Does the party need a leader?

Do party's need a leader? The party I'm in seems to act like a random bunch of characters sometimes, and it's neary got mine killed recently. Basically, we were dragged into a trap because the rogue decided not to report back and just kept going forward into the foggy night. We followed and were almost killed in the ambush.

So, do you usually have a leader in the party? Not a big boss that tells everyone what to do, but someone that at least makes sure that there is a plan, and everyone knows what to do? Or can a party survive with everyone doing their own thing and hopefully everyone stays alive?

Here's a more detailed version of the battle that went horribly wrong last session, if you're interested;

Our horses were stolen during the night by agents of the big bad guy. So, we manage to track them to the beach and there along the waters edge to a small cove. The nights dark and foggy, so we can't see very far ahead of us. We send the halfling rogue up ahead to scout out a light source in the distance, which turns out to be a lamp. So, the halfing decides not to come back and let us know what's going on, but to continue forward, wandering into the fog. Our DM runs a very "act what your character knows, not meta-knowledge" game, so we're not sure if it's from magic or whatnot. So, to keep from losing him in the fog, half of us decide to follow. The lamp turned out to be a targeting device. A huge ambush group was hiding in the fog, and a druid aimed an entangle spell at us when we moved through the light. Half our party gets stuck in the seaweed that grabs us, most of the rest are trying to pry them out. I follow after the halfing to get him out of there, and run across about 5 combatants, backed by 3 or so archers, the druid and a really tough mage. Why do I say really tough? Well let's just say our party of 8 level 4 characters then got hit with a delayed blast fireball. I get beat down after a few rounds, and only after using a magic item I nabbed off an assassin (sort of a blink spell stored in a breakable glass sphere) did I get away with my life, and managed to drag the rest out of there. We would have been pursued, but our Mage had a delayed blast fireball scroll of his own that he unleasshed and managed to drop nearly half of the opposing party. We called the watch in the morning and they went in to check the place out, it was abandoned and our horses were still inside.

But I'm tired of there not being any cohesion, no one that can decide what happens. Our DM may often run things as a "I'm telling a story" sort of railroading a bit, so some players figure no matter what they do, the DM will make sure they have fun; but I WANT to be challanged, I want there to be a chance that we don't suceed. And is it wrong that I want someone in the party to make sure we're not making stupid decisions?

I think that you are perfectly within your rights to desire a leader for the party. However, be warned that not all adventuring parties of PC's want a leader, and not all players work well in a group with a leader.

You can easily be in a party that is challenged and still have a leader. Maybe speak with a few of the other players (out-of-game) to feel out their thoughts on the subject. Really, this feels like an issue for the players to come to a resolve on, not the DM.

One group I play with online works with a party leader very well. Basically the person voted party leader has final say on party decisions, so there are some trust issues involved. Usually the party leader goes with party concensus. However if they are not getting enough imput or the party cannot decide they make the decision themselves. Has helped to keep things rolling rather than getting bogged down with indecision or debate. I recommend it, but recognize that it might not work for everyone as different groups have different dynamics and in some cases it may not even be necessary.

I'm currently involved in two D&D campaigns, and neither party has a group leader. In fact, neither party wants a group leader. Despite not having leaders, both parties function very well as a team. So I'd say no, a party dosen't need a leader.

So how do mages casting 7th level spells, Druids, and Archers see to target ranged attacks in a dark, foggy night?

Because of a target light? How on earth were they able to see that a majority of the party were in the area?

Ah well.

Well, the answer to your question, may be to discuss this with your group, and set-up certain rules about how to attack certain problems.

One possibility for similar situations is to set-up the rogue with a scroll (or wand) of sending or similar so he can communicate with the party.

If you are waiting for the scout to do his job, you agree on a time before you go and look for him. Seems like the DM wasn't too strict on using metagaming knowledge, given that half the party decided to wander off anyway.

Those players assuming the want no leaders, or coordination are actually incorrect, and using metagame knowledge. Probably because the DM lets the players survive regardless. Not that I can confirm that, it is a strong suspicion I get from reading your comments.

re

Can a combat unit survive without a competent leader? I don't think they can. I would say that you are right on in expecting someone to step up and fill the role of leader.

My personal experience leads me to believe that a party without a leader will not survive long against any tactically competent DM. I always encourage my players to take up the reins of leadership, especially if the party keeps getting pasted. Leadership is an invaluable asset to an adventuring party.

I hope you or one of the other players steps up and takes charge. Its not easy to do even in a roleplaying game with nothing on the line, but it sure helps turn a party of multifarious PC's into a well-oiled machine.

I don't think a party needs a leader. Too many times the leader is the leader so he can steal the spotlight or boss around the other players.

Of course, preparations and plans help, and there are times when the group may need to follow a particular character (when that character's area of expertise comes up, etc).

Geoff.

Do parties need leaders? I think it can swing either way. However, the games without leaders tended to drag on, and on. You'd be amazed at how much effort it takes to get six people to go to a grocery store, let alone organized enough to travel through ogre infested swamps without being amushed in the night. In that, I can say, at least for the groups I've been involved in, that a leader cuts the amount of time it takes to get something done in half, at the cost of personal strife with one and a half members of the party. I say one and a half, because there seems to be the guy with the problem (in my group, the thief) and the guy who backs him. If your leader can keep from getting personally involved in the strife, then it's probablly ok.

But I've found that parties without a leader tend towards situations like the following.
DM: You've arrived at that Ankalis, the port town. You're greeted by the smell of the ocean, and a view of the docks.
PC's: ...
DM: ...
PC1: Uh, yeah...
PC2: I guess we should go see that Rolf guy.
PC3: Probablly.
PC4: Yeah.
PC's: ...

I was thinking of starting a similar thread myself actually...

Having re-read the Dragonlance recently I thought the Tanis character interesting... especially as a reluctant party leader. That made me click to the fact that we had never seen a "party leader" in our games.

Equality: Part of it is that gamers tend to think that everyone should share the spotlight. So giving one player more "air time" would deter some of the fun of other players. One of our players seems to like being the boss... but never tried to boss around or even to ask if the group would follow his leadership. So his personal gaming style deters others from possibly being party leaders themselves.

Democracy: Unfortunately this works only sporadically. I tend to do this myself a lot.... ask for a party decision... and usually its met with... maybe, possibly... ok... fine. Only when its a dangerous/important decision do people speak out.

Tactical Considerations: Then you have the singular problem of how does a leader determine "orders" ? After all he has to give combat orders to the barbarian and rogue (which means knowing miltiary tactics)... spell (artillery?) orders to the mage (which means knowing spells)... spell requests to the cleric (divine magic this time)... and finally do this within his free action in 6 secs.

Ambushed more than Planned: Finally the fact that most groups "run into" trouble rather than go meet it. Dungeon crawling especially leads to this tendency of BAM ! Combat starts immediately. No planning or coordination time. Even when players do have a chance to plan an assault... they rarely know what their facing and terrain with much precision. DMs usually are trying to surprise players afterall.

All of these add up to confused party tactics and lack of leadership or much need of it... since leaders only do a good job when its possible.