Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Scribble" data-source="post: 3948421" data-attributes="member: 23977">Sure, the game has a few things that are defined slightly different then they would be in a non game situation. All games, I would say, to a degree have such things. Even the definition you posted has different designations when talking about different functions. The leader in music is not the same as the leader in a corporate entity. The leader in a game is not the same as either of them. Designating it as a &quot;coordinator, or supporter,&quot; in my eyes would confuse the matter.The importance here is that the rules, like it or not, are about tactics. (This doesn't mean that&nbsp; roleplaying or storytelling are unimportant. It simply means that tactics are what most require a rules set.)Sure, maybe at first read you see it as &quot;boss.&quot; but the sidebar is there to discourage that, and get you thinking again in tactical terms.In tactical game terms the leader is the entity that forces another's hand. Plain and simple. It's not a passive thing either. It's very active. Your actions cause other game elements to happen. It's not a demeaning thing. It's that rather then helping the fighter hit with a bonus, you are directly effecting the fighters choice. If I have the buff bonus I can hit, therefore I will attack. If I don't have the buff, I will not attack. If the cleric gets hit this round, he will be unable to heal the mage who will most likely die. Therefore I will do anything I can to protect the cleric, rather then take another action.You are not supporting another character. You are directly effecting what choices that character can/will make.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Scribble, post: 3948421, member: 23977"] Sure, the game has a few things that are defined slightly different then they would be in a non game situation. All games, I would say, to a degree have such things. Even the definition you posted has different designations when talking about different functions. The leader in music is not the same as the leader in a corporate entity. The leader in a game is not the same as either of them. Designating it as a "coordinator, or supporter," in my eyes would confuse the matter. The importance here is that the rules, like it or not, are about tactics. (This doesn't mean that roleplaying or storytelling are unimportant. It simply means that tactics are what most require a rules set.) Sure, maybe at first read you see it as "boss." but the sidebar is there to discourage that, and get you thinking again in tactical terms. In tactical game terms the leader is the entity that forces another's hand. Plain and simple. It's not a passive thing either. It's very active. Your actions cause other game elements to happen. It's not a demeaning thing. It's that rather then helping the fighter hit with a bonus, you are directly effecting the fighters choice. If I have the buff bonus I can hit, therefore I will attack. If I don't have the buff, I will not attack. If the cleric gets hit this round, he will be unable to heal the mage who will most likely die. Therefore I will do anything I can to protect the cleric, rather then take another action. You are not supporting another character. You are directly effecting what choices that character can/will make. [/QUOTE]

Verification