Do your PCs have a designated leader?

[Wednesday Boy]

Do your PCs have a designated leader? I don't mean leader in the 4E sense, I mean does the group declare a certain character to be the leader of the party ala Hannibal Smith, Cyclops, or Tanis Half-Elven? In my group characters emerge as leaders of the group because their players are more outspoken or engaged in directing the campaign. But even then those characters don't "outrank" the other characters. I love in stories when the ensemble cast has particular niches or roles that they fill, so the idea of nominating a leader works for me. But we've never done it. I think a campaign could be especially interesting if the character of one of our less outspoken or engaged players in our group was nominated to be the leader. (Provided they weren't entirely adverse to the idea.)

If you have tried this, do you think it worked well? Do you have any tips for making it work better? Have you pushed anyone into the leadership role that wouldn't vie for it on their own? How did that work out?

(Thanks for the insight!)

 

[Cephor]

I'm about to try something like this out, encouraging each player to taje a designated role in the group. Sometimes that role is more IC focused and others are more OoC focused, like keeping a particular type of page on our Obsidian Portal updated. It'll add ownership to each person participating and helps me focus on running the game itself.

 

[edemaitre]

Back when I ran and played earlier editions of D&D, each party had a "caller" who was designated to both speak for the adventuring party to Non-Player Characters and to call out tactics during combat.

More recently, party functions depend on each Player Character's temperament, and yes, the ability of individual gamers. Species/race, occupational class, and combat expertise were less important. Sometimes the Bard would take the lead in court situations, the Cleric when visiting various temples or (un)holy sites, and the Wizard at academic institutions. Martial types naturally called the shots on the battlefield, but when scouting a dungeon or wilderness, a lot would depend on who'd be on point and who understood the opposition.

Interestingly, I've had parties led by scraggly prophets, kvetching mages, and flashy swashbucklers just as often as by high-minded Paladins or methodical Rangers. A lot depends on the dynamics of the personalities at the table and how well-developed each character is. I'd prefer that rules expertise or talkativeness be just a few of several contributing factors to party leadership.

In seafaring and spacegoing campaigns, the ship's captain (not necessarily the helmsman, pilot, or owner) is in charge, but following privateer codes, each captain must consult his crew before any major decisions. As with ships, I encourage each party to come up with a name for itself and to develop its own set of overall goals in a sandbox-style setting. Ideally, each party will develop its own collective personality just as each character might surprise both players and G.M.

 

[Umbran]

In some campaigns yes, in others, no.

I run a Classic Deadlands game. There's no designated leader character there. There just seems to be no need for one, so they don't have one.

The Star Wars game I play in is a different matter. This group does have a leader (I play him) - but he wasn't "nominated". There was no vote taken, among the characters or among the players and instead it arose organically - basically, I was the guy who created plans and put them forward as possible courses of action, and it developed from there.

 

[gideonpepys]

Running a Zeitgeist 4E campaign right now and the default assumption of the adventure path is that your players form a unit of the RHC (kind of like a cross between the FBI and the Avengers). So this assumes a unit leader and when we generated the group, I suggested that one of the more level-headed players (who is possibly the least outspoken) took the role. It's worked perfectly. The group often defer to him, giving his thoughtful opinions more airtime than they might otherwise have received. What helps is that he is also a tactical warlord, dishing out commands in combat (and the rest of the party often compete to receive his bonus attacks).

But I can see how it might work very badly and create tension if the wrong player was chosen.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

In some campaigns yes, in others, no.

I run a Classic Deadlands game. There's no designated leader character there. There just seems to be no need for one, so they don't have one.

The Star Wars game I play in is a different matter. This group does have a leader (I play him) - but he wasn't "nominated". There was no vote taken, among the characters or among the players and instead it arose organically - basically, I was the guy who created plans and put them forward as possible courses of action, and it developed from there.

This has been more or less my experience, as well. In some campaigns, a leader will naturally emerge, as decisions get deferred to certain people, sometimes by way of their skill set or strength of personality.

I have had a couple of campaigns where a leader was deliberately determined.

In one game, the characters were a king and his advisory staff. The character roles were determined out of game. This worked out very well for our group, but I could see how, in some groups, it might not work out as well. As situations arose, each of the advisory characters would put forward a possible course of action or perspective, and then the king's player would make a decision, and we would all abide by it. We got to engage in some good-natured intraparty conflict, but at the same time, present a unified front to the in-game world.

In another, a Spelljammer campaign that I ran, the party started out as the crew of a spelljamming vessel, and very quickly inherited ownership of that vessel. At my suggestion, the characters decided who among them would be the captain of the vessel (as well as designating a few other positions; such as a purser/quartermaster to keep track of funds and supplies, a navigator to plot the ship's course, and so on). In many cases, the characters still argued about what course to take at any given time (and in one memorable instance, the navigator subverted all discussion and took the ship where he wanted to go, the rest of the party be damned) but generally acted in a fairly unified manner.

And finally, I played in a campaign that was based in a military organization, so there ostensibly was a rank structure to follow. However, the characters came from different military organizations within the same nation's military (i.e. we had Intelligence guys, Army guys, and Air Force guys as a part of the same task force) sometimes receiving separate and competing sets of orders. The end result was mass chaos, which was great fun for our group, but may not work for some.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

In one game, the characters were a king and his advisory staff. The character roles were determined out of game.

I wish we had put similar thought into our current game. One of our players is the long lost heir to the throne who wants to depose the evil queen and take his throne back. But he's one of our more reserved and casual players who rarely takes the spotlight. So while he character seems like the ideal choice for our leader, the character rarely takes the lead. I think it would have served the narrative better if we put him in more of a leadership role because it makes more sense and he's quite capable of leading (even if it isn't his natural inclination).

 

[BriarMonkey]

I can't think of a single one of my groups where a leader was elected/appointed. As has been mentioned already, that position tends to get filled organically through play. What generally tends to happen is that the "leader" is really just the voice of the group in certain scenarios - with other players taking the lead in differing scenarios (for instance in heavy combat vs. in dealings with nobility vs. dealing with the wizards guild).

 

[Jhaelen]

In my group characters emerge as leaders of the group because their players are more outspoken or engaged in directing the campaign. But even then those characters don't "outrank" the other characters.

That's how it usually works in my games and campaigns, too.
I had one campaign where every pc was a member of the realm's guard and it was the only campaign where every pc also had a rank that theoretically made one of them the leader. In actuality the leader by rank used to ask everyone's opinion and then decide what either the majority of the de-facto leader suggested.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Charisma has to count for something. That is the leader in my games, characters will naturally defer to them and their plans. If it is a bad one, time for a roll off!

Now, as I use "adventure guilds" a leader can be elected by the party but that is a contract amongst the group.

Charisma (Cha)
Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness. This ability represents actual strength of personality, not merely how one is perceived by others in a social setting. Charisma is most important for paladins, sorcerers, and bards. It is also important for clerics, since it affects their ability to turn undead. Every creature has a Charisma score.

You apply your character’s Charisma modifier to:

Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Gather Information, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Perform, and Use Magic Device checks. These are the skills that have Charisma as their key ability.
Checks that represent attempts to influence others.
Turning checks for clerics and paladins attempting to turn zombies, vampires, and other undead.
Sorcerers and bards get bonus spells based on their Charisma scores. The minimum Charisma score needed to cast a sorcerer or bard spell is 10 + the spell’s level.

Any creature capable of telling the difference between itself and things that are not itself has at least 1 point of Charisma. Anything with no Charisma score is an object, not a creature. Anything without a Charisma score also has no Wisdom score.