How are party leaders chosen?

[arnej]

I remember an old Dragonlance campaign, where unfortunately a relatively inexperienced player got saddled with the Tanis character. In the books, Tanis is the leader, so she gallantly stepped up and tried to lead.

Well, that herd of cats did not take that well.

In one of the games I'm currently in, I build a character, a fighter/rogue, with all the background and skill to be a good one of those. Fortunately, they also make for a good leader, so when he formed the group into a "Free Company" everyone else followed along. He's been careful to delegate like crazy, so the better fighter is in charge during combats (I deliberately eschew the Tactics skill for my char to bolster the choice of the fighter as combat leader, yet my char's Strategy is quite good, which means I get to make the long-term decisions.)

What does that all mean? I think that there's got to be a synergy between a player who wants to lead and the character they make. If there is a disconnect, then a _player_ usually tells other players what to do, and at the character level it looks like everyone just knows what to do.

arnej

[vicky_molokh]

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?

I most definitely did not mean the 'spokesperson for talking to the GM'.

I did mean the choice which character will be the leader in the game world. However, how this choice is made surely has metagame elements too. Sure, the leader character should have the proper skillset and traits. But when pre-discussing character creation, which player will make a leadership-oriented character is also an interesting question. On one hand, there's some sort of push towards wanting people who are inspiring and good at planning in real life; on the other, it would be the antithesis of roleplaying to only ever place PCs of leadership-oriented players into the 'admiral's chair'. So there's got to be some balance between the player being good for the role, and allowing players to take on roles that differ from their real-life personalities. The question is how to stay within these brackets, how to make sure the (non-ideal) candidate is appropriate?

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I most definitely did not mean the 'spokesperson for talking to the GM'.

I did mean the choice which character will be the leader in the game world. However, how this choice is made surely has metagame elements too. Sure, the leader character should have the proper skillset and traits. But when pre-discussing character creation, which player will make a leadership-oriented character is also an interesting question. On one hand, there's some sort of push towards wanting people who are inspiring and good at planning in real life; on the other, it would be the antithesis of roleplaying to only ever place PCs of leadership-oriented players into the 'admiral's chair'. So there's got to be some balance between the player being good for the role, and allowing players to take on roles that differ from their real-life personalities. The question is how to stay within these brackets, how to make sure the (non-ideal) candidate is appropriate?

So we're discussing who gets to play the captain in the captain-and-crew space opera (for example), or the alpha of the werewolf pack, or the sergeant of the space marine squad.

It's a good question. I shall watch with interest.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I did mean the choice which character will be the leader in the game world. However, how this choice is made surely has metagame elements too. Sure, the leader character should have the proper skillset and traits. But when pre-discussing character creation, which player will make a leadership-oriented character is also an interesting question. On one hand, there's some sort of push towards wanting people who are inspiring and good at planning in real life; on the other, it would be the antithesis of roleplaying to only ever place PCs of leadership-oriented players into the 'admiral's chair'. So there's got to be some balance between the player being good for the role, and allowing players to take on roles that differ from their real-life personalities.

I find myself in that role, almost always, even in parties with no formal structure. Even when I am playing characters that nobody should be following in their right minds! In Pathfinder game I'm in right now that has happened, and it's become a joke where they defer to me for leadership and I say in character "I'm not in charge here. You all are a bunch of sheep and you'd be crazy to follow me anyway. You can do whatever the hell you want. I'm going to do my thing and I'm not the boss of you. You can come along or not." Then they grumble about what a terrible leader I am, and how they don't know why I am in charge, and then follow me anyway.

The question is how to stay within these brackets, how to make sure the (non-ideal) candidate is appropriate?

I'd never expect a player that wasn't comfortable with leadership to take a leadership role. I've seen this fail several times now; sometimes disastrously. If a player is interested it taking a leadership role but not generally the "natural" leader of the group, I'd do my best to help them (both interpersonally and with game mechanics). I actually have a situation like that in Blight Years (which hopefully I can eventually actually start soon).

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I find myself in that role, almost always, even in parties with no formal structure. Even when I am playing characters that nobody should be following in their right minds! In Pathfinder game I'm in right now that has happened, and it's become a joke where they defer to me for leadership and I say in character "I'm not in charge here. You all are a bunch of sheep and you'd be crazy to follow me anyway. You can do whatever the hell you want. I'm going to do my thing and I'm not the boss of you. You can come along or not." Then they grumble about what a terrible leader I am, and how they don't know why I am in charge, and then follow me anyway.

That's the sort of stuff that happens a lot with other player I mentioned. (I haven't seen it happen personally.) She says the idea of thinking about being (or not being) a leader before game start is something new to her - all the other times she didn't plan on taking such a rank either, but things just happened that way.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I'd never expect a player that wasn't comfortable with leadership to take a leadership role. I've seen this fail several times now; sometimes disastrously. If a player is interested it taking a leadership role but not generally the "natural" leader of the group, I'd do my best to help them (both interpersonally and with game mechanics). I actual have a situation like that in Blight Years (which hopefully I can eventually actually start soon).

I've seen a player semi-reluctantly pick up a leadership role (the character was OK at it on paper; the player ended up being somewhat too deliberate / careful). The party wasn't happy, though I wouldn't call it a disaster.
My experience as a party leader is somewhat unpleasant, mostly due to cases of mis- or lack of communication about PC capabilities and intentions; I'm pretty sure I haven't created the best impression either. I'm not uncomfortable with the being the one responsible for whole-party decisions; I'm somewhat annoyed by people not communicating stuff* that is important for party coordination. But based on the stuff in some discussions of leadership, I have to say that I'm uncomfortable with the idea of letting people down. Particularly when it comes not to administrative, tactical or logistical management, but to actual leadership stuff, such as inspiring others. That is what makes me unsure about whether I should pick such a role again.

* == The most annoying example is probably both me and the GM rephrasing the same question in different ways, for a half-hour, hoping to get a clear answer from another player: 'Do you walk into the door before or after [other PC]?' Only after the aforementioned half-hour of non-answers did we manage to figure out that he went into the door last. When stuff like that happens, handling tactics or distributions of jobs is . . . well, hard, IMHO.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

That's the sort of stuff that happens a lot with other player I mentioned. (I haven't seen it happen personally.) She says the idea of thinking about being (or not being) a leader before game start is something new to her - all the other times she didn't plan on taking such a rank either, but things just happened that way.

Well gaming groups are a kind of peer-group and so naturally have their own leadership. It usually works smoothest when the the leader-player takes a leader-character. I'm usually okay with that, but sometimes I want to play something different. In this case it's just funny.

I've seen a player semi-reluctantly pick up a leadership role (the character was OK at it on paper; the player ended up being somewhat too deliberate / careful). The party wasn't happy, though I wouldn't call it a disaster.

Yeah, I think in this case the GM needs to aware of this, and try to help the player develop some leadership while enforcing the game-mechanics of the character's status and skills.

[Agemegos]

It can be a thorny issue. On one hand a lot of character-players very understandably don't want to be told what their character does. On the other hand the captain-player doesn't want to have a committee decide what orders his or her character issues. On one hand a player who isn't very good at strategic decision-making, planning, and delegation ought in theory to be allowed to play a character different from himself or herself. On the other hand it is unsatisfactory to everyone when the strategic solution to the problem is supplied by the GM, even if after a successful "Solve Mysteries" or "Resolve Moral Dilemmas" roll.

I have found that most groups sort themselves out, given enough time playing together. One or two players find their feet as "serial C.O.s". Others try it a time or two, get bad results, and type-cast themselves as the Lancer, the Right Hand Man, the McCoy, or the Ruthless Logician. I had a player for many years who loved playing sergeants-major, bosuns, and the door-kicking heavies on detective teams: he enjoyed playing the military grumbler.

Much though we deplore typecasting, its an unescapable fact that very few roleplayers have an unlimited range. Those who don't like playing the Captain or who are incompetent at it have to find something else to do.

A major problem occurs when you have no competent and willing players to cast as the Captain, or if your only possible Captain or Captains [both] take it into their heads to avoid being typecast for once [at the same time]. I have had trouble sometimes in that even some GMs won't treat my characters other than as being in charge, even when I have specified them as interns and newlies. I was in a campaign once that ground to a complete halt when my character who was team leader had to be replaced, and I brought in a probationer to replace him.

A couple of times I have seen inverted hierarchies work, in which the competent and masterful players have thrust another PC out in front and forced greatness upon him. The bloke I mentioned before as liking to play sergeants-major was involved both times, with me as co-conspirator once and the most usual captain of my usual suspects the other time. It helped both times, I think, that the PCs were the command team and heavy hitters of a larger group of NPCs. In a captain-and-crew campaign you might, for instance, have the First Lieutenant, the Dean of Scientists, the Intelligence Officer, and the Chief Master-at-Arms or Captain of Marines collaborating to make the Captain look good.

But since my groups of usual suspects have drifted apart, I usually find myself GMing a group that has not sorted out among its members who can lead and what else the others can do. In those circumstances I have taken to asking everyone to pitch several characters for different positions in the party. Then I take into account my own assessment of which of the characters that have been pitched are interesting and offer interesting interaction, my own opinions of who can play what, and sometimes opinions that have been expressed by various players, and I assign roles to players while wearing my "casting director" hat (which has the same gory horns as my viking hat).

Not everyone is happy. Players sometimes pull out of campaigns because they find my process high-handed or don't like my casting decisions.

[sgtcallistan]

Have played in a game where the 'niche' means there's no formal leader.
Frex: one plays the nobly-born hero who fills the 'face' and voice of authority (in-game); one plays the flexible guy with speed, senses and finds stuff; the third plays a wild card who attracts interest and can make snap decisions, this is also the one who leaves and returns having dealt with some side matter.

This is a small party, where two players are routinely available to play if separated.

Dividing the party happens routinely, and probably works only because of reasons mentioned above.

Result: no leader, but two of status who act either together or independently, and the third who is subordinate in the in game culture, but is a trusted friend of both 'nobles'. This one has his own concerns, such as exploring and discovering how natural magic works.

As long as players are flexible and aware that events move forward while characters are apart, this has worked very well for several years now.

This game is the default that we return to often.

[alexondria]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

On one hand a player who isn't very good at strategic decision-making, planning, and delegation ought in theory to be allowed to play a character different from himself or herself. On the other hand it is unsatisfactory to everyone when the strategic solution to the problem is supplied by the GM, even if after a successful "Solve Mysteries" or "Resolve Moral Dilemmas" roll.

In the past I've handled this by having them roll tactics (or equivalent). As long as the plan isn't so bad that it just makes my head hurt to think about I let it be as effective against the bad guys as their roll indicates it should be. I've also had players that wanted to play the expert at blah that they had no clue about and depending on what blah is they've looked things up on the internet during games to give the appearance of more knowledge than they personally have, allowed other more experienced players to help them out, or just made up stuff that we rolled with in the game world.

[Michael Cule]

Except where the campaign needs a particular leader for practical purposes (a ship's captain for instance), the group has an employer who requires that there be a team leader (my current LAUNDRY FILES game for instance) or the setup involves there being a leader (my YRTH 1100 game where one player is the 'lord of the manor' because Feudalism) I can't say I usually bother.

Even where there is a leader it is usually a case of herding cats and the team leader in my Laundry game would very much like someone else to take over the job. Unfortunately for him Mahogany Row is very impressed with his handling of the missions they have dumped on him.