Tag: tabletop RPG leadership

  • You Can’t Lead by Sucking the Joy Out of the Room: A TTRPG Guide to Negative Leadership

    You Can’t Lead by Sucking the Joy Out of the Room: A TTRPG Guide to Negative Leadership

    There’s a particular kind of emotional exhaustion that settles in when your Game Master thinks being in charge means being right all the time. It starts slow–your character’s little backstory never gets acknowledged, your clever ideas get waved off with a smirk and a house rule, and pretty soon you’re just rolling dice and getting your turn over with as little friction as possible. You used to be excited to play. Now you’re mostly just tracking hit points and trying to survive the session. It’s not that you don’t like the game. It’s that the person running it has made the table feel like a minefield. 

    I’ve had day jobs that feel exactly like that. 

    What I call Negative Leadership shows up in real life the same way it shows up in bad tabletop campaigns. It’s not always loud or theatrical. It’s a mindset. A controlling, defensive, brittle approach to being in charge. It’s the manager who talks like a GM who’s memorized every line of the module but hasn’t noticed that half the players are disengaged. They think “leadership” means quoting the rulebook and punishing deviation. They treat innovation like it’s cheating and feedback like it’s a charisma check they can refuse. 

    I’ve worked across a bunch of different environments–logistics, operations, customer service–and while the industries changed, the vibe of a bad manager never did. You try to bring something to the table, and they act like you’re violating canon. I once stayed late to help a new hire finish up a shipment–just helping out. Next day, I get pulled aside for “disrupting the process.” In another job, a manager pinned dollar bills to his office wall from bets he won against his own staff, like we were all stuck in some sad, corporate version of Tomb of Horrors. Nobody said anything, but we all saw the message: this place runs on ego checks. 

    What makes it harder is that most of these leaders don’t see themselves as the problem. They think they’re enforcing standards. That they’re the only thing holding back the chaos. But treating your team like a bunch of unruly NPCs doesn’t build order–it builds resentment. Calling someone “not great with people” doesn’t begin to cover it. It’s more like they see empathy as a homebrew mechanic they don’t trust. 

    Frederick Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory puts a fine point on it: the stuff that demotivates people isn’t the same stuff that inspires them. You can have health benefits, free snacks, and an end-of-week XP bonus, but if your boss treats you like a barely tolerated raccoon who wandered into the breakroom–something to be monitored and controlled–you’re not going to stay motivated. You’ll stick around, maybe, but your heart won’t be in it. It’s like showing up to a dungeon crawl where the GM never lets you explore. You’re not playing–you’re just rolling to comply.

    And like any bad GM, the truly corrosive managers rarely blow up in obvious ways. It’s not all dramatic yelling or slamming doors. It’s a slow bleed: a joke that lands too hard, a change in protocol with no explanation, a public correction that wasn’t necessary. I once got called out for parking a training vehicle “the wrong way,” even though it was the safest available option. The response wasn’t, “Let’s talk through it.” It was, “Rules are rules.” No context, no conversation. Just pure authoritarian DM energy. 

    Douglas McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y explains this kind of behavior. Theory X leaders believe that people are fundamentally lazy and need to be coerced into productivity. So they act like GMs who run every session like a power fantasy–one where players can’t be trusted to make good decisions, so every path is railroaded and every choice is an illusion. And when the team stops engaging, these managers see it as proof. “See? They only work when I’m watching.” Yes, because you’ve made watching feel like surveillance, not support. 

    The wild part is, I came into all those jobs wanting to contribute. I had ideas. I saw things that could be improved. I wanted to play the game well, not break it. But when your every move gets treated like a challenge to the GM’s authority, you eventually just stop rolling. Not because you don’t care, but because the consequences for trying feel too steep. 

    The worst leadership I’ve experienced didn’t look dramatic. It looked polite. Measured. Controlled. And deeply suffocating. You could ask questions, sure–but only once. And only if they were easy. The mood in the room said: Don’t make waves. It’s the difference between a campaign where the players feel powerful and one where they feel watched. Some leaders don’t know the difference. 

    What makes it worse is that these kinds of leaders often believe they’re respected. What they’re actually seeing is compliance dressed up as loyalty. It’s players nodding at the table because they’ve learned what happens if they don’t. Google’s Project Aristotle found that the most successful teams aren’t built on competence alone. They’re built on psychological safety–on people knowing they can speak up without getting wrecked by an attack of opportunity. Negative Leadership squashes that before the first session’s even over. 

    So what’s the fix? It’s not handing over the GM screen to chaos. It’s leading like someone who actually wants the party to succeed. Bernard Bass called this transformational leadership: building people up, not boxing them in. Sharing the story. Listening to the table. Trusting your team to be more than background flavor. 

    And here’s the kicker–any of us can drift into Negative Leadership if we’re not careful. All it takes is a little pressure, a little stress, and a little too much certainty. Suddenly, you’re making decisions to protect your own authority instead of supporting the people at the table. You’re no longer the GM guiding the story–you’re the final boss in someone else’s burnout narrative. 

    Leadership isn’t about being the smartest person in the room or holding the most lore. It’s about making the session better because you were there. If people feel freer, braver, and more creative when you’re gone, you’re not leading–you’re just running a game they can’t wait to finish. 

    And no one brags about surviving that campaign.

  • What My Worst D&D Session Ever Taught Me About Psychological Safety

    What My Worst D&D Session Ever Taught Me About Psychological Safety

    You can learn a lot about leadership by watching what happens when it’s done badly, especially at a D&D table.

    Years ago, I joined a campaign run by a GM who pitched it as gritty, dark fantasy. Think Game of Thrones but with dice. We all nodded eagerly. Sure, dark fantasy. Why not?

    But then things got weird. Fast.

    It wasn’t long before “gritty” turned into “gratuitous.”  The GM introduced a villain who wasn’t just evil, he was deeply, awkwardly inappropriate. Every interaction was loaded with uncomfortable innuendo, forced humor, and themes that didn’t just cross lines, but pole-vaulted over them

    The first few sessions, the table laughed nervously. It felt safer than speaking up. We thought it was just a misstep. Surely it would get better. But it didn’t. Instead, session after session, we sank deeper into discomfort. People stopped making eye contact. Jokes dried up. Roleplaying felt awkward, like navigating a social minefield. 

    And nobody said anything. 

    After one particularly uncomfortable session, a player quietly texted me, “I don’t know if I want to come back.” Neither did I.

    The problem wasn’t that the GM was trying to push boundaries.. Plenty of great stories explore dark or mature themes thoughtfully. The real issue was that he never checked in. He assumed we were fine with the tone he’d chosen because we hadn’t explicitly said otherwise. Silence, he thought, was consent. But silence was just confusion and discomfort wearing a polite mask.

    This happens in workplaces, too. Leaders set a tone, sometimes unintentionally, through the jokes they tell, the way they handle conflict, or how they respond (or don’t respond) when someone crosses a line. And employees, like players, pick up on cues fast. If speaking up feels risky, most people won’t. They’ll just quietly check out, waiting for the campaign (or the job) to end. 

    Psychological safety isn’t about protecting feelings. It’s about creating an environment where people feel safe enough to speak up when something feels wrong or off or uncomfortable. Great GMs and great leaders both understand this. They watch the table carefully. They notice body language, hesitations, awkward silences. And instead of pushing blindly forward, they pause. They ask. They adjust. 

    That campaign ended abruptly. Players drifted away until there was nothing left but a few awkward goodbyes in the group chat. And while I wish we’d said something sooner, the truth is the responsibility to create safety always lies first with the person in charge. 

    So here’s the hard-won wisdom. 

    If you’re running the table (or the team) your job isn’t just to tell the story or set the direction. It’s to make sure the people in front of you feel safe enough to tell you when the story isn’t working. 

    Otherwise, you risk losing more than a few sessions. You risk losing trust entirely. And once that’s gone, the game’s over, whether you’re ready or not.