Who's the Leader?

[Celcey]

Greetings, Playgrounders! I've been thinking, and I'm curious: who is usually the leader of your party? Does your party usually have a leader at all (the way Roy is the leader here is OOTS)? Do you also have a "face" (ie the person who does the talking) as well, or is that usually the leader? Is the leader just the person with the highest charisma? Is it usually someone with a specific class, or a specific type of character/alignment? Or is it the type of player that decides who the leader is?

[asorel]

Greetings, Playgrounders! I've been thinking, and I'm curious: who is usually the leader of your party? Does your party usually have a leader at all (the way Roy is the leader here is OOTS)? Do you also have a "face" (ie the person who does the talking) as well, or is that usually the leader? Is the leader just the person with the highest charisma? Is it usually someone with a specific class, or a specific type of character/alignment? Or is it the type of player that decides who the leader is?

I just started a new campaign. We don't have a designated leader of the party. We do have a face of the party, however, which takes the form of my character, with his 19 Charisma and proficiencies in Persuasion and Intimidation.

[Louro]

Not really a leader, but the party face is usually a Democratic choice. Basically is a moment on the first session in which all players point their fingers at someone who instantly becomes the "person in charge of the funny dialogues which will bring us doom".

Edit: unless there is a paladin in the group, in which case there is no need to point fingers at him.

[AstralFire]

I tend to prefer groups where everyone's engaged and cooperative enough that there is no clear leader.

When there are clear leaders and clear faces, leaders seem to come from players' OOC perceptions that leading is needed, as I see mostly the same names being leaders. I'm guilty of altering character concepts to fulfill a leadership role as a player. Faces tend to be based purely on math, though we also prefer having more than one person capable of being a face.

[Madfellow]

In the ACKS campaign I'm currently playing in, the leader of our party has been the paladin, pretty much from the start. It's not like anybody decided on this, though, it just kinda happened. He's the most invested and energetic member of the group, and he's playing a charismatic leader-type character. Of course, that doesn't mean the rest of us really respect him either. :smalltongue:

[Louro]

It doesn't matter if you respect him or not, he is a paladin!
A paladin has always been and will always be the party face. Everyone knows you can trust a pally, and on top of that they are always willing to help you.

[jaydubs]

Except in systems that designate one (things like Rogue Trader), my games rarely have an official leader.

Unofficially, it depends on the player more than anything else. I've noticed the same players tend to end up as leader in more than 1 game. And if more than 1 leader type is in a group, they usually end up rotating around depending on who has the best idea or is playing the character most relevant to the situation.

Qualities that usually land the leader role (if a player wants it, many don't):
-Competence. Can think up, put forth, and carry out (non-terrible) ideas.
-Confidence. Willing to stand up and take charge.
-Acts for the best interest of the party (aka, opposite alignment or character who steals from party need not apply). People won't follow someone they don't trust.

In terms of party face, we often have one, but not always. But most players still talk to NPCs, and the face is only called up for important mission type tasks. Face is usually chosen on charisma and skill proficiency, but only if that character is significantly ahead. If several come close, we swap around, since investing heavily usually means it's something you wanted to do in the campaign. It's not particularly fair for the person with +8 to get all the screentime over the person with +7. Making sure everyone in the party gets some spotlight is more important than the 5% increase in success.

[KhorashIronfist]

I've never played in a game where all of the party members deferred to one member as the leader. All members of the party always have their own goals, bound together by some common thread of interest (stop the evil lich, etc). For all members of the party to automatically defer to the most 'charismatic' member (whatever such an abstract concept means to the characters themselves) is surely metagaming. Have the other characters no pride, to let someone else speak for them all the time? How is such a thing objectively measured and agreed upon amongst them? Surely the person best suited to speak would change from encounter to encounter.

In my current game for instance; when we encountered something of moral repugnance (undead), the most Good member of our party, the sorcerer, spoke up and carried that verbal encounter. When we encountered a strange arcane aberrant (a nothic) I, the warlock, spoke up and carried the encounter. When we encountered a druid, the wood elf barbarian spoke up.

Such is the nature of a party, I see no need or reason to have a specified leader unless, as previously stated, it is a formal arrangement agreed on prior; for example if all party members were of a particular organization and the leader of the party was appointed as such by the party's superiors. And even then, it would be a political position only, and surely unless they were a fine leader indeed, the other members would refer to them as leader only in a token sense, since all the party members are generally speaking equal in prowess - and even if this is not the case, that has no bearing on how strong or intelligent the characters individually consider themselves to be.

Indeed the books do not, to my knowledge, mention such a concept as a party leader - and if they do, it is certainly an optional thing. If anyone has ever played MOBAs such as League of Legends, it suffers from a similar phenomena such as this - where groups end up being built because of the deeply ingrained meta-knowledge that the players possess, not necessarily to their own benefit, but having one melee-based character and one ranged and one jungle and one mage because "That's how you play the game." when indeed you can play however you like.

Honestly the concept of a 'party' in general is fairly meta. It would be a strange fantasy world indeed for the characters, upon assembling to complete some quest, would refer to THEMSELVES as a party. As far as the characters are concerned, which is the defining factor of their behavior of course, they are disparate individuals each making their own way in the world, who happen to have joined up, however temporarily or permanently, with like-minded individuals. The term is only ever used in the rulebooks, where meta-terms such as 'party' are necessary to describe certain aspects of the game. That doesn't mean the characters think of themselves as a Party, the cleric isn't thinking 'oh I'm just hear to round out the party because we need a healer'. As such, unless there is formal organization of the party - which is of course, a possibility, but dependent upon the story - the idea of a leader is a strange one, in my mind.

Perhaps I sound like I'm taking the concept a bit too far, but the purpose of D&D (any rpg, indeed) to me is to create a seamless story in a fantasy world, and in that regard such meta-concepts as parties and leaders, in the generic sense of a group of people assembling for a goal, are strange, though not unfamiliar. Yesterday I went to a local game shop to jump in on a game I had been invited to. I do not plan on returning, because exactly this kind of meta was rife throughout the game. My Fighter just joined up with these others because it was his best prospect for survival, what reason has he to let the rogue go first in line through the door? Quit sneaking around like a pansy and get out of the way, I'm trying to walk here. I don't think the meta-flow should eclipse logic, to an extent. People do not automatically defer to one another in real life, and so I dislike when people do such in RPGs, it makes for poor roleplaying. Some of the best in-character conversations I've had have been discussions over how to proceed. It leads to better understanding both in and out of character for there to be some engagement on the topic of what to do, how to proceed, etc.

There are surely situations where it is more appropriate to just let the game happen without questioning the deep logic of such things - indeed, regardless of whether are not it is a formal organizing, the assembling of the party is oft, in my experience, such a Lampshading. All of the players want to get started on the adventure, so whatever the characters have to casually believe/engage in to facilitate that, the less said about it the better. That is fine, for the game could not start otherwise. But I do not think that inferring from meta-knowledge a formal organization to the party when no such thing exists in the story is an appropriate form of Lampshading. It is not necessary to have one Face that speaks for the party, nor one Leader who makes all the decisions. No more than it is truly necessary to fill any one role of the party - my group does not have a healer of any kind, for instance. If the party did come to a realistic in-character decision wherein they all reasonably agreed that, say, the bard was best suited to do the talking, so much the better. But this is a fine line to walk, when justifying in-game such meta-concepts.

But I have probably said far more than is the necessary, tending to ramble as I often do. Such are my thoughts on this subject, unpopular as they may possibly be.

[AstralFire]

Honestly the concept of a 'party' in general is fairly meta. It would be a strange fantasy world indeed for the characters, upon assembling to complete some quest, would refer to THEMSELVES as a party. As far as the characters are concerned, which is the defining factor of their behavior of course, they are disparate individuals each making their own way in the world, who happen to have joined up, however temporarily or permanently, with like-minded individuals. The term is only ever used in the rulebooks, where meta-terms such as 'party' are necessary to describe certain aspects of the game. That doesn't mean the characters think of themselves as a Party, the cleric isn't thinking 'oh I'm just hear to round out the party because we need a healer'. As such, unless there is formal organization of the party - which is of course, a possibility, but dependent upon the story - the idea of a leader is a strange one, in my mind.

IDK. People do tend to stick to people they know, and are often aware they need assistance to reach their goals. I only feel a party is a bit forced when they have extremely conflicting goals and lack of social cohesion.

[KhorashIronfist]

IDK. People do tend to stick to people they know, and are often aware they need assistance to reach their goals. I only feel a party is a bit forced when they have extremely conflicting goals and lack of social cohesion.

I agree, but such is often the case with many players, I find. Take the pick-up game I played in yesterday, there was little to no reason offered for any of us to be exploring this dungeon. I had written a character on the spot with a generic justification, and in the four hours we played, I was the only one who made any effort at actual roleplaying, rather than just trying to 'game' the dungeon. It is all too common of a mindset these days - and one Wizards unfortunately has a strong incentive to pander to, though refreshingly fifth seems to encourage story equally to crunch, unlike the catastrophe of meta-strangeness that was Fourth Edition.

Too often players just show up with their characters with little prior discussion and the DM (a poor one, in this case) just shoves them together with a handwave and some vague justification. I find, personally, that the more discussion of characters beforehand, the better. Such is the best way to assure social cohesion, a complementary party dynamic, and other such positive aspects of metagame thinking.

[AstralFire]

I agree, but such is often the case with many players, I find. Take the pick-up game I played in yesterday, there was little to no reason offered for any of us to be exploring this dungeon. I had written a character on the spot with a generic justification, and in the four hours we played, I was the only one who made any effort at actual roleplaying, rather than just trying to 'game' the dungeon. It is all too common of a mindset these days - and one Wizards unfortunately has a strong incentive to pander to, though refreshingly fifth seems to encourage story equally to crunch, unlike the catastrophe of meta-strangeness that was Fourth Edition.

I'm going to sidestep the usual 4E bashing... This mindset seems to have been around for a very long time, and I consider it a fault of a DM more than the players. My gaming group currently has two different games going on under two different DMs -- the game I don't DM, we have a bad forced party problem, the game I do DM, there is a lot of wonderful chemistry going on. It's on the DM to provide a hook and common ground for the players, otherwise everyone will usually come up with their own concept that doesn't really meld together.

[KhorashIronfist]

I'm going to sidestep the usual 4E bashing... This mindset seems to have been around for a very long time, and I consider it a fault of a DM more than the players. My gaming group currently has two different games going on under two different DMs -- the game I don't DM, we have a bad forced party problem, the game I do DM, there is a lot of wonderful chemistry going on. It's on the DM to provide a hook and common ground for the players, otherwise everyone will usually come up with their own concept that doesn't really meld together.

Indeed! In my mind much weight indeed is placed on the DM in this regard, but others are oft given to disagree with me, one such who was a DM for me for some time. In my mind such people are just lazy - to DM is a lot of work, if you don't enjoy all the little things like encouraging a positive party dynamic, planning and re-planning, forging common ground between players, etc, than you probably just aren't fond of DMing.

It is not to the rulebook that my posts have responded, but the mindset I have too often encountered - such that it is very difficult indeed, even among the chore of finding a group to play in, to find a group well-managed and lacking in destructive metagame.

For a group to have a designated leader does not in itself mean it is a poor game, rather it is indicative of a certain meta-mindset that personally I find ill-suited to a proper game with good roleplaying.

[Chaosvii7]

In most of the games I've played in, leaders don't usually come up. That said, I've held the position twice - once in an old campaign and one in a current one. I think leaders are fine, because there's usually a difference between being a leader and being the focus of the plot. That said, I have a character in an Edge of the Empire game that's technically the leader but I do very little short of decision making and being the party face. I'd say it's a balancing mechanic for being the leader in that party is that, well, the character is pretty fluffy and admittedly kind of useless. Not that I think that being a leader means you have to hamstring yourself so the party doesn't take up the spotlight.

I also think there's a difference between stealing the spotlight and being the guy who makes big decisions for the group. My role as a leader in the other games basically boils down to summarizing the points of a big decision and assessing it with the group before we come to a consensus. I also usually step forward when I'm able to in diplomatic situations.

Really, who's the leader is a question of who do you trust to be impartial towards rationalizing decisions before voting as a character instead of a player on the matter.

[jaydubs]

I'd argue that parties and leaders are actually quite natural, both in the real world and in stories. Maybe not in the capital P and L way, where the Party is a special sanctified set of Player Characters, and the Leader is someone who always makes the decisions. But at least in the way that people tend to form groups, and often someone makes many of the decisions.

Forming into groups is a pretty natural human experience. Whether it's a group of friends, a gang, crew, team, brotherhood, etc., people tend to band together. Especially when pitted against common dangers or toward a common goal.

Similarly, while there may not be an official leader to a group, there's often someone who ends up making many of the decisions. Whether by force of personality, higher competence, or simply putting forth effort in areas where others don't particularly care one way or another, someone (and that someone may vary from time to time) often ends up leading. For instance, in a group of friends, the host or event planner for the evening often takes up leadership in some capacity. Deciding the activities for the night, who does what, where they go, and for how long, etc.

To give fictional examples, the Fellowship of the Ring can be considered a party. Their leader is Gandalf, and subsequently Aragorn when Gandalf is absent. In the Walking Dead, Rick Grimes is the leader, and the band of survivors is the party. Neither of these groups have official hierarchies, but there's pretty clearly a party and a de facto leader.

[KhorashIronfist]

I do not disagree with your supposition but I would argue that the fellowship of the ring is a poor comparison as Gandalf holds a position of divine authority, not to mention the formal organization of the fellowship by Elrond Half-Elven. Further, in d&d party all characters are ostensibly equal in power, this is far from the case with the fellowship as gandalf is orders of magnitude better than even Aragorn, who along with Legolas, is arguably several levels higher than any other party member.

[Slipperychicken]

I often lead, but I usually steer the party to failure and death when I'm not wearing my paranoid-powergamer hat. When I am in that mood (and optimized my build to match), we generally get consistent success.

Our face is typically whoever happens to be the cutest white girl in the group, since those get better reactions from our DM. This phenomenon spans multiple classes groups, systems, and DMs. When I face, it's a matter of minutes before the NPCs attack us.

[archaeo]

I'd argue that you've got to separate this question into in-character and out-of-character "leaders."

In the game world, having a leader is a narrative choice. Roy isn't the leader of the OotS for any optimal reason; he's just the guy that brought the team into the main plot thread and was the least dysfunctional until the rest of his team got character development. In an actual game of D&D, leaders can either happen naturally (somebody in the party is best equipped, mechanically, to serve as a "face") or "unnaturally," via plot mechanisms. It's basically a plot question.

In the real world, leaders are just part of group dynamics. Maybe one player has more TRPG experience. Maybe one player has social capital beyond the table. Or, possibly, there is an ugly and weird dynamic happening, to wit:


Our face is typically whoever happens to be the cutest white girl in the group, since those get better reactions from our DM. This phenomenon spans multiple classes groups, systems, and DMs. When I face, it's a matter of minutes before the NPCs attack us.

Dude...

[oxybe]

Party Face and party leader tends to be two separate roles, though they often overlap as the Face tends to have a strong personality.

The Face is simply the guy who makes with the talky bits when it's important that the talky bits don't devolve into axe-facing. I've fighter-typed into talky bits, relying on a more "This is how I'm going to do this thing. Feel free to agree or not, but there are consequences." but at times when you want them to agree, you send in the bard.

That doesn't actually mean he's best suited to lead the group mind you, but he's great for public relations.

The party leader tends to be the person who's most composed and less likely to get us killed. In some groups, this tends to be a static role, where one PC has stood out as the most level-headed and best decision maker, or at least best prepared. Other times this hat will be passed around depending on the situation at hand: Lost in the woods? Ranger will lead us. Lost in the Aether? Wizard will lead us. Lost in space? John Robinson will lead us.

As for deciding on which plot hooks to follow and how to follow them, that tends to be more of a democratic decision between the PCs then just one guy barking orders. You don't want to be barking orders to the group, only to have the cleric reserve the right to not heal you while you're being mauled or the wizard to accidentally include you in his fireball. Or the rogue accidentally forgetting his knives in your kidneys. If another PC says "Hey, this is sketchy/against my oaths/would get me in trouble with superiors/etc..." take note when deciding on your course of actions.

[Kinneus]

I've never played in a game where all of the party members deferred to one member as the leader. All members of the party always have their own goals, bound together by some common thread of interest (stop the evil lich, etc). For all members of the party to automatically defer to the most 'charismatic' member (whatever such an abstract concept means to the characters themselves) is surely metagaming. Have the other characters no pride, to let someone else speak for them all the time? How is such a thing objectively measured and agreed upon amongst them? Surely the person best suited to speak would change from encounter to encounter.

While I agree with you overall, I had to comment on this one little bit. I think it's entirely possible to have a character be the "talker" in the group. Look at any sort of heist movie, where "The Con Artist" is an established role, or a game like Shadowrun, where having a "Face" is considered an integral part of the team.

The sharp-dressed, smooth-talking and generally attractive-looking lady's man (or femme fatale) of the group calmly placing a hand on the bruiser's shoulder and saying, "Bruno, let me do the talking" is a well-established trope and something that would make sense in the game world. Obviously the face isn't going to dominate every conversation 100% of the time, but if a character is specialized for social interactions (both in a meta sense but also in-character), then they should get their opportunity to shine, and it wouldn't be surprising if the group let them handle negotiations and confidence schemes on their behalf.

Incidentally, the roles of Face and party Leader do not have to be the same at all.

[Ralanr]

In the last big campaign I played in, the leader role kept switching between the half-drow swashbuckler (me) and the sentient slime alchemist. I also find myself to be the backup face, mainly because I had a really good bluff skill. This was funny cause neither of us really wanted to lead but we kept making the most big group choices and the story seemed to revolve around us more and more (like me releasing an ancient demon of cannibalism on accident...first session)

[jaydubs]

A famous example of the face not being the leader would be the A-Team. Where Hannibal is the leader, over the character who actually goes by the moniker of Face.

Though I do agree with those that mention it often overlapping. Whether that's because of narrative reasons, mechanics reasons, or the types of players that gravitate towards those roles, I cannot say.


The party leader tends to be the person who's most composed and less likely to get us killed. In some groups, this tends to be a static role, where one PC has stood out as the most level-headed and best decision maker, or at least best prepared. Other times this hat will be passed around depending on the situation at hand: Lost in the woods? Ranger will lead us. Lost in the Aether? Wizard will lead us. Lost in space? John Robinson will lead us.

This mirrors my own experiences.


As for deciding on which plot hooks to follow and how to follow them, that tends to be more of a democratic decision between the PCs then just one guy barking orders. You don't want to be barking orders to the group, only to have the cleric reserve the right to not heal you while you're being mauled or the wizard to accidentally include you in his fireball. Or the rogue accidentally forgetting his knives in your kidneys. If another PC says "Hey, this is sketchy/against my oaths/would get me in trouble with superiors/etc..." take note when deciding on your course of actions.

I'm reminded of one of the horror story threads, where a new player decided the best introduction for his character would be to ambush the party after a tough battle and they were low on HP/resources, knock everyone out, and then declare himself the leader. Said new character swiftly found himself butchered and buried in a shallow grave, that very night.

[Louro]

I often lead, but I usually steer the party to failure and death.
NPC: Welcome to my fortress. Who am I talking to?
Players point fingers at slipperychicken.
Usually followed by laughs or initiative, both sometimes.

[Feldarove]

A worthless response, but...

Its completely random in my group from game to game.

We use to have a player that wanted to be the leader no matter what

Smart, conniving leader. Dumb, shouting above everyone else leader. Lying and cheating leader. This guy just wanted to make all the decisions.

It usually was pretty humorous, so we stuck with it. But not always, and like I said 'use to have a player'.

As for face...sometimes we just look around at character sheets and shove the person with the highest charisma forward. I think the highest charisma in my current group is the half-orc barbarian with an 11....so its a free for all.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

IME the title of leader usually goes to the one who actually wants to lead. There is usually at least one, and when there are multiple they tend to butt heads vying for the unofficial moniker in-game. I tend to play The Spock, meaning I'm often in a support/advisory role, but when the leadership role is thrust upon me the group tends to be ruthlessly efficient.

[Stella]

In character, the leader can be defined or undefined. As an example, Roy is the leader of the OotS by virtue of his having formed them into an adventuring order within the game system. There have been several D&D settings which have proposed that adventurers form themselves into recognized groups, and in these systems the "leader" could be the person who forms the group, or it could be the person who rises to lead the group out of merit, or opportunity (the death of the leader, etc.). Haley is a decent example of this during her stint as leader of the opposition in BluePallyLand (I forget the name, and it isn't even relevant to the discussion), and her role as leader whilst trying to get Roy resurrected. But it is equally valid that an adventuring group be made up of a group of equals and thus have no clear "leader", allowing each member to contribute as their individual skills allowed.

Out of character, the player who is most willing to role play the role is typically the leader. Except in those groups where character skills replace role playing, in which case the "leader" is probably the person playing the character with the most social skills, even if they are being mostly puppeted by a person whose character does not posses those skills.

[goto124]

How is such a thing objectively measured and agreed upon amongst them? Surely the person best suited to speak would change from encounter to encounter.

Are social encounters in your games are based more on RL Talking Skills than in-game Charisma? But that should lead to a few people dominating all the talking. Do the more socially-awkward people get to talk, and how do they do this without bogging the group down?


BluePallyLand

Azure City :3

[Louro]

Are social encounters in your games are based more on RL Talking Skills than in-game Charisma? But that should lead to a few people dominating all the talking. Do the more socially-awkward people get to talk, and how do they do this without bogging the group down.
Exsctly this way, our party face /leader is the player willing to.
In the same way the smartest player is the one who usually solves the puzzle, not the higher INT character. And the players setting up the assault plan are the skilled one in tactics and the paranoid one.

It's a RPG, its objective is to provide fun, not to make sure everyone has the same amount of spotlight.

[goto124]

It's a RPG, its objective is to provide fun, not to make sure everyone has the same amount of spotlight.

The latter can help with the former, though we're getting into 'based on the players' territory.

[AstralFire]

I generally prefer to have small groups or RP with people who have the ability to command a scene with some regularity when appropriate. This is easier to get away with for my online games than my in-person ones.

[Socko525]

Nothing's official, but in the game I'm currently in I'm the closest thing we have to a leader. I typically get thrust into that role, so in this campaign I set out with the goal to not be the party leader....although after one too many ambushes as the party sat around and discussed what we should do rather than doing anything and the other members propensity for violence before diplomacy, I'm once again in a leadership position.

[Mechaviking]

Me, regardless of what character I play. I gravitate towards the Heinlein style of leadership. Do something constructive at once and figure out something as we go along.

[DireSickFish]

I am the leader in most any RPG that I've played in. My longest running D&D game years ago had the DM wanting to be more of a leader when my character was more withdrawn and bitter. I ended up evolving him into a leader through the campaign. The last Edge of the Empire I ended up being the leader eventually once we found our feet as I was the only one with any real motivation that came up during the game. Even if that motivation was "build the best gun, and play space Frisbee".

I just naturally make decisions, am good at convincing people, and have strong opinions about things. I can and have made passive characters but frequently the leadership role is thrust upon me due to ooc personality.

I've tried to pass it off and get excited when someone else is taking control of the game. Getting better at it.

[Camman1984]

Most parties i have dm'd or played in have had a leader. Its usually the paladin as character wise that is just what paladins are like. But not always, i played a rogue once who became leader just because i was more experienced at dnd and also it was a largely shadows based game.

I did used to have one guy who never wanted to be 'leader' or take responsibility etc. But ALWAYS wanted things his way.and would threaten party members/npc's etc until they did what he said. And if they didnt he would deliberately sabotage their plans. He was a real alpha-douche in real life, and it translated into game. In real life he always wanted to arm wrestle everyone just to prove he was stronger (he worked as a builder, we are all medical professionals, doesnt really need proof lol). This translated into the way he treated people in game.

He also always wanted to be the party 'face' and put everything he could into intimidate, it didnt matter what the social situation was, he would start talking over everyone and throwing intimidate checks around. It was hilarious once when he decided to intimidate a very young member of a royal household into helping him steal from the queen. Needless to say i sent the queens personal assassin to have a quiet discussion with him about his demeanor.

[Tiber]

In my 3-man group, my rogue is the leader simply because the other characters tend to be somewhat more passive. The druid doesn't care too much unless nature is being threatened, and the barbarian wants to beat up monsters. Therefore my character is often the one to decide the next destination, or at least spur the group to speak up. Even though my character has decent persuasion skills, she often doesn't act as the face of the party because she has a somewhat abrasive personality and much of the conversing has involved languages she doesn't know.

[Louro]

My most epic leadership moment in D&D was when the party decided to send me (a cleric of Tempus, God of war) to negotiate peace with a sieged fortress. It was 2nd edition.

-Me: You want me to talk to them?
-Party: Yes, you have experience in war scenarios so you probably can properly tell them about our siege power, our strong supply lines and such things. Therefore they might consider the peace terms to avoid a long siege they wont survive.
-Me: Mmmmm... (Damn, call lighting have a casting time of 1 hour). OK, I'll go but before I would like to meditate about what I'm gonna tell them.
-Party: Cool.

1 hour later

-Me: HEY!!! CALL YOUR LEADER, I GOT A MESSAGE FOR HIM
-Enemy: I'm Sir Gonnadie, what do you want bastard traitor?
-Me: EAT THIS!
RUMBLE TO THE FACE

Everyone: WTF was that?
Me: They didn't accept the terms.

[Talderas]

who is usually the leader of your party?

Tony Danza

[Fwiffo86]

The player that steps up to the job.

[Phion]

Somehow my rogue pirate Captain Leeroy Jenkins has become the face and probably second in command of our group in tyranny of dragons (Greywolf our grumpy ranger is more of our leader as refuses to do anything without a plan). Notable exploits of Leeroy include telling the barbarian that Greywolf had said he should kill everyone in the room (I lied) thus allowing him to steal a chest of gold in the chaos (deceived party into believing that he has psychological issues and mistaken "there are too man people in this room" as an order to kill everything), jumping down a pipe that had chests being throw it with 75000 worth of gems and unloading it all into the his bag of holding before the party could catch up (they still don't know in game) and insulting 30+ cultists by exposing his rear end and shouting Leeroy Jenkins and jumping from building to building until he lost them all to create an opening for the party to get in the church full of civilians.
Honestly don't know how he has not died yet never mind being loved and trusted by the party.

[Phion]

We have a paladin but we don't let him have his own way, renegades for life. (....not getting caught also helps)

[Kane0]

We don't usually have a designated leader, we tend to be pretty democratic in terms of decision making.

That said we do have a player that steers towards the leader and face roles, so he will usually be found somewhere in a leadership-esque position in the party no matter what character he plays.

For example right now he is a sorcerer that sits in the middle of the party for protection, and while I am the brave foot forward in the dungeon because i'm the resident meatshield. When it comes to talking and weighing options he takes the forefront, where the cleric and druid will take on an advisory role and the ranger and I take orders for the most part unless we have something in mind. It works well because of the player dynamic since we have nobody with an overly strong personality contending for control.

So usually it ends up being as such:
Sorcerer player: Leadership
Me: Second in command
Druid and Cleric players: Advisory and idea men (the cleric player is the newest addition to the group and is rapidly becoming very active now that he's settled in)
Ranger: Follows us (he's the youngest at the table and least experienced, he just goes with the flow)

It's funny that our marching order never accurately reflects who does the speaking and strategy.

[ghost_warlock]

In my group, it usually has a lot more to do with the players than it does the characters.

While I can only think of one game where our group did have a clear-cut leader (a Star Trek campaign), there is usually one character that drives the plot or is the primary "mover" in the campaign. Generally, this character is played by either a buddy of mine or myself.

Amusingly, that same buddy and I tend to trade off DMing - one of us will DM and the other will be the primary "mover" for a campaign and then we'll switch. We've never really planned it to be this way, that's just the way it seems to work out. It's really rare that we'll be on the same side of the DM screen and, when we are, it's sort of a toss-up regarding which of us is more responsible for driving the plot from the PCs' perspective.

[broli]

im usually the leader of all gaming groups im in.
i didnt force it, it just happens every time. my RL experience managing people, coaching courses, ect just makes me say that thing that makes everyone immediately think/decide im the one in charge

one time i said "that plan is awsome, now lets put ourselves in that moment, and think of that thing, that will make us go "DOH; we are stupid for not doing _blank_""
everyone looked at me like I discovered the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything

the leader of the party said "ok i quit, im the strategist now, he is the head honcho"

also, in real life, im the one that usually keeps the flow of the game going, minimizing offtopic conversations and derailment

[The Shadowdove]

we had an npc warrior who was meant to just be the meat shield for our party.

I guess I made his personality too like able and trustworthy... Because he was all ex soldiery but really respectful.

My party was making leaning too much on him to lead last night, so I killed him last night.we will see who's the leader next Monday!

[Celcey]

So generally, y'all find the leader-ing tends to have more to do with OOC personality than in-game characters?

[DireSickFish]

So generally, y'all find the leader-ing tends to have more to do with OOC personality than in-game characters?

Yup. We tried to take one of our least vocal players in high school and make him the main character of the story. The game session ground to a halt.

The person that leads in game has to have the capacity to lead out of game. That doesn't mean the same person will always lead, but the same people will tend to fill the leadership role.

[asorel]

So generally, y'all find the leader-ing tends to have more to do with OOC personality than in-game characters?

There's rarely a complete separation between IC and OOC actions, and proactivity is something nearly impossible to roleplay if one has a timid personality. Unless the leader is somehow designated, either in or out of character, I would imagine RL characteristics would be the driving factor behind taking charge of the party.

The one exception I can think of is involvement in the game. A more timid player may become party leader if they immerse themselves in the game more completely than anyone else. Because they have a much more vested interest in what happens to the party, they may take control of it, if the other players have taken a more casual approach to the game.

[Joe the Rat]

So generally, y'all find the leader-ing tends to have more to do with OOC personality than in-game characters?
Pretty much, though it isn't always about "leading" or "organizing." Sometimes the leader is the one who simply gets tired of the hemming and hawing, grabs a hammer and smacks the ogre in the junk.

Or whatever type of boat the ogre is in.

[Phion]

There's rarely a complete separation between IC and OOC actions, and proactivity is something nearly impossible to roleplay if one has a timid personality. Unless the leader is somehow designated, either in or out of character, I would imagine RL characteristics would be the driving factor behind taking charge of the party.

The one exception I can think of is involvement in the game. A more timid player may become party leader if they immerse themselves in the game more completely than anyone else. Because they have a much more vested interest in what happens to the party, they may take control of it, if the other players have taken a more casual approach to the game.

It would be quite interesting to force a timid player into a role of leadership by natural methods such as giving a background/mission that only they can complete (like king Arthur pulling the sword from the stone), it might make the player more confident in game and perhaps out of game if they are surrounded by party members that look to him/her for guidance. Wouldn't try it myself because some players are quite happy just for the ride but still interesting.

[asorel]

It would be quite interesting to force a timid player into a role of leadership by natural methods such as giving a background/mission that only they can complete (like king Arthur pulling the sword from the stone), it might make the player more confident in game and perhaps out of game if they are surrounded by party members that look to him/her for guidance. Wouldn't try it myself because some players are quite happy just for the ride but still interesting.

Perhaps, but it runs the risk of backfiring. For every person that takes charge in this scenario, there is at least one who would freeze up and grind the campaign to a halt. Taking players out of their comfort zone is all well and good, but is best done in increments.

[Phion]

Perhaps, but it runs the risk of backfiring. For every person that takes charge in this scenario, there is at least one who would freeze up and grind the campaign to a halt. Taking players out of their comfort zone is all well and good, but is best done in increments.

Yeah, nothing wrong anyway not taking the leadership/mouth role; the party wouldn't function if everyone fought for the spotlight all the time.