 |
|
In the summer and fall of 2006, I worked with a technology start-up, Seriosity, in Palo Alto that was working on a project for IBM. IBM was interested in exploring how leadership in virtual worlds may or may not be different from leadership in the physical world (i.e., traditional approaches to fostering and identifying leadership skills and attributes). At Seriosity, I worked with a small team to explore leadership in MMOs via game-play videos, open-ended surveys, and many internal discussions as to what was going on.
The Seriosity/IBM report has just been released publicly and I’m glad I was a part of this project. I think many of the insights in this project will resonate with players' experiences in MMOs and also provide food for thought as to the future of corporate leadership.
Note that there are two reports. The shorter one is the report for IBM. The second, longer one is Seriosity’s full report on leadership in MMOs.
Because of the sheer diversity of play motivations and the narrow communication channel, conflicts and misunderstandings happen a lot in MMOs, particularly in pick-up groups. For example, in World of Warcraft, what if the Priest wants to roll on the Warlock set piece? What if that Hunter looked like they just ninja-looted a Paladin plate piece? More often than not, there simply isn’t enough time to lay out the issues and talk calmly. In a recent survey, I asked players how they would respond in these kinds of conflicts. In particular, I was interested in whether there were any age or gender differences.
I created three conflict scenarios based in World of Warcraft. I chose scenarios that were plausible and yet did not have standard resolutions. For example, the question of whether the Warrior or Rogue should tank has a standard resolution and wouldn’t be an interesting conflict - it would be more of a knowledge test. Because producing such scenarios requires a sufficiently deep understanding of a particular game (and because I was most familiar with WoW at the time of the survey), I limited the scenarios to WoW and asked only WoW players to respond to the question set (1831 respondents altogether).
In the question set, players were asked to assume that the players mentioned were all players they had never played with before. The 3 scenarios were as follow:
You are in a high-level 5-man instance. The first blue BoP item drops about 20% of the way into the instance. It's a plate item with a +healing bonus. Everyone passes except for the Paladin, who rolls need. Surprisingly, the Hunter also rolls need. The Hunter wins the roll, and then apologizes, and claims they didn't mean to ninja. If the group voted at this point, would you vote for 1) removing the Hunter immediately from the group, or 2) keeping the Hunter in the group.Your 5-man group is at the end of Scholomance. Darkmaster Gandling always drops a random Tier 0 class-specific head piece. In this run, the Dreadmist Mask (warlock set piece) drops - a blue BoP item. The only 2 casters in your group are a Warlock and a Priest, and neither of them has the Dreadmist Mask. The Warlock rolls need. The Priest (a shadowpriest) says that they are also building up the Dreadmist set because it has better bonuses for their build and would like to roll need as well. In your opinion, is it ok for the Priest to also roll need on the Dreadmist Mask?
You are about to start another 5-man Scholomance run. The only healer in your group is a shadowpriest and wants to stay in shadow form and heal via vampiric embrace as much as possible (switching only to normal heals when absolutely necessary). The Priest argues that this is the most efficient way to run through the first half of the instance. The Warrior argues that this is too dangerous. If your group voted at this point, would you vote for allowing the Priest to stay in shadowform, or 2) telling the Priest to switch out of shadowform.
====
The response pattern across all three dilemmas was similar. Older players were more lenient than younger players. In the ninja-looting dilemma, overall 55% of players voted to remove the Hunter and the remainder (45%) voted to keep the Hunter. As the chart below shows, older players were more lenient - in the teenage range, 50% of players voted to keep the Hunter, while in the over 35 age range, about 70% of players voted to keep the Hunter. But the age difference really only appears in the over 35 age group. The average “keep” rate in the below 35 age group is fairly consistent. The ninja-looting case was also the only dilemma where a gender difference appeared. Women were more lenient than men (p = .007).
In the “set piece” conflict, overall 47% of respondents would have let the Priest roll for the Warlock set piece. Again, there was an age difference, and again, the only difference was in the over 35 age group who were more likely to allow the Priest to roll. There was no difference in gender in this scenario (p = .73).
====
Overall, 48% of respondents would have let the Priest shadowheal. This dilemma produced the most interesting age effect. While consistent with the previous dilemmas in that older players were more lenient, there was a gradual increase in that leniency this time rather than a sudden spike in the over 35 age group. As the graph below shows, older players were more likely to allow the Priest to shadowheal. There was no gender difference in this scenario (p = .42).
What these three sets of findings show is that older players tend to be much more lenient than younger players when dilemmas arise in the game. Part of this may be because younger players tend to be more competitive and goal-oriented and prefer efficient teams where strict role assignments are kept, while older players are less concerned with pure efficiency. With regard to how men and women deal with conflicts in the game, the gender difference appearing in only one of the three scenarios is interesting. At first glance, it’s not immediately clear what is different about that dilemma. One possible explanation is that it was the only dilemma where there was an overt punishment choice. Perhaps this is something that future surveys will help clear up.
One issue that is often discussed and debated on the WoW forums is why Horde seems to outperform Alliance in BGs. In a recent open-ended survey, I asked players whether they observed this pattern on their servers, and why they thought this might be the case. While I was expecting players to offer a variety of reasons for this pattern, I did not expect the large number of explanations offered. What was interesting about these explanations was that they highlighted the different game layers (factors from inside and outside that game) that come into play in observed behavioral patterns in MMOs.
Consistent with the forum posts, many players felt that Horde outperformed Alliance in BGs on the server they play on. From the open-ended responses of 140 players, 16% either skipped the question or did not give a clear answer. Of the remaining responses, 66% of players felt that Horde outperformed Alliance on their server, 31% felt that it was about equal or the other way around. And about 3% indicated that it depended on the BG (i.e., Horde consistently won WSG and AB, but Alliance consistently won AV).
Of course, one could argue that this is a matter of perception rather than fact. And some respondents did in fact raise this concern.
I really don't think this is true although people think it's true or at the very least isn't true to the extent that people think it is. [WoW, M, 32]
On the other hand, the fact that so many players believe it to be true suggests that there’s something interesting going on, and that in either case, this is an issue that’s worth exploring.
Overall, explanations for this perceived behavior typically fell into one of four categories: 1) entry factors, 2) population imbalance factors, 3) game mechanic factors, and 4) psychological factors. What’s useful about these categories is that they provide a framework with which to think about in-game patterns in general - that for any given pattern, it is worth considering explanations in these four categories. And I think what’s most interesting about the explanations offered isn’t about the issue of BG performance, but that these explanations highlight the many different layers which social behaviors in MMOs can be produced and explored (for both game designers and game researchers).
====
Entry factors are about how different people choose to belong to different groups or factions in a game where this choice is offered. In WoW, one primary decision is in choosing between Alliance and Horde. The significance of entry factors is that they may create sustained personality or behavioral differences between the two groups. The most popular explanations for superior Horde performance in BGs fell into this category.
Alliance Attracts Noobs
Many respondents argued that players new to MMOs were more likely to choose Alliance because the character models more readily resonate with the “good guys” as portrayed in movies such as Lord of the Rings (i.e., human knights in armor and elven archers). And because new MMO players have less experience in raiding and coordination, the Alliance suffers from this in BGs.
Those who are new to the game will most likely roll a race that they can identify with, that would pretty much exclude any Horde class. Horde will tend to be veteran players. [WoW, M, 37]
The notion that more experienced players leave the Alliance for the Horde was expressed by several players.
Alternatively, it is possible that most people start on Alliance side. At some point they want to change, and start Horde characters, and at this time they are much more experienced. So Horde guys have lower numbers but higher skills. [WoW, M, 38]
Alliance Attracts Younger / Immature Players
A related explanation was that Alliance attracts disproportionately younger or more immature players. Many of the arguments for why new players would be attracted to Alliance were repeated here.
It was presumed that the younger players had more interest in playing the 'pretty good guys' (they have the misconception that the horde side should be considered evil.) [WoW, M, 22]
It is this difference in maturity that some players attribute to the poor Alliance performance in BGs.
Younger people are not as mature and less likely to work together. On the other hand, Horde players tend to be older and more mature (and more likely to work together). Since teamwork is key in the BGs, the Horde is predisposed towards winning over the Alliance. [WoW, M, 33]
====
Horde Attracts Hard-Core / Competitive Players
Others point out the flip-side of the equation - that players who choose Horde are likely to be more competitive and PvP-minded. Some respondents also argued that Horde players tend to be more serious while Alliance players tend to be more casual, and that these differences lead to differing BG performance.
My coworkers and I discussed it over the water cooler and developed a theory for a Horde personality that leads certain types of gamers to play Horde... and those gamers just happen to be better at and more inclined towards pvp. [WoW, F, 23]
The alliance portion of the game is admittedly easier to play by consensus of both players and designers. As such the alliance tends to draw a more casual gamer crowd who don't immerse themselves into the finer points of play as much as a 'hardcore' gamer. Thus when taking on more intensive tasks (especially bg's) horde players bring more developed skill sets to the table such as the ability to follow orders and how to most effectively play their class. [WoW, M, 26]
Related to this, some players argued that the Horde character models play to and attract a more competitive mentality.
People choose horde are typically more aggressive players and the horde models match the appearance of aggression better then alliance does. [WoW, M, 23]
====
On most WoW servers, the Alliance outnumbers the Horde around 2:1 and sometimes as much as 3:1. As opposed to the entry factors that focus on how people choose to belong to different factions, the following imbalance factors describe more organizational reasons for why the faction with fewer numbers might be at an advantage. In other words, the following explanations are not tied to Horde or Alliance character models or appeal, but simply the effects of population imbalance in general.
Practice Makes Perfect
The crucial factor for the explanations that fall in this section derive from the shorter BG queues for the side that has fewer players. The higher the population imbalance, the higher the difference in BG queue times for the two different factions. Because being good at PvP is partly due to practice, the side that gets to practice more is likely to perform better.
On our server, the Alliance outnumber the Horde at a factor of like four to one. In order to even get in to a BG, an Alliance player can expect to wait in the queue for up to an hour and a half, while the Horde queue's instantly all day. This means a few things. One, it just means practice. It stands to reason that people that get to PvP all day every day are better PvPers than those who get to do it five to ten times a week. [WoW, M, 37]
====
Familiar Faces
But beyond the practice factor, the faction with fewer members also has a higher chance of the same members bumping into each other over and over again. This makes it easy to know who the good players are.
Inside the Battlegrounds, you often get grouped with the same people or same groups of people as Horde, allowing you to learn each other's tactics better and know who to listen to, etc. On the Alliance, since there are so many people, I think that's harder. [WoW, M, 19]
This is particularly important for the emergence of known leaders in a situation where there is a very limited amount of organizational time.
Facilitates Sustained Groups
One related point that should be highlighted is that the shorter BG queues also make it easier for PUGs to become sustained groups for the side which has shorter BG queues. On the Alliance side, queuing up as a group increases wait times, whereas this is not the case for the Horde. Thus, from an organizational standpoint, it makes more sense for a Horde PUG to stay grouped than it is for an Alliance PUG.
====
While population imbalance factors are not intrinsically tied to either the Horde/Alliance split, game mechanic factors hinge on specific aspects of being Horde or Alliance. But unlike entry factors which emphasize player personality differences, game mechanic factors emphasize advantages or disadvantages the two factions might have due to mechanic differences.
PvP Racials
Many players pointed out that Horde racials are better suited to PvP while Alliance racials are better suited for PvE. Thus, Horde characters might have an edge in PvP scenarios due to those racials.
Horde tend to get better PvP racials and Alliance tend to get better PvE racials. Fear Ward, for example, is a huge bonus to Alliance guilds attempting Onyxia, Nefarian, or Magmadar (raid bosses), while War Stomp is a very good PvP skill. [M, 17]
But Alliance is Better Geared From PvE
Among the players who disagreed with the Horde outperforming Alliance trend, many noted that on their servers this was due to the Alliance being better geared from PvE instances.
On my server it's pretty even, but only because the alliance is miles ahead of the horde in terms of PvE progress and gear. If 2 evenly geared and skilled teams faced each other I'd say horde would win as we have better PvP racials. [WoW, M, 18]
In other words, these players would argue that Horde racials may be more suited for PvP, but the Alliance ends up having more of an edge from their PvE racials because of gear access.
====
Shamans vs. Paladins
Another thorny subject was the comparison of Shamans and Paladins (Horde have exclusive access to the former, while Alliance have exclusive access to the latter, but the expansion will change this). People who brought the two classes up tended to agree that Shamans are better suited for PvP encounters because of their burst damage and totem abilities, while the defensive abilities of the Paladin are less suited (except perhaps in WSG).
Paladins are tank/heal hybrids which cant dish out damage on regular basis, can’t tank because in pvp there are no collision zones and paladins don’t have taunt abilities, and even if they did, these don’t work on player characters. Paladins regularly refuse to heal but instead completely specialize on damage. On the other hand shamans are designed as dps/heal hybrids which can dish out TREMENDOUS damage on 3 targets (chain lightning) , drop area of effect movement speed reducing totems and heal their team members while at the same time hitting with their axes for quite high damage. [WoW, M, 27]
Some players, however, did point out that they felt the Shaman/Paladin issue was overstated. Yet even in these cases, they agreed that Shamans tend to be more effective in PvP due to other related factors.
So many people cry about Shamans, but we on Horde side thought the Paladin a much greater support and group class then the Shaman. And to this day, I still agree this, having played both factions and currently playing the alliance faction, I still think that Paladins are greater then Shamans when they do their job in an organized group. [WoW, M, 19]
====
Location. Location. Location.
And finally, some players brought up location or geographical explanations for the Horde/Alliance differences in PvP. Most of these centered on the layout of AV. The interesting thing was that there was very little consensus as to which side actually has an advantage.
The alliance are at a distinct disadvantage in AV. Not only can Horde get to Snowfall and cap there before the alliance can, it is also easier for them to get to the wolves for the wolf rider quests than it is for alliance to get to the rams. [WoW, M, 30]
In Alterac Valley, this might be due to the geographical advantage the Horde has at defending [offensive graveyards], there is no backdoor into most Alliance graveyards (SH can be taken from south and west, SP can be jumped from the back and assaulted from the south) (IB can only be taken from the east, FW is in an open field and hard to defend if you don’t have people respawning next to it). [WoW, M, 17]
This makes me agree with what some posts on the WoW forums point out - that these geographical differences end up being fairly balanced all things considered. But there was one unique explanation that one player brought up about starting locations that was fairly interesting. Instead of focusing on the BG geography, he focused on the starting geography of the two factions.
====
The final class of explanations are related to some of the factors we’ve seen already, but their reasoning is more psychological rather than organizational or due directly to game mechanics.
Taurens Are Scarier Than Gnomes
In terms of body size, the Horde size has a much higher average due to the normal sizes of the Undead, the Trolls, in addition to the larger size of the Orcs and the much larger size of the Taurens. The Alliance are on average shorter due to the Gnomes and Dwarves. One player had an interesting take on the psychological advantage of having a larger body size even though size in and of itself is not linked to any attribute or skill differences.
====
The Underdog Mentality
Another interesting explanation that several players mentioned was that the Horde fights harder because they typically are the minority, the underdog. While this explanation also hinges on the population imbalance, the reasoning is psychological rather than functional (i.e., shorter queue times).
Last time I checked I believe the Alliance population was MUCH larger than Horde. I almost think that it's almost forced the Horde players to focus more on teamwork and skill if they want to win. [WoW, M, 21]
I think the cause of this is because, population wise, Horde players tend to be outnumbered by Alliance players. So, Horde players tend to learn early on the value to assisting each other and working as a team. [WoW, M, 32]
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
The final explanation argues that the observed pattern is merely the consequences of a widely-held myth that has come true over time due to a self-fulfilling prophecy. As we saw earlier, some players pointed out that this is a case of an assumption snowballing into a perceived fact.
But given that so many players believe in this stereotype, the assumption in and of itself may cause performance differences over time. If Alliance players who enjoy PvPing perceive the Horde as being better at PvP (regardless of what the underlying reason is), then they may decide to re-roll as Horde.
====
Overall, players offered more than a dozen different explanations for why Horde characters may perform better in BGs than Alliance characters. As I mentioned earlier, what’s interesting here is not as much the BG performance per se, but the emergent framework that describes how behavioral patterns in MMOs may be produced from a variety of interwoven factors. While some players focus on entry factors and others focus on game mechanic factors, it seems that most of the explanations are plausible, and several probably contribute to the perceived phenomenon.
It would be nice to have the server logs and calculate whether one side has a BG advantage over the other, but it seems that this will be an issue that will be debated for a long time in that data’s absence. Of course, it would also be nice if we could somehow test and tease apart the explanations described here. But the mentioned factors are all so interwoven that it would be hard to isolate many of them. And while I have some past data that supports some of the explanations (e.g., Horde attracts more competitive-minded players), the strength of other explanations are far harder to ascertain. Given that several factors proposed hinged on imbalance issues, it would also be interesting to see whether the cross-realm PvP system has helped alleviate the practice issue.
But as I mentioned at the beginning of the article, I think this particular set of explanations warns against relying too much on one specific game layer to explain in-game phenomena, especially given the plausibility of all the explanations presented here. It probably isn’t just because of the game mechanics, or just because of the player personalities. Whether we’re talking about BG performance, leveling rates or “dominance” of different classes, or other parallels such as City of Heroes/Villains, it’s important to keep in mind the different layers of factors that may come into play to produce specific observable patterns.
[I’d like to thank James Scarborough who offered his assistance in coding the open-ended responses for this data set.]
As I was thinking about guild leadership, I became interested to learn more about how guild leaders become guild leaders. For example, are they more likely to be guilds they created themselves, or did they inherit or get the position later on. At the same time, I didn’t want to assume that those were the only two options. So I asked players who were guild leaders to describe how they became a guild leader in an open-ended format.
I received 231 responses altogether. For this data set, I’d like to thank James Scarborough who offered his assistance in coding the open-ended responses. Of the 231 responses, 173 could be coded as either “created myself” or “became guild leader after guild was created”. The remaining 58 cases consisted of responses where: 1) the response didn’t make it clear how guild was created, 2) the player helped create a guild that he/she later became a leader to, 3) the guild was created by two or more people, or 4) a missing or unrelated response.
Among the 173 coded responses, the majority of guild leaders (68%) consisted of players who became guild leaders of guilds they did not create. The remaining (32%) created their own guilds. There were no gender differences, but there were significant age differences. Older guild leaders were much more likely to have assumed leadership of a guild they did not create, whereas younger guild leaders tend to have created their own guilds.
This suggests, to a certain degree, a life-cycle of guilds. While guilds tend to be created by younger players, it is older players who tend to assume the leadership role some point down the line.
About 15% of players have been guild leaders at one point or another. In a recent survey, I asked some of these players to talk about their experiences and to describe pain-points and lessons learned. About 280 respondents wrote about their guild leadership experiences. Because the unique difficulties of leading and managing high-end raids has been covered in these two earlier articles, the material presented here will focus on other facets of guild leadership. What the player narratives make clear is that being a guild leader is tough, oftentimes a thankless job where moments of satisfaction are very memorable but rare.
I’m hoping that bringing their stories together here can serve two goals. First of all, the disparate experiences do reveal common pain-points that some respondents suggested potential solutions for. Players who are currently guild leaders or are thinking of becoming guild leaders might be able to glean some helpful information from them. And secondly, the experiences of these players highlight the complex, emergent properties of play in a networked environment. When you are the leader of a guild of 50 players, gaming can become more stressful than your daytime job.
====
You Can’t Please Everyone
Many guild leaders described how they tried to be everyone’s friend and tried making sure that everyone in the guild was happy. The most common lesson that respondents learned was that it’s simply impossible to please everyone.
The most valuable thing I have learned from playing the role of a guild leader is one akin to life: No matter what you do there will always be some folks that do not like you. [Legends of Cosrin, M, 30]
One reason why this is the case is because guild leaders do not have the resources to make everyone happy. And in fact, trying to do so creates a culture of asking the guild leader for more.
But the main reason you can’t please everyone is because of the sheer diversity of needs and motivations in any group of people. Different guild members are in the guild for different reasons and derive satisfaction from different things.
The toughest thing about being a guild leadership is dealing with very disparate personalities among the members. Our members are older, have jobs and families … Because they are a more mature group they have stronger personalities and opinions. Occasionally this leads to conflict, either in how things are being done or how people are being treated by other guild members. [WoW, M, 34]
Another feature of the MMORPG demographic exacerbates this problem. Groups in real-life workplaces are typically composed of people with similar backgrounds, experiences, and training. Being a leader at college means leading people between the ages of 18-22. And the new recruits at big consulting firms every year are eerily similar people. But being a leader in an MMORPG means leading people between the ages of 10 and 70 - some have never had a job, some are professors, some are retired grandparents, while others are veterans. Pleasing everybody has never been so hard.
====
Mediating Conflict
In any situation where people have different needs and motivations, conflicts will arise. Inevitably, the guild leader will be asked to become the mediator.
For many guild leaders, mediating conflict becomes stressful due to their petty nature and the time it takes to resolve these constant conflicts.
However, there is an awful lot of hand-holding and personal conflict resolution that you have to do. I know, in my first guild, I would find myself dealing with interpersonal player problems for 1 to 2 hours a night. I knew it was time to change when I found myself creating an alt - just to play without guild headaches. [EQ2, M, 42]
These conflicts tend to be particularly stressful because of the existing friendships and ties within the guild. Because guild leaders are friends with many players in the guild, these disputes oftentimes involve one or more of their friends.
the toughest thing for me is the Constant demand and pressure from guild mates, and conflicts between IRL friends and Friends i made in WoW. being the constant 'Anvil' those conflicts Hammer on can be a real Pain. [WoW, M, 24]
As several respondents noted, being fair and impartial was the most important aspect of mediating these conflicts.
====
A Firm Hand
Many respondents noted that laying down a firm hand was important. Because many guilds start off as small, casual and friendly guilds, guild leaders oftentimes feel conflicted when it comes to disciplining guild members.
The most difficult thing was removal of someone that I had come to call friend because they wouldn't comply with guild rules and code of conduct. [EQ2, F, 48]
A common theme that arose was the uneasiness in learning that sometimes you have to be tough and say no. The following two players describe this transition in their leadership experience.
It took me some time to realize that as by nature I detest conflict and try to defuse situations by talking them through, however when leading a raiding guild there simply isn't the time to sort things out as 'touchy feely' as you'd like, and many seasoned raiders simply don't want to be treated that way. I made more than a few mistakes. I put up with far too much 'drama' when I should have stomped it out much quicker. I was a little tentative to use my authority at times when I should have been much more confident in my position. I allowed personality conflicts within the guild to consume far more of my time than they were really worth. Overall it was a draining experience but a very valuable lesson in leadership - unless you lead you aren't a good leader. [EQ2, M, 32]
Other guild leaders agreed that delaying these hard decisions tends to make things worse, and that problems tend to fester if they are not dealt with.
====
Den Mother + Bitch Goddess
At the same time, several respondents articulated the duality of being a guild leader. It is not easy to be friend and leader at the same time.
The most valuable lesson I've learned from being a guild leader is: You'll never be everybody's friend, and wholly expect half the guild to have it out for you. There's two sides to being a guild leader. There's your social side, and your leading side. The social side is everybody's friend, the leader side gets things done. You have to break eggs to make cake, so to speak. [WoW, M, 23]
The notion that guild leadership was a form of motherhood echoed among other respondents.
And this aspect of being a guild leader also produced its unique set of challenges.
====
In and Out
One final pain-point that emerged was the difficulty in picking the right people for the guild as well as the difficulty in kicking people out of the guild. Several guild leaders lamented that they oftentimes do not have the resources to screen potential guild members.
The worst of these cases would deliberately use the guild for their own persona gains and had no intention of staying with the guild.
I started off with high expectations and slowly got worn down by lack of support and the draining of your time by some members who rarely appreciated your efforts. These members usually added nothing to the guild but demanded both support (assistance in leveling, questing, items, gear, crafting etc) and also constant advice and information. These people either left to join a new guild at some point or would stop playing without any warning and hence made you feel less inclined to help them unless you knew and trusted them. [WoW, M, 33]
And as we’ve seen already, kicking people out is difficult for many guild leaders because they are uncomfortable with taking on a disciplinary role. But for some players, having someone leave their guild is sometimes an emotional loss.
====
Make Rules. Follow Them.
As respondents discussed their difficulties in leading guilds, two important guidelines emerged. First of all, guild leaders highlighted the importance of having ground rules, making people aware of them, and being consistent with those rules.
Be consistent. NEVER deviate from your charter. Never assume that a conflict is a single dimensional issue. Get all the facts and then make your decision. Never jump to conclusions. Always be honest. NEVER show any favoritism. Everyone in the guild is on equal standing with you. [EQ, F, 48]
You can only be consistent if you have pre-established rules. And these narrative suggest that it is this consistency that makes conflict resolution and discipline far easier to deal with.
Delegation
Secondly, there is only so much one person can do. As a guild grows, it becomes impossible for one person to deal with everything that happens.
As the following players have learned, guild leaders need to learn to promote trusted guild members to officer roles and delegate duties to them.
One of the toughest experiences as a guild leader is to find players in the guild that are dedicated to the game and the guild. Because as a guild leader you need officers to help you run the guild as smooth as possible. Because the guild is the members in the guild. So as a guild leader i need to promote people to officers that help me create an active and fun guild to be a member of. [WoW, M, 35]
====
Obligated To Play
Now that the difficulties and complexities of guild leadership and management have been laid out, it should not come as a surprise that many respondents described their game-play as an obligation. For many of these players, there simply was no longer time for “play” in the game.
It's tough that after a while you just feel that you have to log on so that you don't let down the other people in the guild, sometimes even if you are not really in the mood to play the game. Sometimes I neglect 'doing my own thing' in the game because I think it's part of my duties as a guild leader to help other members if they got questions or can't solve quests on their own. [WoW, M, 29]
The toughest thing for me, about leading a guild was just showing up. I never wanted the job, but I felt obligated to maintain the guild I loved. I spent an average of 4 hours a day replying to ICQs and e-mails while attending alliance meetings in IRC and writing up announcements for the website. This before I even logged in ... which when I did, being a RP guild I was forced to attend every event and function I was invited to, to keep up community relations. Not to mention weekly guild and alliance meetings or any impromptu meetings that came up. Whatever time I had left was used up dealing with the inevitable daily guild issues ... So I got maybe one to two hours a week for myself. [UO, M, 35]
====
More Work Than Their Real Jobs
Some players described their game-play more explicitly as a second full-time job.
The single toughest thing about running a guild is managing people. It can quickly turn into a serious job. You have to referee disputes, come up with events, loot rules, and organizational structure, recruiting. In short, running a guild is a lot of work, just like managing people in a real life position. [WoW, M, 37]
Others lamented that they escaped into a fantasy world only to be doing their day-time jobs again, the difference being that they didn’t receive pay checks in this fantasy world.
The toughest thing about being a guild leader is finding the middle ground between all the members, and being able to keep the group entertained at the same time. Being a guild leader is like being a manager at work, only without the paycheck. It's frustrating but rewarding to lead a group and see it function and grow, but it's a pain in the rear more often than not to get it to that point. [EQ2, M, 33]
The following narrative draws out an unsettling question. What happens when our leisure activities become more work than our day-time jobs? After all, how many of us get to lead 500 people in real life?
====
Acquiring Leadership Skills
One theme that has flowed through many of the narratives we’ve seen is that people have learned important leadership and management skills from their game-play experiences. After all, leading people involves many of the same skills regardless of where it happens. Several players noted how these new skills have helped them outside of the game.
I learned several things; I could manage events for a few hundred people, I could mediate agreements, I began to notice traits in individuals which where helpful in predicting what they were most likely to do next or likely to be interested in. I learned to delegate authority without releasing responsibility. I am very proud to say that my experience strengthened my diplomatic skills which had never been a strong point prior to my experience. I also learned more about the internet, building sites, moderating forums that I didn't know before. [WoW, F, 56]
These examples highlight games as places where the opportunity to learn important skills emerges, without prior planning by explicit teachers, and without a set curriculum. Video games do change people, and fortunately, those changes aren’t always towards mindless violence or aggression. It is unfortunate that so much of the current media attention on video games, with the incessant finger-pointing at addiction and violence, distracts us from the far more interesting ways in which games can affect and change people.
In being a guild leader for most of my 6 years of online gaming, I have learned a great deal about what power means in an online gaming environment; compassion, understanding, organization and cooperation are required, and I have become a better person for my experiences. My personal journey has been largely through my interactions with people who are intelligent, understanding, creative, supportive, skilled negotiators and good friends. We have people from all walks of life in our guild, and everyone has much to contribute to our ephemeral social fabric; we are all in the same guild by choice, and I am honoured to be among them. I may 'Lead' but really ... I learn and I follow by example. [EQ2, F, 42]
Players were asked two questions:
1) How much do you enjoy being in a leadership position?
2) Are you a guild leader?
Overall, male players find leadership positions more enjoyable than female players and younger players are more likely to enjoy leadership positions than older players (r = -.18), but this does not translate into any differences in actual leadership likelihood. Proportionately, female players are just as likely as male players to be guild leaders (between 14-16%). Also, there is no age difference between players who are and are not guild leaders. And among players who are guild leaders, there is no difference between male and female players as to how much they enjoy being a leader (p = .21).
====
The disparities between desired and actual leadership are interesting. Even though younger, male players find leadership positions more enjoyable, this does not bear out among actual guild leaders. The shift in motivations is also intriguing. Perhaps we’re seeing the difference between group leaders and guild leaders - the former more likely to be chat/social-oriented and the latter more relationship management oriented. The next step seems to be to explore whether guilds with male leaders are different from guilds with female players in terms of guild size and casual vs. hardcore.
The high-end game is its own culture that most of us never have the chance to participate in. I think most casual players (and me included) conceive of high-end guilds as consisting of dedicated players who simply have more time to play. They are successful because they are willing to spend double or triple the amount of time that we spend. What follows is a perspective of the high-end culture from an insider who has led a high-end guild for about 3-4 years. The material presented is not meant as a description of all high-end guilds or the only way to succeed as a high-end guild, but rather as an example of how one high-end guild is structured and the experiences of their leader. What emerges from the interviews is a sense that the high-end game has its own culture that isn’t merely quantitatively different from casual play. It’s not simply that high-end guild members play more than casual guild members, but rather that they conceive of the game in an entirely different way.
All names given in this article have been altered to protect the identities of those involved. Talon has been the leader of a high-end guild for the past 3-4 years. The guild began in EverQuest and although it was not one of the earliest guilds to have formed on the server, it gained power quickly and was consistently the first guild on the server to kill many of the major named mobs after Shadows of Luclin was released (e.g., Tunare, Arch Lich, Avatar of War, High Priest of Ssra). Recently, they were the first to kill Ragnaros on their server in World of Warcraft. On that same day, Talon graduated with a master’s degree in telecommunication management.
====
My first conversation with Talon happened over AIM as he was sitting in front of 3 computers - one of them was logged on to WoW in Azshara waiting for Azuregos to spawn. I later found out that he was defending his master’s thesis the next morning. That naturally led me to ask him how many hours he and his guild members put in each week. Talon’s response was surprising.
In fact, Talon specifically tries to avoid recruiting hard-core players for that specific reason. These “burn-out” personalities in fact are looked upon as wasted investments and to be avoided at all costs.
For Talon, the key was finding people with stable lives and careers but who could “play enough”.
====
Talon isolated discipline as the most important factor in the success of a high-end guild. As he put it,
I pushed Talon on whether he perceived the guild structure as largely dictatorial. He reframed the issue in an interesting way.
====
Common GoalTalon noted that having a common goal was also crucial to the success of the guild. When I asked him what that common goal was, his answer was simple - “To be the best”. And here, what Talon meant was distinctively different from the achievement-oriented motivations I was used to.
And this was the common goal - not “to be the best” per se, but “to be part of the best”. And in fact, individuality is subservient to this overriding goal. When Talon first mentioned that “sharing accounts is the norm”, I was intrigued. He then explained that it “allows for flexibility in time”. I was still confused and it was only when this practice of sharing accounts was framed under the notion of a common goal that it made sense to me.
Talon and his guild members all shared in the common goal of advancing the interests of the guild. All individual interests were subservient to this goal. This was what made account sharing the norm. A character was merely the means to advance the interests of the guild. The primary attachment was not to the character you played, but to the guild you are a part of.
====
Early on in our email exchange, I sensed that Talon did not favor female members. At first, I felt that this was perhaps due to the clash between the militaristic demands of the guild and the more relationship-oriented play-style of female gamers. When I asked Talon about this, he had an interesting explanation.
Now there’s a reason why military doesn’t like relationships in it. The same reason applies to militaristic uberguilds - the suspicions of favouritism etc., not to mention women practically always aim for the top. This is not a critique as such. I mean it’s quite understandable. In a healthy guild, the most charismatic, outgoing and smart people are leaders. I sure as hell would prefer them.
So the reason why Talon is hesitant on recruiting female members is because it inevitably leads to romantic tension in the guild.
It’s important to make clear that Talon isn’t presenting a sexist position. It’s not the case that women are inferior players or can’t function in a militaristic guild, but that when you have men and women in the same guild certain interactions become highly likely. And that dynamic has as much to do with the men as it does with the women. [see comments below on sexism]
====
Throughout our interviews, Talon consistently preferred younger players over older players, and he made several comments that younger players led the most effective guilds. When I queried him, he gave the following reason.
Frankly the whole thing drove me a great deal to the right. Coddling people gets you nowhere, except having to coddle them even more. If you just tell them to figure things out for themselves and be honest with them, you are likely to get quite a bit further than you'd get with coddling.
Pretty much every older leader started playing shrink when they should have confined themselves to the role of the leader. People started demanding more and more of their time, while I always made it clear that if you wanted answers from me, you should probably ask yes/no questions.
So for Talon, successfully managing a guild meant successfully avoiding becoming everyone’s personal shrink and encouraging members to take care of their own personal problems.
====
And finally, I asked Talon about the criteria used for evaluating applicants. These criteria help frame and summarize the aspects of the high-end culture that Talon has described above.
2. Attendance. If you aren't there, what use are you supposed to be?
3. Attitude. If you can't adapt to the "guild comes first" thinking, you have a potential of ebaying, simply being less useful or theoretically even causing drama. This is basically a sliding scale from "extremely good" to "drama". This is often tested by having them take a lot mild abuse/neglect originally. We're not courting them, they are courting us, and they should be aware of this. If they stick to it for a month of being nearly ignored, they are the type of material we will like. Never giving up is the quality we find most appealing.
4.Skill. Usually people who fit the above criteria do pretty well here. Yet sometimes there are phenomenally skilled people who don't do that well in #2 and #3. For example right now we have one player who does really well in #1, #2 and #4, but has an attitude problem. This is sufficient for us to try to work on the attitude some, but our patience is not unlimited.
Talon’s description of the culture of his guild shows how the high-end game is not just about spending more hours in the game. It’s about having a different conceptualization of what the game is altogether. The game is no longer about your character, or how good your character’s gear is. It’s not about how many hours you can jam in. In Talon’s view, to succeed in the high-end game, the game has to cease to be about you.
Reasons for grouping and the demographics of grouping were explored. Female players are more likely to group for social reasons while male players are more likely to group for better XP.
Age differences were quite pronounced. Older players were far less likely to group for better XP and were more likely to prefer to solo either because of schedule constraints or because they preferred to play alone. Older players were not more likely to group for social reasons. It can be inferred from this that groups are typically composed of disproportionately younger players.
====
It was also found that older players were less likely to want to be the leader of groups.
It was also found that older players are less likely to be leaders of groups, and that they are the leaders in groups less often over time. The difference is clearer among male players than female players.
In other words, group leaders are usually young players because older players are less likely to be in groups and they also don’t want to be a group leader.
While most players are in guild, one unexpected finding was that female players are significantly more likely to be guild leaders (p = .03).
It was also found that older players are more likely to be guild leaders.
See “The Demographics of Groups” to see how the demographics flip in normal group leadership.