Leading a party.

[Sheyd]

Hello all,
I am a long time gamer, played many different games and systems over the years most of them behind the screen. For me it's most often a 5 to 1 ratio, for ever five games I DM I get to play in one. Recently however with the growth of online tabletop gaming this ratio has changed and currently I'm playing in more games than I'm dming. (yay!) However I've hit an issue. Most of the parties I'm now in have no one else who will speak up when the DM or his NPCs speak to us. We have people playing faces, with the social skills and investigation skills but they're not speaking up or asking the right questions or sometimes any questions at all and I'm forced to do so. Normally this isn't an issue I tend to play intelligent characters who are observant and with a modicum of social skill... normally but with a number of games I've wanted to branch out, play the socially inept nerdish type, the barbarian who's smart as an ox, ect... these are NOT the type of characters to do any major interaction that's important to the flow of the adventure, and worse are not the types to build battle plans! I can do these things yes but my character doesn't have the skills or background for it. I hate breaking my suspension of disbelief just to keep the party rolling however by NOT doing so the game becomes so boring as the DM in one is forced to use his NPCs to all but guide us around by the nose and in another the party spends a half-hour just to decide to open a door and want to rest after every encounter. I've told my fellow players in these games that my characters shouldn't be the one making decisions, some cases more than once but it still falls to me almost every time.

Griping aside I guess my quandary is, do I forego my desire to play the characters I would like to play to always create characters capable of 'leading' the party or should I stick to my desire and let the games flounder in the quagmire of inaction?

 

[Hand of Evil]

Tough one, the question is simple, are you and the other players having fun? You have already talked to them and the DM, so it is all down to the fun factor. Move on if the answer is no.

 

[Rune]

If you want to train the other players to wrest the initiative from you, you should only use it to make decisions that they will regret. Like charging into a room full of enemies. Slapping the king. That kind of thing.

 

[Sheyd]

Well, the fun factor... There's always a face palm moment when the Int 8 barbarian starts opening his mouth to tell Queen Maab just how much of wanker she is. It's fun to watch the reactions but really they need to tell my barbarian to shut up! I've called a king who was trying to help us against a tyrant no better than the tyrant himself even though he's a paladin, and he's come on to a blue dragon female cause he thought she looked well 'hot' so to speak. So I'm having fun and the party groans when I open my mouth, the DM has said he should have killed me more than once (But he doesn't because he doesn't like to take time for players to re role characters and how to integrate them, blah blah blah...) but we're really not progressing any storyline here, it's more clean up after my messes.

 

[Celebrim]

This is technically more the DM's problem that it is yours, but as an artful player you can often still be in character as the dumb oaf and keep the party moving.

Ask other players in character leading questions. Remember, the brilliant question is often the same as the stupid question. You could have your dumb oaf ask the character who is supposed to be in charge to explain something to you don't understand. Whisper and nudge the 'wiser' members of the party, "But I don't understand..." and, "Why?", even when and especially when you as the player understand.

Essentially, you are playing the role Columbo plays in the detective stories as if it was literally true that you were an idiot rather than artfully pretending to be an idiot. In this case, you the player are artfully playing the idiot because your player is an idiot, but that doesn't mean that the 'child' can't reasonably see through in their simplicity what others don't.

Artfully misunderstand and meddle to advance the action. Play your character as impulsive and thoughtless and guileless, and hide your own guile as a player behind that. Continually be doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. Artfully goof up. Very vocally use bad reasoning to obtain the right conclusions. Combatively advocate for the right thing to do using bad reasoning. Do the right thing and express disappointment with the outcome because it wasn't the absolutely dumb thing you intended to happen. Play your character with the veneer of humor even as you have to be deadly serious about the outcomes.

This sort of character is actually a pretty common story trope: the wise fool, the Shakespearean fool, To Dumb to Trick, Idiot Hero, the Invincible Incompetent. Inspector Clouseau is probably the most famous character of this type. You are the guy that is always cutting the Gordian Knot because you are too stupid to think of anything better to do.

 

[Sheyd]

Excellent advice Celebrim, I appreciate it!

 

[Janx]

Well, the fun factor... There's always a face palm moment when the Int 8 barbarian starts opening his mouth to tell Queen Maab just how much of wanker she is. It's fun to watch the reactions but really they need to tell my barbarian to shut up! I've called a king who was trying to help us against a tyrant no better than the tyrant himself even though he's a paladin, and he's come on to a blue dragon female cause he thought she looked well 'hot' so to speak. So I'm having fun and the party groans when I open my mouth, the DM has said he should have killed me more than once (But he doesn't because he doesn't like to take time for players to re role characters and how to integrate them, blah blah blah...) but we're really not progressing any storyline here, it's more clean up after my messes.

In my view, that's just being antagonisticly dumb to agitate trouble. I am not a fan of that play style.

Go with Celebrim's idea. You don't have to be the guy coming up with the right plan, or the guy trying to instigate a response from NPCs. You can easily be the guy who's getting the PCs to respond "correctly" while staying in character.

 

[Celebrim]

Well, following up on jinx's post...

Well, the fun factor... There's always a face palm moment when the Int 8 barbarian starts opening his mouth to tell Queen Maab just how much of wanker she is.

The biggest problem is that the action there isn't a function of intelligence, but rather of Charisma and Wisdom. Charisma because the action are probably repulsive and at the least tactless, unless Maab really deserves to be told she is a wanker and the relationship has reached the point where tact is no longer of any use. Wisdom because, whether or not you know Maab deserves to be told how much of a wanker she is, unless the outcome of that is likely to be positive, speaking up at this time isn't exactly living life well.

It's important I think to understand that while it's not unusual for a player to dump stat all of his social/mental abilities on the same character, it's possible in D&D to be stupid but wise, or foolish but charismatic, or intelligent but foolish. Combinations of different social and mental abilities suggest different types of personalities. Unless the Barbarian had an 8 INT, an 8 WIS, and an 8 CHR, it would be really odd for the barbarian to choose to be rude and foolish at the same time. And notably, the 8 INT barbarian is no more likely to tell Maab she is a wanker than the 18 INT, 8 WIS, 8 CHR wizard. Just because a character intellectually can understand that calling Maab a wanker is likely to result in an undesirable situation, doesn't mean that they stop to think, or that they can resist the temptation of blurting out what they are thinking, or that what they actually say reflects what they intend to say. An 18 INT, high charisma character can probably find a way to tactfully disagree with Maab and try to reason with them that their current choices are unjust, self-centered, and unwise without being insulting. But an 18 Int, 8 Chr character would say, "Maab you are a wanker!", when what they mean is something like, "Pray consider, oh gracious and lovely queen, whether the course of action you are currently engaged in reflects as well upon your noble station as you would desire."

Also keep in mind that when an 18 Chr character says, "You are a wanker!", it potentially has a completely different impact than when 8 Chr character says it. No one desires the approval of someone who has 8 Chr. They are unattractive and officious, and when they express their disapproval it only furthers your dislike of them. But when someone you like and whose approval you desire says, "You are a wanker!", the first instinctive response might not be to get angry, but to instead be devastated and shamed by their disapproval. It matters not only the content of what is said, but the way in which it is said and who says it. Then again, the difference between 8 Chr and 18 Chr in the short term can be rather small. It's really only 25% bonus, so it's hard to say exactly how such a comment will be received and you should dice for it either way.

By and large, all the actions described seem more reflective of having a 4 Wisdom or a 4 Charisma than an 8 Intelligence. To begin with, it's highly exaggerated. An eight intelligence is simply not very stupid at all, and it would have fairly subtle manifestations. And it doesn't require an intelligent person to reasonably know how to behave in common social situations. You don't need even average intelligence to understand that you don't insult kings to their face in public, or that dragons aren't normally desirable sexual partners. And to the extent that you fail to understand that, it's not necessarily a failure of intelligence. It's just as likely the bespectacled 22 Int Wizard that is failing to readily grasp the fundamentals of a situation despite his ability to recite books from memory and solve complex logical problems. In both cases, it would be a function of the character's low wisdom, lack of intuition, lack of perceptiveness, and lack of inhibitions.

In any event, I tend to agree with Janx's assessment that this sort of Chaotic Stupid characterization isn't really sophisticated RPing, isn't necessarily adding much to the table, and doesn't reflect what I'd call 'high skill' efforts by a player. I'd expect any 13 year old kid to play a Chaotic Stupid barbarian without trouble. Playing an Invincible Incompetent on the other hand requires real effort, subtle understanding, and considerable practice with your RP.

If you are consistently antagonizing NPCs at my table, you do tend to make enemies and get killed, not the least of which is that typically the real motivation here is spot light stealing at the expense of the other players.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Just to say, but calling Mab names to her face in my game always had the same result: I ask you what your new character's going to be.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

You have the opposite of my most common challenge. In my longest running game, when someone asked the party who their leader was, at least half of the 8 (usually) players would respond in character "I am!" The relevant PCs were a high priest, a politically powerful mage, a cavalier, and a kender.

In your situation I'd try the simplest and least intrusive approach first. If no one else wants to initiate an exchange, then go ahead and speak first, but hand off the conversation as soon as possible: "Your majesty needs us to recover a magical artifact? Bob here is our mage, I'm sure he has some questions for you." IME once the conversation is started things usually go pretty smoothly.