Playing a leader - a non-crunch focussed thought experiment

[Spore]

In light of recent threads and my fear that my new D&D 5 group characters will not cooperate ingame due to them being very diverse I wanted to ask how you guys play leader type guys. I want a vague idea of stats and abilities that reflect that. But I also want to know the ingame events that made people accept your guidance and what possibly helped on the meta level.

Generally I tend to accept Paladins as leader type characters. They face consequences most dire if straying from the Light too far. Funnily enough this is not due to the Charisma focussed style of play because I have seen Charisma casters and face type characters that are both accepted as leaders and are not accepted as leaders. Sometimes the strongest warrior will take the lead, e.g. a Cha 8 Barbarian. I have even had instances where the unremarkable rogue has lead. As party constellations shift so does the leadership.

Of course a good leader adapts to his party. A lawful Paladin won't be leading a bunch of chaotic rogues, wizards and bards for very long. But what places the leader in her or his position? Why is one bloke deciding the course of an adventuring day if no unity can be achieved ingame? Social aspects between players also tend to play a role. But imagine I would want to play a leading character, how should I behave? How should the crunch look, how should the fluff be? Does a leader really need profciency in Persuasion? Would people follow a meek and unwise but very smart wizard? Would they follow a strong but thick rogue? Does crunch even matter when talking about group unity?

And in my specific case: Could a dexterous and wise but simpleminded - and heavily introverted - ranger be able to influence a very mixed group into the right direction? Or would he rather be the advisor to the determined paladin? What results in a happy relationsship between the group?

How would you stat and play a dedicated leader figure?

[Specter]

The leader as an absolute concept must die. People are playing rpg's to make decisions and feel united and relevant as part of a group, not being bossed around and missing the spotlight.

In one of my groups I am the tiefling bard, and the paladin has taken that role indirectly. I let him do whatever he wants to do, but I take no orders from him and would never let him decide my fate in a conflict of opinion. If he keeps on pushing this CEO c**p, outright defiance will rise, and not only from me.

Besides, leadership will always deoend on the situation. That same paladin can't lead anyone in the woods or talking to the streetwise guys. Anyone can lead, it's just a matter of right place and time.

[Sigreid]

In the games I have been in leader works just like it does in real life. People have a natural tendency to follow the person who acts with confidence, sounds like they have a plan, and they don't think it bat crap crazy and going to get everyone killed.

[MrStabby]

The leader as an absolute concept must die. People are playing rpg's to make decisions and feel united and relevant as part of a group, not being bossed around and missing the spotlight.

In one of my groups I am the tiefling bard, and the paladin has taken that role indirectly. I let him do whatever he wants to do, but I take no orders from him and would never let him decide my fate in a conflict of opinion. If he keeps on pushing this CEO c**p, outright defiance will rise, and not only from me.

Besides, leadership will always deoend on the situation. That same paladin can't lead anyone in the woods or talking to the streetwise guys. Anyone can lead, it's just a matter of right place and time.

Yeah, pretty much exactly this.

Having one player play a leader is a surefire way of pissing off most, if not all players.

Being a leader requires followers. The choice to follow lies with other players. You cannot chose to lead them and to try and do so can be seen as taking away their choice about how their character sees you.

[Spore]

Hold your horses my friend.

I said leader, not dictator or general. The term is much broader and the very definition is quite soft. Usually it is the same guys calling the shots if everyone is unorganized. I am not saying a leading Paladin can not quiet or should not down while being led through the busy and dangerous slums. I am talking about when the group is unable to choose both paths of a crossroads and undecided. I am talking about a unified strategy during the chaos that are fights (tho because of the predictability of D&D most fights actually work similarly).

@Sigreid

Confidence certainly is key. But believe me when I tell you I can fake confidence. Of course most of your peers know you as well. But they cannot differentiate between ingame confidence and outofgame confidence. After all, I do not play with a significant other that spends more time with me to know certain signs.

I tend to not play leaders as much as unifiers. I try to find something in common between all characters. This is of course not always possible and the gameplay suffers from that. This is why I made this thread. Because diversity in groups should be a good thing and nothing a group breaks over. I played a hardcore antisocial character once and needless to say it didn't work out that well. This is why I like defensive or healing concepts. It's easy to explain why people trust and unite around a healer or protector. They think they are reliable, they want to survive and they want the goodies in form of buffs. Even doing illogical stuff like running around soaking up any potential attacks of opportunity (trying to make space for the healer to get to the mortally wounded member).

But devotion and protection doesn't fit every character.

[Specter]

Hold your horses my friend.

I said leader, not dictator or general. The term is much broader and the very definition is quite soft. Usually it is the same guys calling the shots if everyone is unorganized. I am not saying a leading Paladin can not quiet or should not down while being led through the busy and dangerous slums. I am talking about when the group is unable to choose both paths of a crossroads and undecided. I am talking about a unified strategy during the chaos that are fights (tho because of the predictability of D&D most fights actually work similarly).

I got it. But I don't think you need a designated leader for that. If the party absolutely can't decide what to do, there's always player/character compromise ("we'll do yours and later we do mine") or simply rolling to see what's next. There's no reason to have one guy with a bigger vote than the others.

[MrStabby]

Hmm. Maybe don't use the word leader then - although I am not sure what word best fits your concept. Just describe your character not how others react to them. You can describe and play them as confident, because that is a feature of your character. You can't play them as a character others trust as that is their choice. This isn't to say you can't play them as trustworthy, but being trusted or not is up to the other players.

[Reosoul]

I think Specter and MrStabby are kind of missing the mark here, so I'll throw my opinion out there. If you're in a party that doesn't have a leader, it's either likely the DM misplays encounters, throws easy adventuring days at you, or everyone in your party has just played with each other so often they're gods at setting each other up for some fun- Not something most players will experience(hopefully, for the former).

A lot of the time when someone says 'Leader', they might be thinking of the swaggering guy calling the shots and hogging the spotlight, which isn't correct. I feel leader is similar to the whole 'god wizard' meme that treantmonk touted. Throwing spotlight on the right guy at the right time.

The two TPK's I've had to witness as a DM thus far, that were painfully due to not having a leader, was everyone doing their own thing and being blatantly stubborn until they all died for it. Yes, you're a special and unique snowflake. And very smart. Just like everyone else. Now take a step back so you don't get caught in my Fireball-action surge-fireball on the next initiative count.

My favorite way to play leader, mechanically speaking, thus far is to take a Knowledge cleric dip level 1, then go wizard from there. Just focus on buffing with guidance, bless and using portent to steer important things how I want. If a battle is going bad, just step up to the front line and dodge and pass out healing words. There's nothing flashy about dodge, but it can waste a lot of turns for your enemies and is criminally underused at early levels.

If you want to actually roleplay as party leader you have to start small, but it can be done with any class. Throw spotlight where you can and when you think something sounds better, phrase it like a question and try to play to other party member's strengths and make it seem more like an idea you both came up with. Keep doing that with time and after having earned some trust, you can just keep rolling that way. If it doesn't work out, or worse, someone just seems to be better at it than you, just let it go and focus yourself towards another niche.

Obviously, none of this works if all the other party members are Drizzt or are from Darkedge city where everyone's out for themselves and too busy being a knobhead to be cooperative in a party-focused game. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Breaklance]

In the games I have been in leader works just like it does in real life. People have a natural tendency to follow the person who acts with confidence, sounds like they have a plan, and they don't think it bat crap crazy and going to get everyone killed.

Generally this. A good leader is about getting people to follow you. That's done a myriad of ways but simple things like pitching a plan when one is needed, and letting people play to their strengths go a long way.

You don't need to be the party face to be the leader. you can lead a group of dysfunctional maniacs if you let them play to their character strengths and present the players opportunity to RP their character.

[Sigreid]

Ok, I'll take another stab at it. in order to lead you need authority, there are different kinds of authority, and if you want to lead your party, you have to find yours.

Direct Authority: This is when you have a direct ability to impose consequences on your subordinates. Unless you're in a military campaign, you're not likely to get this.

Delegated Authority: You can't impose consequences on your own, but you are deriving your authority from someone how can. You're also not likely to have this outside a military campaign.

Expert Authority: You're the one that knows what you are doing so people, even people with direct authority will defer to expert authority if they're smart.

Default authority ( I forget what it's really called ): In a company where there is no direct, delegated or expert authority to rely on this is where people defer because they don't want to be the one to make the decision.

Then there's the hardest one to get (also don't remember the official name). This is authority derived because people believe in you. They believe you have a broader vision and the wisdom to carry them to success and a brighter future. More than that, their assessment of their own self worth is tied up heavily in your successes. This is the kind of thing that Alexander the Great and Charlemagne had.

[Rogozhin]

Perhaps instead of an outright leader try to think of it more as a facilitator, or mediator. Someone who can help everyone's ideas be heard and help guide the group to a compromise when necessary.

I suppose it also helps if that person can make a strong decision when indecision is really Gumming up the works...

[Laserlight]

In our groups, I tend to end up as the leader unless I design my character to avoid it--I'm currently playing an INT4 barbarian who only knows five words. Partly that's because I have quite a lot more experience than any of the others (I've played D&D and wargames longer than they've been alive...). Partly it's because others don't want to do it--depending on the player, they don't want to have to think, they're not confident, they don't have the system knowledge, whatever. Combination of Expert and Default authority.

My job as a leader is to draw out the other players' opinions when the situation allows; and to make sure everyone gets a chance to shine; and to give good tactical guidance. If I wanted to cover that with mechanics, I'd get at least a reasonable INT, good WIS, and good CHA for "force of personality", plus Insight and Persuasion. Maybe a background that could give command experience--military, criminal, folk hero, and sailor all spring to mind.

However, I could be the leader of the players even through my PC isn't the leader of the party, so the mechanics aren't necessary.

[CaptainSarathai]

At a meta-level, anyone can be the leader. I love this about a lot of D&D-based comics, where they poke fun at the fact that the dumb-as-rocks Barbarian is actually being played by a guy with a PHD in Physics.

At the table, you only have "Soft Leader" positions. You aren't able to impose your rule or shift your weight around that much, so it's mostly leading through Charisma and respect. The best way to get there is to be assertive. Instead of saying,
"Okay guys, enough Monty Python jokes, what are we doing next?"
Ask them this:
"Okay guys, enough joking, are we going to Thundertree?" (or whatever your plan is)

A lot of people will just go along with a plan, because they either can't be bothered to think of a better one, can't think of a better one, or actually agree with you.

Good rules of thumb for any leader are:

> Serve yourself last, and followers first
> Never take from your followers
> Never order your followers to do something you wouldn't do yourself
> Lead by example
> Reward and praise often. Even when criticizing, you get more done with a "sandwich": compliment, improve, compliment
> Never withhold rewards
> Be the first in, and the last out
> Never do it alone. Never be of the opinion, "if you want it done right, do it yourself" - teach people how to do it right. Give them agency in the group's success.
> You are always the fall-guy. Even if the plan deteriorates because the Fighter rolled a 1 when the boss was at 1hp, it's your fault for relying so heavily on the Fighter and not having a backup plan.

Those things get respect.

Another good thing to do is break up responsibility. This means that you'll share spotlight a lot, and keep people engaged.
For example, our Paladin doesn't do much outside of combat, and isn't too comfortable with roleplay, so she's the treasurer - it keeps her paying attention and feeling important.

In our 7-man party, we have-
Warlock: leader
Noble Fighter: face (with nobles)
Folk-Hero Fighter: face (with commoners)
Paladin: treasurer/paymaster
Wizard: intel (we actually call her "Q")
Cleric: medic/triage (and comedic relief)
Rogue: tactics (works with me; any build that has situational high-damage is usually central to any plan. That's us)

My job (and any good leader's job) isn't to tell people what to do. It's to basically analyze the situation, and then delegate the right tasks to the right people.


Lock: Alright, good fight guys. Anyone hurt?
Cleric: Yeah, Fighter's down, I'm working on it. Wizard, you took some hits, you good? Okay. Pally, go poke her back to half.
Fighter2: I'm checking these crates for treasure. Hey - we've got 80 gold over here! And a scroll.
Pally: I'll add the gold. We'll split it when we get back. Should be a good haul though.
Wizard: Same. I'll take a look at that scroll.
Lock: Everyone done here? Okay DM, we're pressing on to the next room.
DM: The door opens to a small balcony, overlooking several gnolls doing some kind of wild ritual with dancing and loud drumming. They haven't noticed you yet.
Rogue: Okay, I have a plan...

[Sir cryosin]

At a meta-level, anyone can be the leader. I love this about a lot of D&D-based comics, where they poke fun at the fact that the dumb-as-rocks Barbarian is actually being played by a guy with a PHD in Physics.

At the table, you only have "Soft Leader" positions. You aren't able to impose your rule or shift your weight around that much, so it's mostly leading through Charisma and respect. The best way to get there is to be assertive. Instead of saying,
"Okay guys, enough Monty Python jokes, what are we doing next?"
Ask them this:
"Okay guys, enough joking, are we going to Thundertree?" (or whatever your plan is)

A lot of people will just go along with a plan, because they either can't be bothered to think of a better one, can't think of a better one, or actually agree with you.

Good rules of thumb for any leader are:

> Serve yourself last, and followers first
> Never take from your followers
> Never order your followers to do something you wouldn't do yourself
> Lead by example
> Reward and praise often. Even when criticizing, you get more done with a "sandwich": compliment, improve, compliment
> Never withhold rewards
> Be the first in, and the last out
> Never do it alone. Never be of the opinion, "if you want it done right, do it yourself" - teach people how to do it right. Give them agency in the group's success.
> You are always the fall-guy. Even if the plan deteriorates because the Fighter rolled a 1 when the boss was at 1hp, it's your fault for relying so heavily on the Fighter and not having a backup plan.

Those things get respect.

Another good thing to do is break up responsibility. This means that you'll share spotlight a lot, and keep people engaged.
For example, our Paladin doesn't do much outside of combat, and isn't too comfortable with roleplay, so she's the treasurer - it keeps her paying attention and feeling important.

In our 7-man party, we have-
Warlock: leader
Noble Fighter: face (with nobles)
Folk-Hero Fighter: face (with commoners)
Paladin: treasurer/paymaster
Wizard: intel (we actually call her "Q")
Cleric: medic/triage (and comedic relief)
Rogue: tactics (works with me; any build that has situational high-damage is usually central to any plan. That's us)

My job (and any good leader's job) isn't to tell people what to do. It's to basically analyze the situation, and then delegate the right tasks to the right people.


Lock: Alright, good fight guys. Anyone hurt?
Cleric: Yeah, Fighter's down, I'm working on it. Wizard, you took some hits, you good? Okay. Pally, go poke her back to half.
Fighter2: I'm checking these crates for treasure. Hey - we've got 80 gold over here! And a scroll.
Pally: I'll add the gold. We'll split it when we get back. Should be a good haul though.
Wizard: Same. I'll take a look at that scroll.
Lock: Everyone done here? Okay DM, we're pressing on to the next room.
DM: The door opens to a small balcony, overlooking several gnolls doing some kind of wild ritual with dancing and loud drumming. They haven't noticed you yet.
Rogue: Okay, I have a plan...

Specter and mr. Stabby and evereveryone else. Every group needs a leader. Now a leader should not tell you what to do all the time. Like my friend in this post above. A good leader delegate task and unite the party. A good leader must be able to handle every type of personalities. A leader is a job you don't want if your not trying to be a dictator. Now why I said every party needs a leader. Is because if you didn't everyone is doing what ever they want and it not a cooperative play.

[Giant2005]

In my experience, the leader in the game isn't chosen because of anything to do with his character. The leader is decided by whoever is the smartest and most charismatic out of character.
It sucks but it is the way it is - no matter what the mental stats or qualifications of your character, if you don't have them in real life, your character isn't going to pull them off either.

[Douche]

If you want to be a leader, then try doing it through interpersonal communication. No amount of stats & abilities will prevent you from being a sperg IRL

[Raimun]

Being a leader doesn't really require you to play a certain class or to have specific class abilities or skills. It's more about adapting to the group you lead and the rest of group accepting your vision and leadership.

And every party doesn't need a leader. I can't even remember a game of D&D (or other dungeon crawling, fantasy RPG) where the party had a definite leader. Such a group doesn't always really need a leader.
Whenever I've been the leader of the party has been in games where there was a clear, in-universe demand for a leader. For example, there was this pirate campaign where we sailed a pirate ship and the a crew consisted of PCs and NPCs. Military campaigns also demand a definite leader for the unit.

[Sigreid]

Specter and mr. Stabby and evereveryone else. Every group needs a leader. Now a leader should not tell you what to do all the time. Like my friend in this post above. A good leader delegate task and unite the party. A good leader must be able to handle every type of personalities. A leader is a job you don't want if your not trying to be a dictator. Now why I said every party needs a leader. Is because if you didn't everyone is doing what ever they want and it not a cooperative play.

Disagree. My group has no leader, but we cooperate very well. In many ways we act quite a bit like a 5 man democracy.

[Talionis]

Ok, I'll take another stab at it. in order to lead you need authority, there are different kinds of authority, and if you want to lead your party, you have to find yours.

Direct Authority: This is when you have a direct ability to impose consequences on your subordinates. Unless you're in a military campaign, you're not likely to get this.

Delegated Authority: You can't impose consequences on your own, but you are deriving your authority from someone how can. You're also not likely to have this outside a military campaign.

Expert Authority: You're the one that knows what you are doing so people, even people with direct authority will defer to expert authority if they're smart.

Default authority ( I forget what it's really called ): In a company where there is no direct, delegated or expert authority to rely on this is where people defer because they don't want to be the one to make the decision.

Then there's the hardest one to get (also don't remember the official name). This is authority derived because people believe in you. They believe you have a broader vision and the wisdom to carry them to success and a brighter future. More than that, their assessment of their own self worth is tied up heavily in your successes. This is the kind of thing that Alexander the Great and Charlemagne had.


This is really correct. Different types of leadership. It can be different characters in different situations.

[RickAllison]

Most of the values I see as important for a leader are not due to stats, but actual player skills. Here are what I consider important:

1: Ability to plan. They need to be able to suggest a plan whenever the party is unsure of what to do. It doesmt need to be great, and I actually think it is good if the person isn't the best so that others are encouraged to put their ideas forth. The leader needs to break the ice, to set a benchmark so that the party can brainstorm. Best of all, they should always have a plan, even if the rest of the party is clueless.

2: Ability to improvise. That planning thing? PCs have a nasty tendency to do things that throw plans out the window. The leader needs to be able to see crap hit the fan and yell out "Rally to the tower!" If the party has an actual goal, they can figure out where to go while recouping their losses. The wizard or druid can suggest laying down a control spell, the barbarian can block immediate attackers until they get away, the archer rushes ahead for a barrier to provide cover fire as the party retreats, and so on. It isn't about winning, it is about giving a survivable goal to create a winning plan.

3: Ability to foster discussion. The party doesn't need someone to dominate everything, but someone who can control the proverbial talking-stick so everyone is heard is invaluable.

4: Able to get along with everyone. This isn't about PCs chafing under authority or having disputes, it is about being neutral ground. Paladins are awful for this because they are so polarized. Think of Roy from OotS. He is LG and so is great for establishing relations with more hard-nosed characters, but he is flexible enough in his thinking to accept ideas from Belkar. He recognizes Haley's faults and is flexible enough in his ideas on how to conduct battle to incorporate how she lacks to fight. He is knowledgable enough to get along with the otherwise rather elitist Vaarsuvius. He is loyal and faithful enough to be a constant ally of Durkon. And Élan loves everyone, but Roy's recognition of his usefulness has earned his total loyalty. Roy is able to engage with every member of the party and serves as a neutral space where everyone can discuss with him without fear of too much bias. He has feuds with Belkar, but there is a camaraderie that overcomes those frustrations when push comes to shove.

Those are what I think makes a great RPG leader. They are able to set goals, foment discussion about those goals, and be someone everyone can talk to.

[Vogonjeltz]

In light of recent threads and my fear that my new D&D 5 group characters will not cooperate ingame due to them being very diverse I wanted to ask how you guys play leader type guys. I want a vague idea of stats and abilities that reflect that. But I also want to know the ingame events that made people accept your guidance and what possibly helped on the meta level.

Leader is not a single monolithic type, so I'd divest yourself of that notion first.

There are many many styles of leadership.

Some lead by example or are inspirational, their followers are inspired by the actions taken or aspire to be like the leader. (Lincoln, Ghandi)
Some lead by dint of skill, their followers trust in the ability of the leader to accomplish goals, but not necessarily through a winning personality. (Bill Belichick)
Personal loyalty from shared experiences.
Some lead by intimidation, their followers go along because they fear the consequences of a failure to do so. (Negan, from the Walking Dead)

To answer your later questions:


Of course a good leader adapts to his party. A lawful Paladin won't be leading a bunch of chaotic rogues, wizards and bards for very long. But what places the leader in her or his position? Why is one bloke deciding the course of an adventuring day if no unity can be achieved ingame? Social aspects between players also tend to play a role. But imagine I would want to play a leading character, how should I behave? How should the crunch look, how should the fluff be? Does a leader really need profciency in Persuasion? Would people follow a meek and unwise but very smart wizard? Would they follow a strong but thick rogue? Does crunch even matter when talking about group unity?

And in my specific case: Could a dexterous and wise but simpleminded - and heavily introverted - ranger be able to influence a very mixed group into the right direction? Or would he rather be the advisor to the determined paladin? What results in a happy relationsship between the group?

How would you stat and play a dedicated leader figure?

As mentioned above, a leader you may like doesn't necessarily represent the beginning and end of types of leaders. I don't respect those who lead by intimidation, but I recognize that they are still leaders.

A Lawful Good Paladin might lead a group of Chaotic Good Rogues, Wizards, and Bards simply because they believe in the Paladin's cause, and respect her motives.

Lots of things can result in someone being a leader: Ambition, Necessity, or Acclaim, for example. In an adventuring party, if there is a leader, then maybe it's because that is the person who organized the group, recruited the members, drafted the party charter, etcetera.

As an example, the Paladin could be the leader of the group simply because the group is the Paladin's, and anyone who doesn't wish to follow is free to leave. i.e. Those who remain do so because they want to be in the group and agreed to follow the Paladin's lead.

If you want to be the group leader, you need to discuss that with your party members and elect yourself to be the leader of the group. If the players refuse to go along with it, then it can't happen, obviously. If you want to have some fun with it, agree as a group (Players and DM) that one character would nominally be the leader in game, but that everyone you encounter thinks your character is the leader of the group and acts accordingly. Then you can have the running trope of the real leader not being respected by anyone, blah dity blah.

If there is a leader, and they plan on being the negotiator, then persuasion could be useful. But so could Intimidation, or Bluff. It goes back to saying it depends on what kind of leader they are.

Ask yourself:
What reason would someone have for following a Meek character?
A character they know to be unwise but intelligent?

This is not a character who is likely to act as you say they are meek. Therefore the only plausible reasons for them to be a leader are because someone/thing else forced/is forcing them to be the leader.

Why would someone follow a strong but stupid character? Fear? Doesn't realize the character is stupid? Confidence in the character's abilities if not their faculties?

Heavily introverted characters would have to be extremely motivated to choose to become a leader, others might follow them by choice, but it's very unlikely that the character would choose it for themself. So, it's not impossible, but it's quite unlikely. One thing the theoretical Ranger would have going for themself is that their judgment should be good even if they weren't great at thinking up plans in the first place.

How I'd stat the leader depends on who they are and why they're being followed.

For example, if they lead by divine right, statistics are irrelevent.


> Be the first in, and the last out

I like most everything you said, but note that this in particular is not a good leadership trait when it comes to dangerous activities like warfare. Leaders quite specifically should not be in front, because they're more likely to get harmed and if they get killed that deprives the group of their more useful traits.

[Sigreid]

This is really correct. Different types of leadership. It can be different characters in different situations.

Thanks. Anyone who has taken a military or serious management leadership course should find this very familiar. Military is where I learned it.

[Zene]

Perhaps instead of an outright leader try to think of it more as a facilitator, or mediator. Someone who can help everyone's ideas be heard and help guide the group to a compromise when necessary.


Seconding this. The best way to fall into a leadership position (IMHO) is by first making the team effective and successful. To get a diverse and often conflicting group going in a good direction, you need to be a unifier/facilitator/mediator type leader. That kind of group doesn't need someone telling it what to do; it needs someone who can help them work better together at deciding what to do, and then doing it. Someone who can help them turn their diversity of viewpoints and goals into a benefit--even if the party doesn't explicitly realize it.

(Note this is very different from the leadership needs of a group where everyone is indecisive or lacking a purpose... in those cases, a strong take-charge leader, or an inspirational "follow my example" leader, can be a big help.)

My two cents:

Unifying/facilitating leadership --there are player personalities that are good at this, and there are character types that can add to or detract from a player's effectiveness at it.

Character tips:

Stereotypical LG paladins, or any other extreme "I know the true path" or "my way or the highway" type characters, will only add one more loud and differing viewpoint to the group. They will detract from group unity, not advance it.
Characters that can selectively support others (Bards, Mastermind Rogues, Battlemaster Fighters, Purple Dragon Fighters, buff-oriented caster builds) and can believably be oriented toward open-mindedness and neutrality, are a great help. Not only does having someone in a support role just naturally lead to team connectedness, but the selective-support means you can subtly choose what behavior to encourage. Bardic inspiration more often to the team member that's being a good team player. Commander's strike less often for the people that are being uncooperative. If you do it right (i.e. subtly), over time you can subconsciously nudge them toward feeling intrinsic reward when cooperating.
Characters with high Charisma can actually help too. By default, the high-Cha characters, if the player is also a good talker, can believably take the lead (or one of the lead) roles in non-combat interactions. When we see someone being a leader and succeeding, we want to follow them. So those Cha-based NPC successes, if played right, also end up giving you subconscious weight with the PCs.Note: This can also be a trap. If you've got resistant folks on the team, you playing a character that acts like a leader can tip them off that you're trying to actually be the leader, and can actually detract from your effectiveness. You've got to make a call on how low-key you need to play it.


Player tips:
You really want to encourage folks to speak their mind and then find common ground and collaborate. So you have to not only seem, but also be, open-minded.
Here's one I see a lot of otherwise great leaders (and DM's) stumble on: A lot of introverts play D&D (and they're everywhere else, too). If you have one or more extroverted, loud people at the table, you probably also then have the flipside: One or more people that are taking a backseat not by choice, but because they don't naturally interrupt/talk over people/fight for attention. Make these people your allies. Make space for them in the conversation. Don't let the loud/aggressive folks dominate every discussion, or even most discussions. When the quiet folks aren't speaking up on something, ask them if they have a point of view on it. Support them when they do speak up. Your group will make better decisions because of it, they'll have more fun, and by enabling them you'll be being a leader (whether people realize it or not).
Don't preach, and don't dictate -- unless your group loves those things (and they probably don't). Respect everyone's opinions. You can push your own agenda, just do it subtly, with suggestion and encouragement. One of the best ways to get your way is to lay the groundwork for someone else to think along the same lines and then suggest it to the group, and then you support them. If you do this multiple times with different people, then not only are you leading from a results perspective, but you're building allies and general consensus-building skills within the team. In many cases they will naturally look to you as a leader anyway.
If you find yourself in a group where people are often butting heads (the assassin and the paladin always refusing to do it the other's way, for example), really think about what they're trying to accomplish, and whether it's really in conflict. Often there's a third path that gives them both what they really want. There's a whole body of materials on conflict resolution and --as cliche as it's become-- win/win negotiating. If you're serious about leading a tough group, spending just a little time learning the basics of that stuff can be a huge payoff.
On that note, you do need a bit of general leadership skill for any of this stuff to work. If you're a natural leader, great! If not, you can build those skills. Lots of great stuff out there on the basic underlying skills of leadership. Do a quick assessment of what you're lacking (do you not speak up enough? do people just not seem to take you seriously when you do speak? are you not great at thinking on your feet?) and then do some research on how to deal with those shortcomings. Some can be fixed with practice, and some can just be compensated for by using different techniques or building strengths in other areas.

[Sigreid]

Zene, you have some good thoughts there, but a caution. There was a thread recently started by someone who was having issues because they are an introvert to the point they didn't want to be drawn into the dialog and their group and DM was "helpfully" putting them on the spot so they had their time in the "limelight". This person dropped their group because of this. So, just be aware that those people are out there and let them be who they are.

[Zene]

Zene, you have some good thoughts there, but a caution. There was a thread recently started by someone who was having issues because they are an introvert to the point they didn't want to be drawn into the dialog and their group and DM was "helpfully" putting them on the spot so they had their time in the "limelight". This person dropped their group because of this. So, just be aware that those people are out there and let them be who they are.

Oh definitely, excellent point. In my personal experience --and I'll admit I'm not an expert at this-- the key is to not push interaction, but to make space for it. Saying something like "you've been quiet, what's your opinion?" can be way less effective than "we've been talking a lot - anyone else have any thoughts they've been wanting to share?" Knowing the person's preferences can make a big difference of course, as can inflection. Not surprising them with the opportunity can sometimes help too... like if you make sure to go around the table asking each person if they want to chime in, by the time it gets to them they may feel less on-the-spot. But you should make sure they still have an easy out to take if they want it.

And of course respect how everyone really wants to play the game.