I love watching tabletop RPG live play shows. I got hooked on Critical Role early on, and have more recently been sucked into Dimension 20. I used to play a fair bit of Dungeons and Dragons when I was younger, and as I’ve gotten older, the desire to play mated with the difficulty of finding a solid group to play with has made these shows a fun compromise. Recently though, I’ve been noticing some traits of the dungeon masters for these tables, Matt Mercer and Brennan Lee Mulligan, that line up with strong traits for leaders of people, and I wanted to talk a little bit about it.

Yes And, or “Gassing up your team earnestly”

I’m currently watching Season 3 of Dimension 20 Fantasy High, and a constant through-line in Brennan’s leadership as a GM is how he is constantly supporting both the massive and the little moments that the table does. The improv maxim of “Yes And” is strong here, which shouldn’t be a surprise as Mulligan and the rest of his Dimension 20 table is full of seasoned improv comedians. That said, I think this is something that more leaders could incorporate with their approach.

Whether it’s repeating a quip from the table, or a player trying to use a mechanic in an off-label way to achieve success in the heat of the moment, Brennan is constantly looking for ways to help his team succeed. When they succeed, he’s celebrating their successes along with them. When they fail, Brennan is mournful. This empathy is essential to building trust. The best GMs don’t simply offer platitudes; their support is real, and felt by the team through their actions.

GMs are not just “The Boss”…

The role of GMs and players is often times viewed as adversarial, as the GM’s role is to play the “bad guy”, as they have to embody the enemies on the battlefield. However, a good GM and their table know that the GM’s role is to be “the environment”, which is everything that the players aren’t. That includes the friendly NPCs, nature, deities, everything. The GM is the Game Master, and any game maker ultimately wants you to beat the game. They want to be “defeated”, because if their scenario is challenging but conquerable, it means they’ve designed a good game. To translate that more broadly, this means that a leader has provided their team with tasks that are achievable, and that they have created an environment that fosters their success.

…but they are still “The Boss” when they need to be

It was tough to see Matt Mercer, who’s then-girlfriend now-partner was playing a complex spell caster in a TTRPG game being broadcast to hundreds of thousands of viewers, effectively tell them that they needed to learn their class, and that going forward he was not going to allow them to take so many things back because they were confused. I imagine this was coming partially from external pressure as the fanbase was criticizing what could be interpreted as special treatment, but I could also see a world where Matt was also feeling frustration themselves, and struggling to navigate how to provide that feedback while also wanting to make sure their partner was having a good time.

That said, Matt gave the feedback. It was necessary. Hard, but necessary. As a result, they were motivated to improve their play, and IMO, they seemed to have even more fun as they gained competence in the mechanical aspects of their character.

Even when there’s adversity on the team, having the hard conversation is important. It’s easier to have when you’ve built trust with your team. If you’ve already built a rapport where the team knows you’re with them when their personal highs and lows are felt, they will know that when you come to them with tough feedback, that it comes from the same place.

Anywho, it’s been interesting to draw parallels between admirable GMs and the leadership qualities that can be gleaned from them. I’d love to hear your thoughts as well.