Is D&D about power? Without a doubt.

I think power is one of the drivers of player/DM conflicts, and why they can be so destructive to the community that is formed around the gaming table. The Dungeonmaster has power which resides in several locations: their title/role as DM, their understanding of the rules, their knowledge of the narrative elements of the game, and the fact that they know whether the chest is really mimic in disguise or just a chest. Players are not powerless, however. Without the players, no game can be had. No creative solutions are offered. No unexpected uses of mundane items can derail a well-balanced encounter. No city, ruin, or NPC names are turned into lewd jokes. At the gaming table, the potential for power use (and abuse) is apparent and if we are interested in games which are fair and just, we cannot ignore the presence and power of...well, power. Unjust and unwise uses of communicative power are at the heart of Stanley Deetz’s theory which critically explores the communication within organizations. Critical theorists love thinking about power. Essentially, critical scholarship points to ways that DMs can be better with their players at the table, and nastier to them in-game. 

In corporations, a critical theorist would highlight the need for stakeholder involvement.  A stakeholder is anyone who has skin in the game, anyone who will be impacted by a decision. Stakeholders ought to have meaningful input in the decision making. It’s a little challenging to see how that might apply to a D&D session, but not if one steps into the game world, even briefly. Place into your game an oligarchy, mason’s guild, or League of Devils. Let them stand in for the “corporation” of critical theory. Consider, DMs, how such an organization might affect the lives of the citizenry of your game. Have they made life easier for the populace? How much of a dominant (or domineering) force are they in your world? 

If the oligarchy runs as Deetz claims, they probably practice in distinctly undemocratic ways, reducing the quality of their decisions, their progressive innovations, and their fairness. Corporate communication, through a critical lens, is not merely about transmitting information, but about corporate dominance and control.  Corporations might be thought akin to the DM who invites some players to speak while silencing others. Power and language are intertwined in this framework.

I think this is a tricky place to consider the role of the DM. There’s a lot of control and power connected with that role; without giving some of that control to players, however, there can be no game. The dungeonmaster may frame interactions to generate player involvement and participation in the game, but how much freedom does she/he really want to offer the players? The game has a dungeon-master, not a dungeon-manager. To the critical scholar, managerialism is a process of communication which prioritizes control to the exclusion of other concerns (e.g., fun, performance, group harmony). I am certain that I am not the first DM to learn that if you try to control your players too much, (to “put the game on rails”) you’ll invite rebellion, boredom, or player exodus. 

Taken to the extreme, though, unbound or unguided player agency can also be debilitating to the game. I have found that some players, especially newer or younger players who may not be as familiar with the typical structure of a gaming session, are less predictable with their actions. Sometimes this leads to wacky, amazing turns. Other times, it’s simply frustrating. Dungeonmasters might take a lesson in control from critical scholarship by providing players with NPCs or information that a) limits the topic(s) for discussion or b) provides a limited set of options. For example, the players might be told by a helpful barkeep that the abandoned mine has one main entrance, one ventilation shaft, and one rumored side entrance. All of which are possible points of ingress, limiting the players’ options, as well as their potential discussion about how to proceed.

While this is a helpful strategy for the dungeonmaster trying to get their players to the next stage of their adventure, it’s not democratic participation in any way that a critical theorist would recognize. In sum, to the critical eye, corporate communication (i.e., stewardship, governance, market regulation) are not inclusive, geared toward creating collaborative solutions or meant to allow stakeholders to seek mutual interest. 

Power is present in all our relationships; this is no less true at our gaming tables.  As players and DMs, we should be aware of its presence first. Only then can we consider how our use of power affects the other people around the table. It may be that our relationship to power is tied up in seemingly (but not truly) neutral facts as well as taken-for-granted power roles and social positions. In the real world, power systems are entrenched in economic realities. It might make for an excellent campaign goal for players to try to subvert and undermine those realities. Managers are unlikely to give up their power willingly. But if a DM does give up some control, it could have significantly positive consequences for their players. In game, turning the oligarchy or mason’s guild into a democracy would certainly make critical theorists say, “Well done, heroes.”  In sum, democracy and collaboration in gaming groups and corporations are good things. When possible, do those. When impossible, cast fireball.