Goblin Squad Member
|
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
In another thread, one of our more vocal self-proclaimed leaders was referencing their vast PvP experience, and I was struck but the high levels of "Me" language in their posts (I, me, my, etc.) Many of us are former/current military members, and know that "me" people aren't leaders--a large part of leadership is selflessness and focus on others. It's why military socialization includes punishing over-use of both "Me" language and "Me" conduct.
This points to something critical that most people complaining about the Towers mechanic are missing: while the mechanic does favor numbers, numbers are very hard. The larger any political unit, the more/more difficult political problems become, and the more critical leadership, a scarce commodity, becomes. The real limit on mega-settlements is the very low probability of an on-line Alexander, Napoleon, Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar, etc. appearing. I think it's more likely we'll find that there's a tension between leadership desire/availability and leadership skills and virtues. The best leaders among us may have lots of fish to fry in the RL, and while they might be very committed to the game as a hobby or outlet, they won't be at full on mom's basement level.
At the heart of political problems is seemingly distinct, often contradictory needs in the group, the very sort of thing GW is deliberately forcing on is (e.g. 2/3rds of us want a combat role template, while 1/3 of us want a craft template). It is very difficult to come up with creative political solutions to these sorts of problems, and the complexity and number of political problems increases with the size of the polity.
If GW truly does force us to make meaningful choices (and I have confidence they will), then that acts as a natural brake to settlement growth, and moves us away from a scenario where there are two giant factions fighting each other, and into one where there are many factions, each carefully trying to simultaneously juggle the needs of their own polity and the complex dance of shifting alliances and relationships between factions.
"I've brought Elfstar to become a priestess and a witch."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't know about leadership problems limiting settlement size or preventing the growth of large factions. Most of the large settlement appear to have strong leaders with strong leadership skills. Bigger ones even have a leadership hierarchy with skilled leaders managing lower positions.
Right now it appears that leadership is feeding further growth. Strong leaders drawing in others with leadership skills making an overall better organization which draws in more players. An Alexander or Ghengis Khan can do it all on their own, but an effective chain of command can accomplish the same thing.
It's the ability to fill a chain of command with skilled leaders that makes large organizations possible and effective. It allows those skilled leaders at the top to take the time off for life because they have subordinates that can take care of the job and step into their shoes if needed. It allows those lower ranked leaders to take time off because they have peers that can fill in for them or higher ranked leaders that can fill in for them.
There are certainly "leaders" in the PFO community that are lacking in leadership skills, but they seem to be the exception not the norm.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Indeed, MMOs of the Sandbox variety are always in a very liquid state. Leadership will be the anchor and the balance to living within this liquid environment, and in that sense, Leadership will have to be strong and versatile, instead of unbending and breaking.
In this game, with so many companies, and and so many sub-communities, GW has made the "perfect storm" for something fascinating to happen socially, politically, and militarily. I agree, Mbando, that there will be many groups, many alliances, and many organizations rather than a few. Although, there are always those that try and become Alexander, Napoleon, Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar, etc. I think if this does happen, it will have to be under specific circumstances that have yet to form. The current socio-political state of the game isn't conducive to fostering any type of super leader.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Most players will log in with little to no intent of "serving other players" as part of a larger community (i.e. sacrificing for the good of a party, company, settlement, or kingdom). Frankly most of us can't afford to sacrifice in the fantasy world, as we sacrifice plenty in real life. So there will be trade offs. I think Mbando is dead on when he says "political problems increases with the size of the polity" as we posters are creating the starting settlements, which are expected to increase to around 500 members each. (Remember, there were almost 9000 Kickstarter supporters, and only a couple hundred of us post regularly, so almost 98% of the KS backers aren't providing input here.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A note of caution...take it whichever way you will
While there are many skills that can transfer across from the military leadership wise there are also skills that work well in the military but are counter productive in a game like this and can end up causing more problems than they solve. Sorting out which is which will stand you in good stead
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do (gah! one's slipped in already) spot check and replace those "I, me, my"... is that cheating?! ;)
It is a very good self-discipline to be aware of. Ricky Gervais is quite funny in the The Office on this subject:-
>At a team meeting in the office his boss says and remember: "There's no "I" in "T-E-A-M", people.
>Gervais: "Yes, but there is a "ME", isn't there?!"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Good leaders at the top are only a tiny part of this problem. The real challenge I've seen is in finding enough talented, dedicated people to fill the noncom level roles- squad leaders- and not burn them out. If you're relying on the same 2 or 3 guys to be on every night to head up your ops... that system is going to fail sooner rather than later.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Good leaders at the top are only a tiny part of this problem. The real challenge I've seen is in finding enough talented, dedicated people to fill the noncom level roles- squad leaders- and not burn them out. If you're relying on the same 2 or 3 guys to be on every night to head up your ops... that system is going to fail sooner rather than later.
Too true! You ever notice if you are the "go to" guy at work, every important task ends up on your desk? You have to be able to say "Not this time! I'm full!"
(Edit: Plus, if the same people lead every time, no one else develops the skills needed to lead next time. there is a saying that goes something like "A good leader surrounds himself with people smarter than him.", or "Great leaders surround themselves with great people.")
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think ego and a refusal to adapt to situations and player's needs will be the biggest hurdle for a lot of guilds. Leaders from themepark games are going to have a lot to overcome to become a successful leader in a game like PFO
Watching videos of "elite" guilds in WoW shocked me. It seemed like the person who could yell the loudest and berate the most players was the guild leader. I guess that's acceptable in a game where every role and action are set in concrete and never change. You're stuck with a leader like that because "ermagherd my helm might drop so it's worth it."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Feydred, it's not just in games. There were a few Dilbert strips that discussed business/tech management being selected by bladder-to-brain ratio.
The idea is that a leader is someone who convince others to come around to his way of thinking. But someone without a lot of imagination (or empathy, but they might be related) can latch onto an idea and not be budged from it. And if they have a large enough bladder to outlast everyone else in the meeting, viola! People accept the simple idea that the large-bladdered guy insists upon, and higher management says, "hey, that guy is a born leader".
The Dilbert strip is undoubtedly exaggerated, but has an element of truth. I'm sure we all most of us have made some concessions along the line, just because we're not willing to put our lives on hold to continue arguing some point with the guy who won't rest until he gets his way.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Good leaders at the top are only a tiny part of this problem. The real challenge I've seen is in finding enough talented, dedicated people to fill the noncom level roles- squad leaders- and not burn them out. If you're relying on the same 2 or 3 guys to be on every night to head up your ops... that system is going to fail sooner rather than later.Too true! You ever notice if you are the "go to" guy at work, every important task ends up on your desk? You have to be able to say "Not this time! I'm full!"
(Edit: Plus, if the same people lead every time, no one else develops the skills needed to lead next time. there is a saying that goes something like "A good leader surrounds himself with people smarter than him.", or "Great leaders surround themselves with great people.")
Great officers are the ones who give the orders that great NCOs tell them to give.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Many of us are former/current military members, and know that "me" people aren't leaders--a large part of leadership is selflessness and focus on others. It's why military socialization includes punishing over-use of both "Me" language and "Me" conduct.
I'm curious about one point - do you think that leadership is universal? That is, are the traits required to be an excellent leader in a 21st Century/First World military heirarchy match those required to be an excellent military leader in the Civil War/Napoleonic era, or in the Middle Ages? Or does the existing social structure of a society have bearing on the traits that make a great leader?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There is a lot of overlap, BUT one of the biggest differences is that a lot of the Officers now a days, aren't Royalty or Nobility.
For hundreds of years, the Nobility led not giving much weight on anyone's opinions that weren't Nobility. I think in most cases, using a lot of the proven techniques that Military today use will be more effective. We have various things like offensive, defensive, and healing magic that can only be associated with some of today's technology that will be a corner stone of the Military, that the Middle Ages didn't have.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think ego and a refusal to adapt to situations and player's needs will be the biggest hurdle for a lot of guilds. Leaders from themepark games are going to have a lot to overcome to become a successful leader in a game like PFO
Watching videos of "elite" guilds in WoW shocked me. It seemed like the person who could yell the loudest and berate the most players was the guild leader. I guess that's acceptable in a game where every role and action are set in concrete and never change. You're stuck with a leader like that because "ermagherd my helm might drop so it's worth it."
Did you hear the tape of one guy screaming at the raid members against Onyxia. This video (Click here for vulgar Youtube hilarity!) is funny as hell. You really need to hear and see how NOT to lead a raid group. Use headphones and do not listen at work, but this guy is a good example of a fail.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A note of caution...take it whichever way you will
While there are many skills that can transfer across from the military leadership wise there are also skills that work well in the military but are counter productive in a game like this and can end up causing more problems than they solve. Sorting out which is which will stand you in good stead
Steelwing, I would respectfully push back on that. No doubt military practices and values hierarchies are not universal. I don't talk to my kid like they are Marines, and I didn't talk to my Marines like they were children. And military values rankings--the good of the group over the good of the individual--are the opposite in journalistic and academic communities, where the rights of the individual are prioritized over the good of the group, but there are still leaders in Academia and journalism.
Military leadership virtues and skills are universal however--leaders in any field or context need to be just, loyal, show courage, be unselfish, exercise good judgement, be tactful, etc. And all leaders do well to know themselves and seek self-improvement, accomplish their mission, know their subordinates and look out for their welfare, etc.
"Welcome, Elfstar. You're now a priestess of the craft, and of the Temple of Diana."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A note of caution...take it whichever way you will
While there are many skills that can transfer across from the military leadership wise there are also skills that work well in the military but are counter productive in a game like this and can end up causing more problems than they solve. Sorting out which is which will stand you in good stead
Heeey, my good buddy Steelwing! Haven't seen you in a while. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Did you hear the tape of one guy screaming at the raid members against Onyxia. This video (Click here for vulgar Youtube hilarity!) is funny as hell. You really need to hear and see how NOT to lead a raid group. Use headphones and do not listen at work, but this guy is a good example of a fail.
Now that was very funny Hardin Steele; Thank you for sharing!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Many of us are former/current military members, and know that "me" people aren't leaders--a large part of leadership is selflessness and focus on others. It's why military socialization includes punishing over-use of both "Me" language and "Me" conduct.I'm curious about one point - do you think that leadership is universal? That is, are the traits required to be an excellent leader in a 21st Century/First World military heirarchy match those required to be an excellent military leader in the Civil War/Napoleonic era, or in the Middle Ages? Or does the existing social structure of a society have bearing on the traits that make a great leader?
That's an interesting question Urman. On the one hand, there are powerful cultural and material differences between Genghis Khan's context and that of Admiral Nelson, or Gen. Mattis, and I wouldn't skip over that. But there is clearly a lot of similarity as well--we have good historical data on 19th-17th century military leaders, again good records for a lot of Roman military leaders, decent textual sources for Hellenic leaders, etc. And yea, I think there is a lot that is comparable.
I was a young Marine infantryman (0311) when Gen. Al Gray implemented maneuver warfare as the Marine Corps warfighting doctrine, and when I become an officer, my class at TBS was one of the first to be trained under the new syllabus and doctrine. We read a lot, but the core text in our curriculum that we came back to again and again was Shaara's Killer Angels, the classic novel of Gettysburg, and just prior to the "9 day war" culminating exercise, we went up to Gettysburg and walked the battlefield, got to know the dirt.
The reason was that this battle offered some of the best examples available of American military leadership. The Marine Corps wants leaders like Joshua Chamberlain: leaders who's virtues and skills transcend the technology and circumstances of their era. If you have a chance, read Gates of Fire, not necessarily for pure historical accuracy, but for the portrait of shared suffering and privation (particularly in the Agoge) that marks military cohesion then and now, and which leaders of any age bear first and foremost on their shoulders.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Chamberlain is a good example. Having been an US Army NCO I've read a bit about Gen. Harold "Hal" Moore and based on what I have learned of the man I'd follow him to hell and back. Though I am biased and will say CSM Plumley, RIP, had much to do the success of air cav as well.
We were soldiers once...and young is certainly a good read for anyone wanting to know a little more about leadership, teamwork and self sacrifice.
My career did not allow me to have the honor of being in the 7th, but out of respect: "Garryowen!"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The point (in my mind) is that those leaders, from Joshua Chamberlain to Caesar, weren't martinets barking out orders from a sense of self: they were all other-focused, learners, listeners, and most importantly, they stood out in their time and context as innovative problem-solvers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think ego and a refusal to adapt to situations and player's needs will be the biggest hurdle for a lot of guilds. Leaders from themepark games are going to have a lot to overcome to become a successful leader in a game like PFO
Watching videos of "elite" guilds in WoW shocked me. It seemed like the person who could yell the loudest and berate the most players was the guild leader. I guess that's acceptable in a game where every role and action are set in concrete and never change. You're stuck with a leader like that because "ermagherd my helm might drop so it's worth it."
Did you hear the tape of one guy screaming at the raid members against Onyxia. This video (Click here for vulgar Youtube hilarity!) is funny as hell. You really need to hear and see how NOT to lead a raid group. Use headphones and do not listen at work, but this guy is a good example of a fail.
I know the video you mean without clicking the link. Dots dots dots moar dots! Whelps! Moar dots!
If anyone was in a place they shouldn't click that link you don't have to be left out here's safe for work, kids, and grandma YouTube hilarity.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Luckily most poor leaders, especially poor leaders in military situations, do not last too long, and their failures are recorded in history. Sadly, their failures are often written of by the victor.
An interesting book I have at my bedside (have had for too long, actually, I should finish it sooner than later) is The Last Viking, the Life of Roald Amundsen by Stephen Bown. It details the race to the South Pole. Amundsen's team "won", while the runner up, Robert Scott, only had Amundsen's tent to look at when they arrived at the South Pole 33 days too late, and Scott's team froze to death as they attempted to make their way back home.
Amundsen planned extensively, set up multiple supply depots, gave his loyalty to his men (who returned the favor), and used the native food supplies and cold weather gear (namely animal skins) to succeed in his mission. Scott used "pluck", and he and his men paid the ultimate price for the lack of planning.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And to be clear, by no means do I think military members have a monopoly on leadership skills. Modern militaries offer leadership training and opportunity, creating the conditions for leaders to grow, but there are plenty of people with great leadership skills in other domains.
Hardin's point is well-taken--we've already seen self-appointed leaders crash and burn long before the start of the game and it's attendant leadership problems. That process of selection will continue in earnest as we compete, and the bad will drop out, while the better enjoy success in the game world.
But while I expect there will be good leaders, I'm not holding my breath on the coming of a PFO Augustus.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I very much support servant-leadership, though my experience with is is religious rather than military. Those that have had the greatest, lasting positive influence in religions have lived for others rather than themselves. I try to do this every day, though not always with success.
|
I guess the two major focus on leadership development are in military and administration fields. Military comanders study the subject (at least I did) and administration is a competitive field that almost obligue the ones to study how to effective and efficient manage people.
The theories about leadership tells that are some qualities that can be developed by studing and others that the people have naturally, and both influence the formation of "good leaders", so even a good natural leader beneficies more studying it than not. So by logic, a good leader normally have the right charateristics AND learned something about it.
But we're divaguing... Do we have a Leadership skill in PFO?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Do we have a Leadership skill in PFO?
We're likely to have (or at least need) something like that for Formation Combat, but I'm not sure one'll be useful outside that arena. I believe real-world leadership skills--probably by design--are what will matter more often, thus "player-skill", not "character-skill".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You're likely to see skills for the number of characters you can lead in a squad/cohort/army and company/settlement/kingdom (Which I would name Leadership and Politics respectively, each the flagship of their skill tree).
Branching off the fundamental skill I think you'll see different skills for defensive and offensive bonuses to formations based on the skill level of the leaders at the various levels. Also the quantity of possible formations growing. And speed, so maybe a professional caravan driver picks and chooses only defensive and speed training for their formation (Lee has said caravans will basically be a type of formation).
It's hard to guess about Politics without knowing more how the charters are constructed but I put money on defensive and productivity bonuses to PoI and outposts based on company leader skill level. Also for speed of municipal construction, and reduction of resources both for upkeep (that one will be super popular) and new projects.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The point (in my mind) is that those leaders, from Joshua Chamberlain to Caesar, weren't martinets barking out orders from a sense of self: they were all other-focused, learners, listeners, and most importantly, they stood out in their time and context as innovative problem-solvers.
I agree. Gen. Moore fits those descriptors as well.