How are party leaders chosen?

[vicky_molokh]

Greetings, all!

I've noticed that picking who will be the party leader is sometimes problematic. Notably, in the game I'm running, the party was not exactly happy with the leader they agreed to take for some while . . . but when he left, they couldn't decide whom to put in the hot seat instead, so now they're more-or-less ruled by committee formed out of 2 (out of 4) PCs. Likewise, I'm in the middle of preparing to participate in another campaign, and there is great unclearness regarding who will get the burden of authority (which includes needing to buy the right traits, but that's a different matter).

I've been the nominal party leader in a Transhuman Space campaign for 1½ years (and counting, but unlikely to reach a full 2 years). I'm not sure how good a job I did / am doing, but anyone else seems less suited; but I also feel like I want to avoid the top of the hierarchy this time, because I'm tired of being regularly/constantly surprised by people for whom I'm responsible and trying to deal with the changes of plans that ensue. That also seems to be the gist of the rant by a former leader in the campaign I'm GMing.

There's also the issue of whether or not being only recently acquainted with other players is a factor. One player openly said that she's not exactly comfortable leading a party which consists of two people she barely knows and one person who used to GM a (different) campaign she plays in.

How is it done in your campaigns? What are the pitfalls and strategies, do's and don't's?
Thanks in advance!

[Mailanka]

I've never had a "party leader." I'm not even familiar with the concept. Some D&D games I've played in had a party face, and I've played in some games with an in-character hierarchy, but other than that, I have no idea what a "party leader" would even do.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

I've never had a "party leader." I'm not even familiar with the concept. Some D&D games I've played in had a party face, and I've played in some games with an in-character hierarchy, but other than that, I have no idea what a "party leader" would even do.

Well, here are some of the things for leaders to do (the examples are biased towards GURPS, which wasn't intended when I started the thread, but other things are system-agnostic):

• Making split-second decision when organising a democratic committee is not an option and/or when a decision lies on an intersection of two+ specialisations (and the specialists have incompatible opinions).
• Be the one rolling tactics/strategy when handling a squad or more in combat.
• The one who gets to roll Leadership to distribute complimentary skill bonuses to the party members.
• Break up deadlocks in decisions in case of a democratic-ish party.
• Carry the burden of unpopular decisions, such as who gets to board the lifeboat with fewer places than there are party members when it's not possible to Take A Third Option.
• Get to handle 'Who is in charge here?' / 'Take me to your leader!' situations.
• Make decisions during negotiations (because a negotiator should never be the leader and vice-versa!).

[Turhan's Bey Company]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Well, here are some of the things for leaders to do

Those seem useful. Still never had a designated leader outside of campaigns where a commander was specifically called for (for example, characters are members of the same military organization), and even then leaders tended to be NPCs who delegated heavily. I tend to play with people who are happy to cooperate but resistant to being commanded.

[Fred Brackin]

In my experience there are two answers. The first is "consensus" which might mean consensus about who si the party leader or just there is no leader and plans are made by general consensus on an ad hoc basis.

The second basis is based on _player_ group internal politics where a naturally dominant player leads or at least herds the cats. Lack of anyone who wants to do that can lead to consensus groups where the cats mostly go unherded.

I sometimes herd the cats but I tend to do it from a position of technical expert or adult supervisor/fixer of messes without assuming any leadership on matters of policy.

As examples of that, in my first game of my modern era we had a significant pre-game period of character development. Even without knowing anything about what the others were building I tried and basically succeeded in making the character who was oldest and most knowledgeable about all matters technical. I also had a lot of versatility so I ended up with a lot of influence over defining any problems and what our possible solutions were. In other words, I was the technical expert.

In another game I was the cleric and not really the party leader in any sense but after the others were done playing with the latest artifact we had found I was the one who took a stick and nudged it into a leather bag without touching it myself. Then I started memorizing the Remove Curse Spell for the next day. Thus I was frequently the only one not purple or feebleminded and ended up as default decision-maker.

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Well, here are some of the things for leaders to do (the examples are biased towards GURPS, which wasn't intended when I started the thread, but other things are system-agnostic):

• Making split-second decision when organising a democratic committee is not an option and/or when a decision lies on an intersection of two+ specialisations (and the specialists have incompatible opinions).
• Be the one rolling tactics/strategy when handling a squad or more in combat.
• The one who gets to roll Leadership to distribute complimentary skill bonuses to the party members.
• Break up deadlocks in decisions in case of a democratic-ish party.
• Carry the burden of unpopular decisions, such as who gets to board the lifeboat with fewer places than there are party members when it's not possible to Take A Third Option.
• Get to handle 'Who is in charge here?' / 'Take me to your leader!' situations.
• Make decisions during negotiations (because a negotiator should never be the leader and vice-versa!).

Some of these interest me. I'm not clear if this is an in-character or out-of-character option. I've heard of some D&D groups where the players elect a "party spokesperson," sort of the guy who makes all the hard OOC decisions and represents the party to the GM, but that always struck me as a result of the rather antagonistic set-up of some D&D groups. Some of this sounds the same, but much of it sounds like a leader of the characters, rather than a leader of the players. Is that so?

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

Some of these interest me. I'm not clear if this is an in-character or out-of-character option. I've heard of some D&D groups where the players elect a "party spokesperson," sort of the guy who makes all the hard OOC decisions and represents the party to the GM, but that always struck me as a result of the rather antagonistic set-up of some D&D groups. Some of this sounds the same, but much of it sounds like a leader of the characters, rather than a leader of the players. Is that so?

That's how I always understand it. When I run a campaign about a team of agents of some sort, there's characteristically a player whose character takes the command role in critical situations. But the players may very well debate what that character could best do.

Bill Stoddard

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

In my experience there are two answers.

I would add the 'chaos' theory, where the party doesn't really coordinate at all. Often that is only part time.

[Verjigorm]

In our Iron Kingdoms rpg games, "Party Leader" has generally been determined by in character stats: who has the highest command, or who is a Noble, or who is a memebr of Cygnar's military. However, we have a very informal "triumvirate" way of actually running the party.

In combat situations, I'm generally in charge. This isn't something we've all explicitly stated, it's just that I tend to have good plans and schemes for tactics, and the other guys know this. So they listen to me.

Outside of combat, Me, Nathan and Loud Steven are the decision makers. Unless I or Nathan's running the game, then Keaton is our third member. We share our opinions, we debate possible outcomes, then we decide on the outcoem we like. Very little autocratic "you HAVE TO DO WHAT I SAY!".

But.. now, we're starting a campaign where one of our buddies is the "party leader". And we're all a bit worried, cuz said buddy tends to be controlling and doesn't like relinquishing authority.

[RyanW]

Most of the time, my parties' leadership has followed the pirate model: Rule by general consensus until the fighting starts, then follow the lead of the guy who most seems to know what he's doing. I've also seen combat and non-combat leadership split along lines similar to captain and quartermaster.