Leaders
- Thread starter Quasqueton
- Start date
Rel
Liquid Awesome
One thing that I've observed is that our group functions much more smoothly since the players have embraced their roles as players rather than being muddled about the character they're supposed to be playing. We've all read Robin's Laws of Good Gamemasteing and each of us have an understanding of the sorts of players we are and what drives us.
For too long we were struggling with situations where the Butt Kicker in our group decided to play a scholarly type "for a change of pace". But his scholarly type immediately wanted to learn martial arts so he could kick butt and was frustrated when he wasn't much of a force to be reckoned with in combat. Likewise we'd have the Casual Gamer opt to make a character who was either an outright leader type or the party diplomat. Only problem was that this player detested having everybody look to him for direction and didn't like to be in the spotlight.
It was chaos at times and frequently interfered with us having as much fun as we wanted to be having.
I'm absolutely not against "branching out" into new and unusual roles for a player. But now I always ask them a question that should be obvious but wasn't for a very long time: "Are you going to have fun playing this character?"
This solves a lot of the leadership question for our group. There are about three or four players in our group (including myself) that have any capacity at all for being the party leader. Sometimes we play a PC who fits easily into that role (right now my friend Speaks With Stone is playing a Gnome Sorcerer who is the mouthpiece of the group and could nominally be called the leader because EVERYBODY else has a crap Charisma) and sometimes not. But it is still these three players who drive the game and make most of the decisions.
And I note that I say "three" rather than "three or four" because one of us is ALWAYS the GM. I'll bet that there are very few players who are "non-leader types" who also GM.
For too long we were struggling with situations where the Butt Kicker in our group decided to play a scholarly type "for a change of pace". But his scholarly type immediately wanted to learn martial arts so he could kick butt and was frustrated when he wasn't much of a force to be reckoned with in combat. Likewise we'd have the Casual Gamer opt to make a character who was either an outright leader type or the party diplomat. Only problem was that this player detested having everybody look to him for direction and didn't like to be in the spotlight.
It was chaos at times and frequently interfered with us having as much fun as we wanted to be having.
I'm absolutely not against "branching out" into new and unusual roles for a player. But now I always ask them a question that should be obvious but wasn't for a very long time: "Are you going to have fun playing this character?"
This solves a lot of the leadership question for our group. There are about three or four players in our group (including myself) that have any capacity at all for being the party leader. Sometimes we play a PC who fits easily into that role (right now my friend Speaks With Stone is playing a Gnome Sorcerer who is the mouthpiece of the group and could nominally be called the leader because EVERYBODY else has a crap Charisma) and sometimes not. But it is still these three players who drive the game and make most of the decisions.
And I note that I say "three" rather than "three or four" because one of us is ALWAYS the GM. I'll bet that there are very few players who are "non-leader types" who also GM.
The game I’m playing in started off with my character being the strong silent type, just some barbarian muscle with a desire to get the job done. The bard in the group, played by Pielorinho was definitely the face of the group and took over in most parley situations.
Outside of diplomacy, however, the group always seemed to be gridlocked. Being that I usually just sat around and waited until I could chop something down with my axe, I would get really impatient with all the waiting, and in character, this made perfect sense as a build up to the barbarian’s rage. More than once, I left the discussion of tactics while deliberation was still going on, and attacked.
The DM ran with that, giving us interjections on what the NPCs were doing while we discussed, trying to push us into action before the opportunities were lost. Consequently, I did a lot of jumping off high roofs and cliffs, and charging into battle against insurmountable odds, hoping my party was behind me.
After a several century hiatus, being petrified by a magic volcano, the barbarian was awakened, and found that the bard was gone, as was most of the party, and had to pick up new with only a two allies from previous battles. Pielorinho joined us with a foul-mouthed, uncharismatic, dwarven druid from another continent. Meanwhile, the tales of our previous party’s heroics have become the stuff of legends, and all I have to do is declare my name to warrant murmurs of disbelief amidst looks of shock and awe.
So, whether I like it or not, I’m the spokesman of the group amongst those we’re trying to save. It’s a good thing that having my wizard mother magic jarred in my iron bracers has given me a boost in intelligence and the ability to read, or we might have been in trouble.
(see flying camel brigade for more info on the campaign)
Outside of diplomacy, however, the group always seemed to be gridlocked. Being that I usually just sat around and waited until I could chop something down with my axe, I would get really impatient with all the waiting, and in character, this made perfect sense as a build up to the barbarian’s rage. More than once, I left the discussion of tactics while deliberation was still going on, and attacked.
The DM ran with that, giving us interjections on what the NPCs were doing while we discussed, trying to push us into action before the opportunities were lost. Consequently, I did a lot of jumping off high roofs and cliffs, and charging into battle against insurmountable odds, hoping my party was behind me.
After a several century hiatus, being petrified by a magic volcano, the barbarian was awakened, and found that the bard was gone, as was most of the party, and had to pick up new with only a two allies from previous battles. Pielorinho joined us with a foul-mouthed, uncharismatic, dwarven druid from another continent. Meanwhile, the tales of our previous party’s heroics have become the stuff of legends, and all I have to do is declare my name to warrant murmurs of disbelief amidst looks of shock and awe.
So, whether I like it or not, I’m the spokesman of the group amongst those we’re trying to save. It’s a good thing that having my wizard mother magic jarred in my iron bracers has given me a boost in intelligence and the ability to read, or we might have been in trouble.
(see flying camel brigade for more info on the campaign)
Chimera
First Post
Quasqueton said:
I would not play with a group that insisted that an NPC lead them. This is a passive-aggressive way of saying that they want the GM to lead them and make decisions for them.
The next logical response is to blame the GM for making poor decisions if the GM decides that the leader is not infallible and/or doesn't have the NPC act on meta-knowledge.
Quasqueton said:
I'd give up on the group as a whole and any idea that these people were my "friends".
Quasqueton said:
My response: (looking at GM) "You ask me to play a Paladin and fill a leadership role in the group, then you let someone play a Blackguard? Thanks so much, F%$# You and Goodbye"
Then I'd pack up my stuff, walk out the door and never return.
genshou
First Post
My only currenty running campaign is my Story Hour, which is a single-player game. There are two semi-permanent party members as well as a lower-level fighter NPC who is a retainer of the PC's family (he's of a noble house in Cormyr 
). So yes, the party has a definite leader in the form of the sole PC. Given the fact that the two semi-permanent NPCs are both Chaotic Neutral and he is a paladin, this does occasionally lead to conflicts, but never of the "roll for initiative" variety.
). So yes, the party has a definite leader in the form of the sole PC. Given the fact that the two semi-permanent NPCs are both Chaotic Neutral and he is a paladin, this does occasionally lead to conflicts, but never of the "roll for initiative" variety.
sniffles
First Post
Here's the question this thread is making me think about: should party leader be chosen based on what character is best suited to the role, or what player is best to take that role?
Rel's comments really point this up for me. I like trying something different, as do all my fellow players. But you do need to keep in mind if you will enjoy playing that character type. Additionally, if you choose a character who is well suited to a leadership role, be sure that you as a player are willing to take on that role.
For instance, I'm running a bard with a very high Charisma in one campaign, but I suck at leadership, as I said previously. Luckily for me, another player who is much better at leading has also chosen to play a bard/marshal and ended up with an even higher Charisma, so I can run my PC as a support character and let him be the "face" of the party. If I'd ended up being the most charismatic, though, I might have reconsidered my character and chosen something more suited to my personality and play style.
For indecisive groups, sometimes I think the GM needs to step in and just say "What are you doing? You have X amount of time to decide or I'm going to move on".
Rel's comments really point this up for me. I like trying something different, as do all my fellow players. But you do need to keep in mind if you will enjoy playing that character type. Additionally, if you choose a character who is well suited to a leadership role, be sure that you as a player are willing to take on that role.
For instance, I'm running a bard with a very high Charisma in one campaign, but I suck at leadership, as I said previously. Luckily for me, another player who is much better at leading has also chosen to play a bard/marshal and ended up with an even higher Charisma, so I can run my PC as a support character and let him be the "face" of the party. If I'd ended up being the most charismatic, though, I might have reconsidered my character and chosen something more suited to my personality and play style.
For indecisive groups, sometimes I think the GM needs to step in and just say "What are you doing? You have X amount of time to decide or I'm going to move on".
Philip
Explorer
Our party leader is always based on the player. If I don't DM my characters are party leaders 99% of the time, regardless of Charisma, class etc.
Tried not to be a leader many times, but that's usually frustrating for everybody involved. Lots of questioning looks in my direction while other's try to decide on a course of action, lots of withheld comments and remarks by me.
I've DM'ed for truly leaderless parties as well. In such a case you as DM can assume the leadership role or you will be in for a really slow and indecisive game or a party splitting up and going to do their own thing.
But you don't only have party leaders, you have party mediators as well, party tension-breakers, party rebels, party lone-wolves, party followers etc. And I find their roles almost always tied someone's personality, regardless of the specifics of the character.
Tried not to be a leader many times, but that's usually frustrating for everybody involved. Lots of questioning looks in my direction while other's try to decide on a course of action, lots of withheld comments and remarks by me.
I've DM'ed for truly leaderless parties as well. In such a case you as DM can assume the leadership role or you will be in for a really slow and indecisive game or a party splitting up and going to do their own thing.
But you don't only have party leaders, you have party mediators as well, party tension-breakers, party rebels, party lone-wolves, party followers etc. And I find their roles almost always tied someone's personality, regardless of the specifics of the character.
Kahuna Burger
First Post
Agback said:
I can only agree with this in certain situations. In micro management things - watch schedules, marching order, tactics - sure. But if you are talking about the big decisions of where the group is going or what adventure hook they are following, thats not a leader, its a boss. And I do not role play to follow a boss's orders.
In a party of equals working together a good leader does often seek to build consensus in goals. In a party of equals the leader is working for the group to make it work better, and the guy just saying everyone follow me is "that bossy jerk who walked off on his own, too bad cause he was good at managing travel plans, but he doesn't pay us..."
Unless your group is specificly and consensually constructed with one PC employing all the others you should be going more "staff sargent" or "manager" when thinking of a leadership role and less "general" or "boss". MHO.
Every group I have GMed has had a different leadership/decision-making process. One thing that often happens is that depending on the situation, different players come to the fore as leaders. This distinction is sharpest when dealing with political versus military situations.
Sometimes groups have players with domineering personalities; sometimes these personalities come to the fore as leaders; other times, these people are marginalized and end up on their own plot line, only intermittently associated with the party's main goals.
Attendance, I also find, often affects the leadership dynamic. Sometimes a particularly dominant player is away and things change quite a bit. Sometimes, a party is characterized by a rivalry between two leader figures and when one is away, the other seizes control. Or, conversely, lacking someone to fight with, fades into the background. Sometimes, the usual suspects are away and the remaining players must struggle to make decisions without these strong personalities in play.
One game I ran, a particular player came to the fore as party leader because he was the only one willing to stand up against a really flaky and annoying player.
I have never encountered a party that formally selects a leader. And if they did, I doubt it would stick, unless the person would be in charge anyway.
Sometimes groups have players with domineering personalities; sometimes these personalities come to the fore as leaders; other times, these people are marginalized and end up on their own plot line, only intermittently associated with the party's main goals.
Attendance, I also find, often affects the leadership dynamic. Sometimes a particularly dominant player is away and things change quite a bit. Sometimes, a party is characterized by a rivalry between two leader figures and when one is away, the other seizes control. Or, conversely, lacking someone to fight with, fades into the background. Sometimes, the usual suspects are away and the remaining players must struggle to make decisions without these strong personalities in play.
One game I ran, a particular player came to the fore as party leader because he was the only one willing to stand up against a really flaky and annoying player.
I have never encountered a party that formally selects a leader. And if they did, I doubt it would stick, unless the person would be in charge anyway.
Similar Threads
