Leadership

[Grognard]

Game Leadership...

I have been thinking about this, and am attempting to come up with, what I believe are the qualifications for leading in games, especially a game like PS2. The context here, of course, is not going to rise to the level of a military or police officer, so I am defining the core concept. The thing I am looking for here is, what would I want, bare minimum, to feel like I can have a good time, and get things done with... "this guy/gal"? Here is what I have so far...

1. Willingness:
This is just the mental disposition to lead gamers, and can run the spectrum from the person who just wants to experiment with their horizons in a gaming environment, to the individual who steps up to the plate and gets things done because no one else will, to the wannabe hero who think they are Gods gift... Point is, without the willingness to do it, feet will drag, mistakes are more likely happen, and the most impactful will be zero ambience of enthusiasm...

2. Ability:
This can come from a lot of things... brains, life experiences, game know-how, the way someone expresses themselves, etc. At some point, the person in question needs to be able to make sensible decisions, and put them into action.

3. Credibility:
There is ability, then there is the perception of ability... and this can come from a lot of different sources, age, longevity with game, associations (like outfit membership), knowledge of life experiences, in game performance, etc. Sometimes people will just not follow others... for instance, a player may understand the game, be a good at it, and want to run a squad, and be 7 years old... people just have various "deal breakers" in their heads. People want a sense of security that they are "in a good place".

So far, I think these three are a good start on what people look for, to lead in a game. I also think outfit leaders look for these things, in others, as prospects for promotion to improve their officer corps.

So, if you are a player, or an outfit leader, what are some of the litmus tests that go through your mind?

[Bags]

http://www.mediafire.com/view/?lwx8qrdlv33ytxx

[Grognard]

Originally Posted by Bags

http://www.mediafire.com/view/?lwx8qrdlv33ytxx

Perhaps the ADD version... straight to where they reference "game leadership", thanks.

[Bags]

Leadership is leadership. Just figured someone would find it useful.

[Grognard]

Originally Posted by Bags

Leadership is leadership. Just figured someone would find it useful.

In the real world, you are going to have a higher bar, and higher expectations, and higher consequences. People will also be referencing intrapersonal triggers like body mechanics, personal bearing, hygiene, clothing, etc...

So leading in a game is different, projecting leadership is diffferent. Its actually the very reason why I posted the thread...

No doubt it is useful, but its beyond the scope of what Im getting at, its kinda too much information for my purposes here...

[ringring]

I'd add the ability to lift your gaze and look at the bigger picture, an anti-zerg mentality if you like.

Sometimes in the middle of a hot battle the leader has to take time out to look at the map, to decide whether the team are in the right place or not and whether they'd be more effective elsewhere. Then do it.

[Snipefrag]

Originally Posted by ringring

I'd add the ability to lift your gaze and look at the bigger picture, an anto-zerg mentality if you like.

Sometimes in the middle of a hot battle the leader has to take time out to look at the map, to decide whether the team are in the right place or not and whether they'd be more effective elsewhere. Then do it.

As someone who did a lot of leadership early on in PS1 I would expand this to say the balls to make hard and possibly unpopular descisions. For me, in PS1 those were the leaders that really stood out. The ones who wanted to play the meta game and didnt mind stepping on a few peoples toes to ensure success for the empire, be it recalling deadlocked continents to resecure the backline, focusing attention on the caves/battle islands to gain some long term strategic advantage etc etc.

[p0intman]

Originally Posted by Snipefrag

As someone who did a lot of leadership early on in PS1 I would expand this to say the balls to make hard and possibly unpopular descisions. For me, in PS1 those were the leaders that really stood out. The ones who wanted to play the meta game and didnt mind stepping on a few peoples toes to ensure success for the empire, be it recalling deadlocked continents to resecure the backline, focusing attention on the caves/battle islands to gain some long term strategic advantage etc etc.

holy fucking shit this a thousand times over. you need to have nads made of steel to to deal with some peoples shit. being able to rant on /c doesnt hurt, either when you're browbeating the shit out of somewhere who is being an idiot.

the number of times ive been in the doghouse over calling a homecont or a cave or god-fucking-forbid oshur... if I had a penny for each time I ended up being right, I'd be able to buy S-O-fucking-E.

Also, I personally prefer small squad combat with tight(er) but still relaxed comms. At the same time, I enjoy shooting the shit with others all the same. Just when fighting is going on, save that chat about your dog for later. I'll hear it, just not right fucking now because I'm trying to not take a fucking prowler shell to the face.

Also on that note, if you cant handle my swearing, go read a goddamn bible. Thats the other thing about comms with some people, they hate swearing especially from the leader. I cant stand that, so I only join outfits that just dont care.

[Shogun]

but a leader is just as good as his team.

you can have higby himself or the head of the us army as leaders, but if their squads just don´t follow orders, and decide to go zerging instead, your leaders will only be able to lead their own balls. because there is no real authority in games, and not following orders has no consequences.

[SgtMAD]

that list shows a lack of understanding of how to lead in a game or in life actually,it simplifies and doesn't consider the intangibles that make a person a good leader

I started as a crew forum at 18 as a roustabout in the oil patch in the late 70's and have been telling ppl what to do ever since,whether it was in the patch ,working for the UPRR,heavy construction or even the 18 months I spent working for the Coleman company in a factory where they made sleeping bags,I didn't know shit about sewing or had any experience telling 50 women what to do but I was hired to sweep the floors and keep the production line flowing and ended up the head of the dept. within two weeks of starting the job.

I am not going to explain how to lead in these games,why should I share the decades of experience I have or take the time to type it all out on a forum where it won't do one bit of good,chances are that when any of you try leading you will fail at it miserably at it like the other 99% that have tried before,it happens the same way IRL too.

but then in real life if you failed like that I would fire your ass.

[BuzzCutPsycho]

Originally Posted by HtSgtMAD

that list shows a lack of understanding of how to lead in a game or in life actually,it simplifies and doesn't consider the intangibles that make a person a good leader

I started as a crew forum at 18 as a roustabout in the oil patch in the late 70's and have been telling ppl what to do ever since,whether it was in the patch ,working for the UPRR,heavy construction or even the 18 months I spent working for the Coleman company in a factory where they made sleeping bags,I didn't know shit about sewing or had any experience telling 50 women what to do but I was hired to sweep the floors and keep the production line flowing and ended up the head of the dept. within two weeks of starting the job.

I am not going to explain how to lead in these games,why should I share the decades of experience I have or take the time to type it all out on a forum where it won't do one bit of good,chances are that when any of you try leading you will fail at it miserably at it like the other 99% that have tried before,it happens the same way IRL too.

but then in real life if you failed like that I would fire your ass.

This guy should be a comedian.

[Papscal]

Originally Posted by Shogun

but a leader is just as good as his team.

you can have higby himself or the head of the us army as leaders, but if their squads just don´t follow orders, and decide to go zerging instead, your leaders will only be able to lead their own balls. because there is no real authority in games, and not following orders has no consequences.

I agree. A well executed bad plan is better than a poorly executed good plan.

[Whalenator]

Leading is a game is extremely different because you have to somehow organize people who don't get paid and are here purely to have fun.

They don't have to deal with your shit.
They won't.

So you gotta be flexible. Being a mean guy is okay sporadically, but keep a consistent record of being an asshole and expect no one to follow you.

[BuzzCutPsycho]

Originally Posted by Whalenator

Leading is a game is extremely different because you have to somehow organize people who don't get paid and are here purely to have fun.

It depends on their definition of fun. For some fun is going onto TS3 and talking about stupid shit nobody cares about while driving a tank and contributing nothing to a team. If you're a member of a group that find that type of "casual" (casual being a polite word for bad) play "fun" then you really don't have a need for any real leader or leadership.

If the people you play with define their fun as taking over entire continents, making huge impacts on a battle or dominating the other team and winning then you will need and have an organization structure in place. The people "following" the leader will have no problem doing so because they know that a big part of their fun requires having a good leader.

[Destroyeron]

I'm glad I don't have somebody as a boss.