Looking for advice on Roleplaying a warlord without coming on as a control freak

[Ghost49X]

Hi,

I recently got into a 4E PBP game here on giantitp, I haven't played warlord as a class in awhile so I made one and the game started off. His background is as an officer in the kingdom's armies and I would like to play him as a sort of warrior philosopher and tactician rolled into one. I'd like some advice on how to play him to minimize the hate from other players when I take charge. So far I've attempted for a compromise where he would only take charge if it was time sensitive and when it is not I would discuss options with the others like most groups do. We'll see what the others think but meanwhile I'd like to know what the community at large thinks of this sort of thing.

IMHO it can't be more annoying than a preachy cleric who preaches to other players.

[unwise]

I'm not sure that your conduct as a player at the table needs to reflect your PCs command of the situation. I think that might be taking RP to a place it does not need to go. Let people do all the decision making they normally do. Once they have decided what their PC is doing, it might be good RP for your character to order them to do that, or not, as the case may be.

I played a warlord who was a weapons trainer for a seperatist militia. Most of his buffs were fluffed as actually being done outside of combat. He did not order the Fighter to sieze an opportunity to make the extra attack, the Fighter just remembered the warlords training and capitalised on the opportunity like he had been trained. Sometimes, I described the Kung-Fu-Flashback that leads to the extra attack or bonus. I would growl derisively and berate PCs for critical failures, or a raise an approving eyebrown when somebody did a critical hit. Otherwise I was not calling the shots like a normal warlord. "I'm a Sargent, I'm here to kick you maggots into shape, giving orders is for officers. DON'T call me Sir! I work for a living boy!".

[dariathalon]

I've got a warlord that I'm playing right now. I'm trying to make her into more of a fencer who in combat will bat the opponents weapon away with her rapier or fool the foe into creating an opening for an ally to hit. A lot of times I'll also include a call to action from her ally, but it isn't really a command, more of an encouragement.

As far as out of combat, my warlord doesn't really have a military background so the sort of problems you describe don't really apply to her. She is just a well-trained swordsman who has a natural talent with tactics and encouraging others. So I can't be too much help there. She will give her insights, but understands a good idea can come from anyone and hasn't had the top-down military command structure drilled into her, so I don't think she really comes off as bossy.

[Ghost49X]

Of course it might be different depending on the type of warlord you play, mine is a tactial warlord. But even as a military officer it's a leader's responsibility to develop his subordinates to their full potential and that includes trusting them to make decisions. In the case outlined above, I acted quickly in order to maximize our time efficiency before we're drawn into the inevitable fight.

[DragonBaneDM]

So I've found in my experience that Leader class does not always mean Leader of the party. For instance, in one game I play an elderly Cleric who's seen a lot of fighting. In terms of combat, I'm in charge, I'm the most experienced player so I have a lot of say in marching order, calling out a kill order, and helping others on their turn.

However, he is not the moral compass of the party. My Cleric thinks that he's too jaded from all the killing he's seen and his career in politics to properly lead the party, so he lets the party Druid, a 16 year old girl, do that. She's the one who keeps us grounded and decides how we help people, I'm just around to help us kill stuff. The same applies to our Shadowdancer for stealth, or Lorewarden for research, and our Magus for all things arcane. Hell, even in 4E, our Paladin led our party, the Warlord was more "I'm here to make sure none of you die and mess some monsters on your guys' turns."

Maybe roleplaying him like that can help? Build others up to be good at their strength, but make it clear that tactics is your expertise.

[Echobeats]

"Leader" is a bad name for that role. It's often misunderstood to mean that that PC is somehow in charge and is supposed to make decisions for the party. I think they should have called it "Enabler".

[Dimers]

"Leader" is a bad name for that role. It's often misunderstood to mean that that PC is somehow in charge and is supposed to make decisions for the party. I think they should have called it "Enabler".

Honestly, though, many leader powers do make decisions for the party. "Okay, he slid me right next to the huge thing with threatening reach and gave me a +2 to hit (in addition to flanking) and +6 damage with melee powers ... I know, I'll use a melee power." In the absence of outright rebellion, that's leading.

OP, I think the answer isn't necessarily in how you play the character. It could just as easily be in your interaction with the other players OOC. If they understand what a leader does (beyond healing), they'll know there are some potential RP side effects. You should be able to work out something satisfactory. Like maybe three allies will accept you as a leader to whatever degree you want IC, but the other player wants to run his character as an iconoclast who won't willingly give anybody a 'handle', and the three have their own reactions to his rebellion. And that can all play out in fun ways.

[Ghost49X]

So I've found in my experience that Leader class does not always mean Leader of the party. For instance, in one game I play an elderly Cleric who's seen a lot of fighting. In terms of combat, I'm in charge, I'm the most experienced player so I have a lot of say in marching order, calling out a kill order, and helping others on their turn.

However, he is not the moral compass of the party. My Cleric thinks that he's too jaded from all the killing he's seen and his career in politics to properly lead the party, so he lets the party Druid, a 16 year old girl, do that. She's the one who keeps us grounded and decides how we help people, I'm just around to help us kill stuff. The same applies to our Shadowdancer for stealth, or Lorewarden for research, and our Magus for all things arcane. Hell, even in 4E, our Paladin led our party, the Warlord was more "I'm here to make sure none of you die and mess some monsters on your guys' turns."

Maybe roleplaying him like that can help? Build others up to be good at their strength, but make it clear that tactics is your expertise.

He is a military officer and he's definitely a leader of men in the proper sense of the word. Organizing the group prior to battle seems like a important part of tactics as they say "Every battle is won before it's ever fought" and in that spirit maximizing our time before the window of opportunity is shut seems important from a tactical point of view. That being said I'm more than happy to let others lead when it falls into their field of expertise or when no one else has volunteered a plan.


"Leader" is a bad name for that role. It's often misunderstood to mean that that PC is somehow in charge and is supposed to make decisions for the party. I think they should have called it "Enabler".
I don't think you understood my point. I want to play him as a leader of men, I just would rather not crush other people while doing so.

[GPuzzle]

Congratulate them, and do so several times. You'll be allowing them to make several attacks, even crits. A "That's great! Let's do it again!" just as you AP and recharge Death from Two Sides before unleashing it again is great for party morale both IC and OOC.

What I like to do is start off by giving them numbers and slowly switch back to the character's names. This causes them to be more than just soldiers - instead, they are an army, a badass one at that, no matter how small the number is.

[Leewei]

I'd suggest that any Warlord roleplayed as R Lee Ermey is awesome, even if they come across as a bit of a control freak. :smallbiggrin:

[neonchameleon]

I don't think yelling "Duck!" (Powerful Warning) is control-freakish. Neither is using Commander's Strike to beat the enemy shield down. And Brash Assault certainly isn't. It's only Lazy Warlords that are.

[Ghost49X]

I don't think yelling "Duck!" (Powerful Warning) is control-freakish. Neither is using Commander's Strike to beat the enemy shield down. And Brash Assault certainly isn't. It's only Lazy Warlords that are.

I was refering to RP past just the use of class powers

[Dimers]

The most annoying or asinine in-character RP can be hilarious for other players out of character. As long as the other players are comfortable with you playing the leader IC, go ahead and be a control freak.