Last Saturday, in lieu of much of our D&D game, Jessi, Josh, Nick, Jennifer, and I discussed the pros and cons of different administrative systems in a LARP.
On one side of the debate was me and my collaborative system of player-based governance. In case you haven't already read about it, the current Organizational Charter lays it down like this: The owners of the game (admins) are in charge of business decisions, whereas the Player's Council, which is made up of representatives from the player base, handle disciplinary actions and appoint people to positions of game authority, such as plot members and marshals.
On the other side of the debate was Josh and Jessi presenting Solar's more top-down approach to game administration. To the best of my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong, guys), the owners of the game, along with staff members chosen from among the game's most loyal players, handle disciplinary actions, make the business decisions, appoint plot members and marshals, and authorize large-scale plots. They are the stewards of the game's long-term well-being, whereas the average player has no direct say in any of these decisions.
I've mulled both the collaborative and top-down approaches around for the past few days (to an unhealthy degree according to Nick and Jennifer). To aid in the decision-making process, I decided to make some lists of pros and cons to both and see if there wasn't a way to combine them. Here's what I came up with.
Pros of Collaborative Game Management
- Wisdom of Crowds. In theory, when you open a decision up to public voting, you tend to reach a solution that satisfies the most people.
- Stronger Emotional Investment. To paraphrase Stephen Covey, involvement breeds investment. By giving players a say in game policy, they may come to feel a stronger emotional attachment to the game. This facilitates them attending more events and advocating more to their friends, thus strengthening the game's player base.
- Accountability. Plot members and marshals maintain their positions only with the blessing of the Player's Council. If they abuse their authority, the players themselves have the right to strip them of that authority. This promotes honesty, fairness, competency, and ultimately a better game experience.
- Organic Growth. Games must evolve and change over time in order to survive. By letting those changes happen according to the desires of the player base as a whole, rather than the opinions of a few, the game can grow in a natural, organic fashion.
- Better Crisis Management. This is just my opinion, but I believe the game will pull through crises much better if tough decisions are handled as a community rather than handed down from on high.
Cons of Collaborative Game Management
- Popular Vote. The system is open to abuse. If someone can gain enough support, they can gain authority in the game regardless of merit. Likewise, if discipline was left to a popular vote, popular players could potentially get away with anything.
- Slow Decision-Making. A collaborative system naturally requires extensive collaboration, which takes time and energy. Ultimately, committees lack the agility needed for quick decisions.
Pros of Top-Down Game Management
- Central Vision. By giving all authority to game staff, the game will stay on track toward a central vision. This degree of consistency may add to the game experience in the long term.
- Quick Decision-Making. The fewer people who are involved in a decision, the faster that decision can be made. In emergencies, this sort of agility can be crucial to the health of the game.
- More Tamper-Proof. Individuals with ill intent toward the game have no way of gaining authority.
Cons of Top-Down Game Management
- No Accountability. Those in charge (namely, Nick and I) will have little or no accountability. This opens up the temptation for abuse and may diminish the game experience.
- Lack of Player Recourse. Even with feedback loops in place to receive complaints and suggestions, there is no guarantee that an individual player's opinions will be heard or acted upon. This has the potential to allow serious problems to go unresolved. Also, players who feel they are being ignored may have their game experience diminished.
- Weak Emotional Investment. As above, involvement breeds investment. Players will have little or no emotional ownership in the game outside of their characters. In the end, this will weaken the player base.
- Stagnation. Just as a collaborative system promotes organic growth, a top-down approach may inhibit it.
A Hybrid Solution
It occurred to me the other day that, as far as systems of governance go, a dictatorship is only as bad as the dictator. If the person in charge is considerate, fair, and even-handed, I don't think many people would complain. Nick and Jessi seem to share this opinion. Thus, especially on the relatively small scale of a LARP, it may in fact work better than democracy with the right person in charge.
It's also worth noting something that Jessi pointed out. To paraphrase, "Players will only be involved to the extend they want to be involved." Thus, my arguments about emotional investment may not be relevant to a large portion of the player base, who don't so much care to be involved in decision-making and just want to play.
The only problem is feedback. Feedback is the key to tapping the wisdom of crowds, breeding strong emotional investment, enforcing accountability, and promoting organic growth. In other words, it's the driving force behind the collaborative system. Thus, for a top-down system to work well, those in charge must be made to listen and act on player feedback when it is given.
Thus, what I've done is compile a list of feedback loops for every conceivable form of player feedback. Admins will handle most decisions, just as in the top-down approach. However, players will have ample venues to voice their opinions and concerns. Assuming the system works as intended, we should be able to reap all of the above pros and none of the cons (i.e., have our cake and eat it, too).
The Tie-Breaker Rule
An additional measure of control I thought to give players comes in the form of breaking ties. In the event that the game admins reach a stalemate on a particular decision, if appropriate, that decision will be passed to public polling. Thus, if the admins can't decide, the players get to. Naturally, admins can choose to defer to popular player vote at their discretion, or simply solicit feedback before making a decision. I think the mere existence of the tie-breaker rule, however, will help breed the sort of emotional investment I'd like to see.
Thoughts?
That's the concept as it stands. I'm interested in hearing feedback before I change the Organizational Charter. Any thoughts?