Party Leader(s)?

[The Furious Puffin]

Generally we bicker until we can work out who has the best idea/plan for the current situation. Then we all listen to his plan, and obey to the best of our ability. It matters little who has the relevant skills, as he who can pick locks can still pick 'em at the behest of the cleric

Usually.

Sometimes we bicker, decided on 3 or more different plans and attempt to excute them all at once

Now thats fun!

 

[Limper]

Mark,

You mean to tell me you have Leaders in your games. Wow..... In twenty three years of playing I've seen it but once and it FAILED.

The ineffectual autonomous collective is what I've the most experience with. In the past 5 campaigns, we've had one party which could work together.

That would be my experience with Party Leaders.

 

[Cloudgatherer]

I generally find the party I DM doesn't follow a party leader. They tend to discuss a course of action for hours if they are forced with two equally appealing/dangerous options.

I think having a party leader might make the decision making process a bit faster, but more often than not, my party tends not to follow a leader.

 

[Ulrick]

In the first edition campaign I'm in, it seems that leadership falls on the shoulders of myself, who plays an elven fighter/wizard/thief and a guy who plays a Cavalier.

Reason: There are almost 10 players. 9 usually show up. And the two of us simply want to "get on with it" rather than spend an afternoon making lame jokes and teasing the player whose fighter gets whooped by giant rats and traps.

You'd kinda have to be there to understand.

I usually take point when we explore a dungeon, using my thieving abilities to move silently and hide in shadows. I do this for two reasons:

1. Since I'm a thief, I hope to gather some loot before the others see it.
2. To keep the game moving at least for me.

I wanted to play a character that lacked leadership, somewhere in between being a follower and loner. But not lead. However, because I want the game to get moving, I find myself often saying "Let's get on with it!"

Ulrick

 

[Howling Coyote]

The leadership in my group almost always falls to the same player. No matter what character he makes, and how much he says that he's not going to be the leader, he eventually ends up leading. That's because he's one of the few who actually analyses the problems and can come to a solution (usually not the correct one). What’s more important he acts and always seems to know what he's doing (usually he doesn't), and the rest just follow. The funny part is that everyone has learned a long time a go that his way is usually the way that gets everyone killed (actually his characters have the highest death rate in the group), but still they follow. I guess he's just a natural leader, a darn impulsive one, but still a natural leader.

 

[Quickbeam]

Hey Mark, how's life in the Windy City? Sorry about your Blackhawks, but they played over their heads most of the year. Anyway, enough chit chat -- on with your topic!

Our group has done a wonderful job of evolving over the past 18 months (seriously) and the leadership dynamic has improved dramatically in that time. In the past, my character (when I wasn't DM) was invariably the party leader 85-90% of the time regardless of his/her class, skills, alignment or personality traits. During campaigns where I DM'ed, the group sorta functioned on the "who's got the best idea now?" premise. Never have our groups relied habitually on the paladin or sorcerer or PC with the highest Charisma, but rather on the player with the strongest convictions and firmest tone of voice. Or maybe it was just the person most willing to chime in .

However, we've added two new players to our group (one very experienced, one fairly new to D&D), and the rest of us have focused more energy on developing solid characters whose personalities we understand...and are therefore more capable of roleplaying effectively on a consistent basis. The overall group (players not PC's) dynamic has improved and adjusted, and now each player -- even the most quiet person at the table -- steps to the fore when the situation is right. I think we do a better job of seeking our particular niche and filling it admirably. Thus, everyone's character has led the current party in one capacity or another during the current campaign. IMO, that's about as ideal as it gets.

 

[Mark]

Too bad, so sad. Blackhawks haven't been very fun to watch for quite some time.

I'm not sure how other people approach it from a DM perspective, but from what I've gathered from the responses it seems to be that DMs allow water to seek its own level, so to speak. Sometimes a player emerges, sometimes it's a trade off from situation to situation (based on character skills), other times still it's one player who steps up because no one else will do it.

When acting as DM and no one seemed ready to try to lead, I've tried a few different methods of bringing out the leader in whoever might seem the best person for the job. When interacting with NPCs, it seems natural to me that they would favor one type of character or one person (based on other factors like charisma) with which to converse directly. In most social situations where a group of people are being addressed by a single individual (and it isn't a formal meeting) one person is usually singled out as the focus of most of the conversation.

For instance...

The group is traveling along a road and, let's just say that, the paladin is up front in all of his regalia. Wouldn't a passer-by tend to focus on the paladin as opposed to the "stragglers in his retinue"? Might not anyone else who intrudes on the conversation warrant a sideways glance, and the paladin continue to be the focus in some such situations? Conversely, if one particular character has been the one buying rounds at the inn all night and a merchant with a problem seeking adventurers approaches the group, isn't that merchant apt to go to the "money-man"? There might be other times where someone with a locally favored holy symbol attracts the focus as "the guy who surely must be in charge" based on his affiliations.

Just some more food for thought...

 

[Ayrk]

We had a party once (in Rolemaster) where our leader got his arm cut off. We put it back on, of course.

Later in the campaign I was getting a little frustrated with the party's lack of direction so I started giving orders.

One of the players turned to me and said:
"Who cut your arm off and made you party leader?"

 

[King_Stannis]

i've found, mark, that what you say is correct. usually it is the player that defaults into the leadership role. thankfully, in my recent campaign i sensed that it was going this direction - even though the leader's character would have in no way been in charge of this current party. after a pow-wow, he agreed and actually wanted to give the reigns of power to another player. he was pretty blunt about it, he approached the other players's character and said "look, why am i leading this thing? it should be you."

if only one player is the leader all of the time, i think your campaigns can definitely fall into a rut.

 

[Velenne]

I find that I tend to be one of the players you're all speaking of that falls into the role of leader, despite whatever character I may be playing at the time. Oddly, my characters' personalities begin to rub off on the group and sway the campaign dynamic. This can be a positive or a negative thing depending, of course, on the character.

It's very frustrating not to have someone else who can take up the role of leader. It's not that I *have* to be the one in charge, it's just that no one else is ever willing to step up. Curiously, I also see the trend of the party relying on "the autonomous collective" when I DM. The disturbing part is that of all the parties in all the campaigns I've played, this was probably the most closely knit group. I guess I'm not such a good leader after all. :/