Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 5132135" data-attributes="member: 32164">Ummm...yes and no. When the situation was risky, Kirk was usually the guy risking himself. Yes, it often comes across as a little "showboat-y," but his willingness to sacrifice himself won the admiration of those under him.I'm just suggesting that there can be a way to play the "take-charge" leader well. If you're a great tactician, self-sacrificing, and place the welfare of everyone else before yourself, it can work. Of course, that kinda character often dies young.Personally, I prefer Malcolm Reynold's approach. He's all about his crew, but also less preachy and more about being "defined by his actions." He takes more risks than anyone in his command. And if he's gotta do something vaguely suicidal, he generally gives those under his command the chance to back out first. That kind of approach works a lot better in non-military situations. And given the nature of gaming groups, it's probably usually a better approach to take with your fellow adventurers. Save "ordering people around" for NPCs, but even with them, it helps to make it clear that you're putting yourself at risk too. You don't order someone else to fight the rearguard action. Instead, you ask for volunteers and/or do it yourself.I guess playing a leader well is a lot like being a good leader. In the end, it's more about "commanding respect" rather than "demanding respect." Putting the welfare of others first usually helps that.</blockquote>

Verification