Party Leader(s)?

Mark · May 3, 2002

I have found that in most cases, regardless of which character in a group is the most likely leader, the job falls to the player who is best suited to the task. Normally by default, sometimes by design, and every now and again against the grain.

In some groups there can be several players who have the ability and desire to lead the group, while at other times you can find yourself with a group where no one is able or wishes to step up to lead.

What's the ideal situation? What's the worst situation for you as a DM or Player? What tends to be the usual situation for good or ill?

Arkham · May 4, 2002

My usual situation is that no one makes a leadership capable character because no one wants to be a leader. It makes it very hard to keep the PCs motivated without a pair of large iron tracks for them to follow.

I suppose ideal would be one or more players who are willing to lead the group. If the character isn't designed to be a leader, then hopefully her character isn't 'opposed' to the idea.

Multiple leader types are just as good as one, and can make for very interesting intra-party politics.

Negative Zero · May 4, 2002

in one of my groups, the job invariably goes to the one who least wants it more often than not, the group all vote against the poor sap.

but then that's probly just an indication of hte type of guys i game with! lol

Sodalis · May 4, 2002

the ideal situation for me would be that noone leads in all situations. Every character has its strengths and weaknesses, and having one char lead in every case, even if he is malsuited is just medieval.

A rogue is good at sniffing traps and sneaking around- so in a looting adv or a dungeon crawl, he should take point and tell when he wants other players to do. Cause if you dont listen to him, you might just end up setting off a rune or something.

a wizard is learned, so in situations that require thought and logic, he shouldalways take the helm. But then again, if the player is not as smart as the char is, then you have a problem. and this is almost always the case cause players have the avg int of 12, and the char has an int of 26.... major problem.

In a religious setting, the cleric or paladin will invariably tell what he wants the party to do. In a church that dislikes outsiders, the cleric/ pal is the only thing that can gather the info- no matter what the bard's diplomacy skill.

In a forest setting, a ranger is the best suited and will tell you what he wants. he knows the tracks, the forest and the environment. If you stray, you might run into a random animal- and that is bad. A druid is good here too...

in a battle- follow the barb- there is nothing better than either providing him cover (rage is a b*tch for AC) or to heal and use him as cover...

Umbran · May 4, 2002

Interesting question...

My usual state is parties small enough that there is no actual leader. One doesn't need a leader with only 3 or 4 PCs. They can make decisions by committee easily enough.

The ideal state probably depends on the group, to be honest. Small groups, as above, probably don't need a leader. Whether a leader is neccessary as the group grows depends on teh personalities of players, characters, and the adventures themselves.

The worst situation is a player trying to make himself to be leader when nobody else wants him in that role. It can be socially awkward, and lead to bruised feelings all around.

Mark · May 4, 2002

Arkham said:
My usual situation is that no one makes a leadership capable character because no one wants to be a leader. It makes it very hard to keep the PCs motivated without a pair of large iron tracks for them to follow.

Being a DM who likes to throw fairly open campaign worlds at regular groups, this is one of the least favorites for me. Not much worse than throwing a couple of dozen choices at a group, watching them narrow it down over the next four hours to five, then each voting for a different one.

Crothian · May 4, 2002

The ideal situation, for me, is a highly co operative group. The current group I'm in is like that, they have no real leader. All of them play the part when their character is best suited for it.

The worst is when no one wants to take the role of leader. I've never had that happen for a campagn, but some sesions people don't feel like being the leader even though their character fits the role.

Irda Ranger · May 5, 2002

I find that's its usually the Players who are leaders, not their characters. The people I play with are all smart, just not leader types. I usually have to ask for a consensus, and get good insights, but it always seems up to me to say "Let's do it."

When I DM no one takes the lead and they spend half their time talking and being "sensitive' to each other's feelings. Its really annoying and takes a long time to do stuff.

So, like I said, players, not PCs.

Irda Ranger

Barendd Nobeard · May 5, 2002

In the group I play in, none of us is a real leader type.

So, occasionally we find ourselves standing around, endlessly debating what to do.

Then, my character acts. Just does something. Picks what he thinks is the wisest course of action--and lets everyone else follow.

But usually our characters just 'lead by consensus' - that works most of the time.

Janos Antero · May 5, 2002

I unfortunately usually end up leading in much the methods others suggested. I try to lead by consenus, or at least get a consensus going, but more often than not, people stall, I get frustrated and go do what I think works best, and everyone follows.

Heroic? Not really, but better that than waiting for big bad bone dragon to join you for tea eh?