So in conclusion, it has been shown that there is a power balance in RPGs groups that favours the GM over the Players such that any group is best described as a Dictatorship. This occurs primarily because of the supply and demand factors inherient in the RPG hobby having a significant oversupply of Players wanting to play (demand) compared with the limited supply of GMs willing to run games. It has also been shown that, because the role of GM is not unique to a single individual, the "best" form of the resulting gaming group Dictatorship is a Benevolent Dictatorship, where the GM takes on-board the desires of his group. If, on the other hand, the GM does not act in a benevolent fashion he runs the risk of losing PCs and so fails to minimize the opportunity costs associated with replacing PCs and/or building a new gaming group. For their part, Players have little power individually and less power than the GM collectively because of the supply and demand aspects of the RPG hobby. They are, of course, free to leave a given gaming group as they desire, but Players need to be aware of their own opportunity costs involved with finding a new group - a relatively difficult task. It is my opinion that if a Player has a good GM with a good group, then the Player should think seriously before leaving that group or trying to split it up, especially if because they don't like the power dynamic, because they are potentially more likely to end up with a less-good GM or of not finding a suitable group at all. As a Player once said when discussing this topic (and no, it wasn't me nor was it about me):"You don't know how good a GM we have. There are quite a few sh!t GMs out there, and ours is one of the best around. You don't know how good we've got it; you've never experienced anyone else. I have! You'd be nuts to want to change, especially on the off-chance someone else would be better. But go ahead; you'll soon realise your mistake."
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocracy
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Despotism
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship
[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_despotism
[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictatorship