If she leads, will they follow?

[Project_Cobalt]

So here's my current predicament as a DM. I've got a five-person party in 4th Edition where everyone has a distinct role in combat, and everyone but one has a distinct role in terms of RP. My party has it's stiff, authoritarian paladin. It has it's rage-filled, loose-cannon barbarian. It has it's back-stabbing, cowardly rogue. It has it's pleasant, compassionate warlord. And then there's the ranger, who has no definition in terms of who she is.

Her player, who has expressed to me an interest in being the party leader - the Captain America to our group's Avengers, so to speak - has one big problem: she doesn't know how to get the rest of the group on board with her idea of being leader. As it stands right now, the Paladin is the most experienced player who is most comfortable with taking charge and giving orders or leading by example. Should I step in and stop him, even if no one in the party is willing to?

How can I help the Ranger be the leader without just sitting down the players OOC and saying "she is the leader now"? Can anyone suggest a way for me to help her develop into the leadership role without forcing it on the group? Is it right for me to oust the Paladin as the defacto leader in order to help give the Ranger some sorely-needed direction?

[MonkeyBusiness]

How will the Ranger as leader help the story along? Also, is it even necessary for the group to have a "leader"?

I'd think about my goals for the group, and about the story arc. If the story needed a character to be a leader, then I'd consider which character is most suitable for leader in the story.

It might be that the story involves leadership changing. Another famous ranger, Strider, was a somewhat uncertain leader, who had sole responsibility for a fractious group thrust upon him. But that responsibility came about in part because of how others perceived him (the rightful heir with a royal destiny, as well as a skilled person). If you want to give the ranger a chance, one simple way might be to arrange encounters with authority figures who will assume the ranger is in charge: other ranger, druids, wood elves, etc. Or, you might create a scenario that will allow her to use her abilities impressively, and so make leadership seem natural.

[Eleven]

If they're to lead, she needs to be either be the reason that they go in the direction that they are or know the way. If you can swing it, why not both. In terms of the reason, work with some basic norms for party motivations: treasure, morality, personal development, plot, doing cool ****. Judge based on what gets your players going; make her character the means through which they are inclined towards one of those things. Or the way that they do things.

Thing is, though, it seems to me that you are trying to solve a character problem with a human solution. Leader is an IC & OOC position. Not only that, but in-character, I think you're also trying to fill a description with a role. Stiffness & authoritarianism, for example, are simple characterizations, not positions in a social matrix.

So consider the following: decide independently on who leads the group, who leads the party, and what descriptors the individual character needs. None of those need to interrelate in any way you don't want them to.

She could be any number of characterizations: a vengeful lone wolf, a nature-rhythmed mystic, a bold explorer. She could be the in-party leader, you just need to make the story revolve around her in certain ways. She could also be the IRL leader, but I suspect that this is something best served by the group naturally deciding who best fits. But those are all individual decisions.

Best of luck.

[SowZ]

Does your group have a habit of a GM declared party leader and is that how these players like to operate?

[Project_Cobalt]

Does your group have a habit of a GM declared party leader and is that how these players like to operate?

I've gamed with the Paladin and the Warlord for a few years now, and we don't normally operate like that. But, the rest of the group is newish to D&D and I'm not sure if they'd benefit from the structure, or chafe at the constraints.

How will the Ranger as leader help the story along? Also, is it even necessary for the group to have a "leader"?

It's not strictly necessary, but it's a role she's interesting in filling, and a role I feel the group could benefit from. The further the Barbarian gets into her character, the more she causes (entirely IC, and welcome) conflict within the group which will be mitigated by the ranger (an ally the Barbarian trusts and respects) as the one keeping people in line.

In general it's more trying to build the character into what her player wants her to be, and working out a way to do that organically.

Judge based on what gets your players going; make her character the means through which they are inclined towards one of those things.

And I think this hits on the idea I was going for. Sort of a question of "if she wants to lead, and I want her to lead, and there's no good reason for her not to lead, how do I make sure the others will be okay with it without it seeming forced?" And to narrow it down at least to a more specific idea of making her the key to a goal, or the person whom the party relies on to be in a position of leadership in some regard is a good place to start

Thanks for the replies, guys. And if you need more information, or have any more input, I would be happy to give/receive it.

[Blacky the Blackball]

If I were you, I'd keep out of it completely.

If she wants to be recognised as the leader of the party, then she should actually lead the party. She should be making suggestions, giving advice, keeping others focused, etcetera. If she does that, and the others appreciate it, then she will naturally become the party leader. If she does it and the others don't appreciate it then she'll not become the leader (although it can still be fun roleplaying that).

But that's all based on her roleplaying with the others and has nothing to do with you "making" her the leader by DM fiat or trying to contrive ways to force the others to follow her for plot reasons. Doing any of that seems as if it will end up with resentment all round.

[Badgerish]

I support 'Blacky the Blackball's suggestions, but if you do want to give it a helping hand:

Create a short adventure with a Rangery theme: Tracking something across the wilderness. Negotiating with a primitive/rangery tribe. Talking with a Druid/Ranger who respects Rangery abilities. Hunting a complex monster that the ranger has knowledge of. Exploring lands that the Ranger is familiar with.

For this adventure, it make perfect sense for the Ranger to be the leader, so through prompting the Ranger-player or the NPC Druid/Ranger, encourage the Ranger being the formal leader for THIS adventure.

After the mission, encourage the party to sit down and talk about having an official leader in the future. But be aware that there are four clear outcomes from this:
The party chooses the ranger as leader
The party chooses someone else as leader
The party chooses to rotating leaders based on situation
The party chooses no leaders


This should/must be the players'/characters' decision, not the GM's. And leadership is a difficult role, if the Ranger-player was going to be really good at... they probably should have fallen into the role already.

[ILM]

You could tell them "she's the boss now" but that would fall apart quickly.

You don't become a leader by DM fiat. Being a leader comes from:
1. competence and/or experience: she's the best at getting stuff done or at contributes the most to the party's main activity (this being D&D, it might be, for instance, killing things and keeping everyone alive). The team recognizes this and decides that it would be wise to listen to what she says.
2. delegation of authority: someone the PCs actually have reason to obey tell them that she's king of the hill. This works until she proves undecisive or screws up, so use with caution unless a) your party is really good at playing along even when they have reason to start flipping tables, or b) you want to see how a putsch begins.
3. uniqueness of skill or essence: for some reason, the campaign revolves around her. She's the Child of Prophecy, she has some special insight into the bad guys' minds (see also: Harry Potter), etc.

Number 1 is the most natural way to do it, but she must be able to pull it off herself. Numbers 2 and 3 I'd make sure the other players are OK with it OOC cause it can quickly start looking like you're favouring a player over the others.

[Shadowknight12]

Leadership isn't something you can explain or teach. It's sort of like having a discerning tongue/nose or being observant. It's just something you are (or become through your life's experiences). Now, there are lots of guides and pointers on how to emulate leadership, but it all basically boils down to "leaders do X, so do your best to do X and you will be a lot like a leader."

If she (or her character) doesn't have what it takes to be a leader, discussion is fruitless. At best, you could get her to emulate a passable semblance of a leader, but it won't pass muster with a non-compliant party, it will only work with a party who wants her to lead.

What I've noticed is that the best way to figure out who the leader of a party is is to throw the party in a desperate situation. One of three things will happen:

1. A leader will emerge, and with ease or hardship she will lead them out of danger.
2. No leader will emerge, and it will be every man for himself.
3. Several leaders will emerge, and they will probably waste time bickering to decide who gets to call the shots. They will either fight it out or reach a compromise.

I suggest you throw the party into a hazard (not a combat situation or trap, something no PC is more qualified than another to overcome) and let the leader rise in a trial by fire.

Don't worry if they're noobs, you can ask them all a Will save at the beginning (set an arbitrarily high DC so that they cannot succeed on anything less than a natural 20, and then pray the latter does not happen) and just reveal at the end that it was all an illusion and they were under no real harm.

[jackattack]

A leader can also be determined by player agreement, particularly with a group that has played together for a while in multiple games/campaigns. This is best settled prior to the campaign beginning, of course.

If one player usually plays the leader, because of character class/background or because of RL personality traits or natural ability, other players may eventually feel like secondary members of the gaming group. Even if the player is good at being the leader, some players may not always agree with the direction he/she takes, or they might just want to explore that aspect of roleplaying.

In a group I used to game with, we always tried to settle leadership roles up front. In a sic-fi game, we agreed that the diplomat would represent the group and decide overall direction, the soldier would take charge in melee combat, and the pilot would take charge in space combat. It worked out nicely, and there was no jockeying for position or competing to get people to follow one player's lead instead of another's.

This does mean that sometimes players have to sit back and let someone else make (what they believe are) mistakes. Or to let someone else do something they (think they) are better at. That is an aspect of roleplaying (and, sometimes, friendship).

Mechanics-wise, the DM can support the leader and compensate for any shortcomings. We house-ruled bonuses based on "tactics" rolls, that the leader could distribute to other players for rolls during combat. In addition, the success of a plan could also be based on a roll, with the DM adjusting opponent placement and tactics accordingly (so that a player with poor tactical skills could still play an effective tactical character).

[DefKab]

While I really like the idea presented of having authority figures picture her as the De Facto leader in some situations, I also think it would be beneficial to talk to the current leader. Tell him that she wants to take more charge IC, and is probably nervous about it... When the Paladin starts to look towards the Ranger for advice, then the ones who look toward the Paladin will follow. If she stumbles, or shuns the responsibility, they'll look back at the Paladin who'll continue to be the leader.

But if she does well, if she takes charge and makes good decision, well, then they're very likely to follow her after that initial push.

[MonkeyBusiness]

It's not strictly necessary, but it's a role she's interesting in filling, and a role I feel the group could benefit from. The further the Barbarian gets into her character, the more she causes (entirely IC, and welcome) conflict within the group which will be mitigated by the ranger (an ally the Barbarian trusts and respects) as the one keeping people in line.

I think this is both a good reason for having the Ranger be the leader and a means of accomplishing it. If you work these situations into the roleplay you more make her role grow into a leadership position.

May I suggest that she read Richard Adam's *Watership Down*? That novel ( a delight in itself)shows how a mild-mannered, gentle person becomes the beloved leader for his group of refugees. No one realizes this is happening until it has happened. The book might also inspire some scenarios for you as a DM, and ways to use those to help her shape her character into the role she wants.

In a way, she has already begun to do this. A character with a more distinct personality Ksuch as the paladin) might be a less ideal leader in the sense you intend. She already sounds a bit like Hazel, the leader in *Watership Down*.

Let us know how it all works out!

[Project_Cobalt]

If I were you, I'd keep out of it completely.

If she wants to be recognised as the leader of the party, then she should actually lead the party. She should be making suggestions, giving advice, keeping others focused, etcetera. If she does that, and the others appreciate it, then she will naturally become the party leader. If she does it and the others don't appreciate it then she'll not become the leader (although it can still be fun roleplaying that).

But that's all based on her roleplaying with the others and has nothing to do with you "making" her the leader by DM fiat or trying to contrive ways to force the others to follow her for plot reasons. Doing any of that seems as if it will end up with resentment all round.

That's the sort of thing I was worried about, and while I'm relatively sure that the rest of the party wouldn't resent her or really care that much, I don't want to force them into something. I've been very open about how much I want for certain things to happen over the course of the party's story, but also open about how I don't want to force this. If characters change, they need to change based on the characters following threads and changing organically. And I'm of the firm belief that the leadership role should also happen organically. It's mostly just a question of if I can help that in some way.

While I really like the idea presented of having authority figures picture her as the De Facto leader in some situations, I also think it would be beneficial to talk to the current leader. Tell him that she wants to take more charge IC, and is probably nervous about it... When the Paladin starts to look towards the Ranger for advice, then the ones who look toward the Paladin will follow. If she stumbles, or shuns the responsibility, they'll look back at the Paladin who'll continue to be the leader.

This is something I've hashed out with the Paladin, and is more or less the plan. The entire Paragon Tier is a test of faith for the Paladin and Ranger (who worship the same God - a God whose church has been performing some questionable acts in the name of said God), and as the story progresses, the Paladin will be pushed to the breaking point in terms of his interaction with his faith. And it is worth noting as well that the Paladin's player is interested in this story idea, since otherwise I come off as the sort of DM who engineers excuses for the Paladin to fall, which is really farthest from the truth.

I am certain that, especially since the Paladin is already aware of her designs for leadership, the end point of the current story arc will likely be the Paladin removing himself from any sort of de-facto leader position, which means the problem solves itself as long as the players guide it to that end.

May I suggest that she read Richard Adam's *Watership Down*? That novel ( a delight in itself)shows how a mild-mannered, gentle person becomes the beloved leader for his group of refugees. No one realizes this is happening until it has happened. The book might also inspire some scenarios for you as a DM, and ways to use those to help her shape her character into the role she wants.

It's actually kind of amazing that you reference that, as I adore the animated film adaptation, and have pointed to Bigwig as the Barbarian's role model for how to be angry and disruptive while still being fiercely loyal.

I will definitely have to look to it as a means of inspiration for pushing the campaign in that direction without forcing it.

If she (or her character) doesn't have what it takes to be a leader, discussion is fruitless. At best, you could get her to emulate a passable semblance of a leader, but it won't pass muster with a non-compliant party, it will only work with a party who wants her to lead.

And I suppose this is sort of the bottom line with it. Her ranger doesn't have a defined personality yet. So, it's not so much a matter of her not being a suitable leader as it is the question of if she can become a suitable leader. Can she go from zero to sixty and define herself as the leader in the way she wants to?

I suggest you throw the party into a hazard (not a combat situation or trap, something no PC is more qualified than another to overcome) and let the leader rise in a trial by fire.

This is insanely suitable as, again, my intention is to see how far I can push the Paladin in the story, and how quickly the group falls apart when I turn the screws.

I will post more as I talk to the group. Our next session is on Friday, and I'm definitely going to see how the group feels and how much definition I can get out of the Ranger by then for her personality.

[Tyndmyr]

And I think this hits on the idea I was going for. Sort of a question of "if she wants to lead, and I want her to lead, and there's no good reason for her not to lead, how do I make sure the others will be okay with it without it seeming forced?"

Don't force it. Job done.

Seriously, you can't force leadership without it seeming forced. People are VERY good at picking up on that since it happens a lot in RL.

Real leaders aren't forced, they emerge. It's the responsibility of the person who would be leader to, well, lead.

[Sipex]

Agreed, unless your players are completely naive they'll detect anything which even seems like your pushing for leader in her favour. If she wants to be the leader of a party made up of independant, thinking beings (ie: not NPCs) she needs to convince them that she is leadership material, and, at that, better so than the Paladin.

If she's really serious I'd tell her to talk to the Paladin's player and see if he's okay with taking her under his wing as a sort of understudy in leadership.

[Anxe]

Just reading the first post, Tony Stark is the leader of the Avengers, not Captain America.

That said, I think everyone else is giving you good advice.

[Project_Cobalt]

Just reading the first post, Tony Stark is the leader of the Avengers, not Captain America.

That said, I think everyone else is giving you good advice.

That depends on your viewpoint, and which version of the team you're reading/watching, but it's really a semantic difference. I would heartily disagree with your assessment, but that's also not really why I'm here. Specifically, what I was talking about (and what she means as well) is

Spoiler

Show

at the tail-end of the movie, when Cap gives out orders. When Cap's story arc climaxes and his greatest triumph is in leading his team and directing this group of misfits to victory. The idea that he is without a place in the modern world, and finds his place at the head of a team of people who didn't get along only a few scant hours ago.

That is really more to the point that whether or not Cap is specifically the leader or not.

[Rallicus]

It's not your job to enforce how to party works together. I think that oversteps your bounds as a DM.

If the player can't find their niche and their first reaction is to strip someone else of their role in the party, then let them attempt it on their own. They don't need DM intervention. As soon as you do that, the paladin will think you're playing favorites, or trying to force a character into a certain role just because they asked you to.

Tell the player that they can either start acting like who they want to be (a leader), or to find something else.

[MonkeyBusiness]

Tell the player that they can either start acting like who they want to be (a leader), or to find something else.

This "**** or get off the pot" response would be appropriate if the player was whining and being a git, or insisting that she play a role she is clearly unsuited to play.

But what is happening is that the player wants to try something different. Just as she probably has little experience being an actual ranger, she evidently also has little experience being a leader. But she wants to try, so she asked the DM about it. And the idea was good enough for him to consider how to make it work as a story.

I maintain that inexperience makes for more interesting role-playing, as long as the player is conscientious and the DM is willing to work the theme of inexperience into the game.

I once DM'd for a group with a paladin who was constantly acting impulsively on her anger. She was *not* a very good paladin, at first view. I was not going to let her get away with playing the character sloppily: several NPC's called her out on her actions (some critically, some with loving concern). The turning point was when she received a vision of a saint who took her to task! In the dream he relived his torture (the instrument of his martyrdom was a millstone) and she desperately tried to reverse it ... and could not until she realized how her own actions and attitudes contributed to the total sum of intolerance that make things like persecution possible. Her character woke in tears.

It was *awesome*.

But what this meant was the player really had to *think* hard about how to play the character, and the character had to suffer a little and grow a lot and develop into a paladin. This made for a challenging, but immensely satisfying, roleplaying game. Every week.

We often choose characters that let us explore aspects of our personality we don't understand. This player did struggle with anger, as it happens, and so the paladin character was hard but rewarding.

I think this is a similar situation. Leadership is tough. It is more interesting when the leader really has to think and struggle a little with the role, and if other characters challenger or question her from time to time. This is what makes Role Playing fun. This may enrich not only the game, but strengthen the bond of their friendships in real life. That is the true magic in roleplaying games.

*some observations about Bigwig's attitude problem*

Yes, exactly! Everyone seems to assume Bigwig will be the leader because of his toughness and chutzpah. And in the raid on Efrafa, he is the ideal leader. But for a band of refugees/settlers, he would make an awful leader. Adams shows the evolution of Hazel's leadership so beautifully. I adore that book.







.






.

[Jay R]

How can I help the Ranger be the leader without just sitting down the players OOC and saying "she is the leader now"? Can anyone suggest a way for me to help her develop into the leadership role without forcing it on the group? Is it right for me to oust the Paladin as the defacto leader in order to help give the Ranger some sorely-needed direction?

If you find the answer you're looking for, and you succeed in making clear that she is supposed to lead the party, then

a. you are the leader, and
b. she is a figurehead.

Leave it alone.

[Beleriphon]

This is something I've hashed out with the Paladin, and is more or less the plan. The entire Paragon Tier is a test of faith for the Paladin and Ranger (who worship the same God - a God whose church has been performing some questionable acts in the name of said God), and as the story progresses, the Paladin will be pushed to the breaking point in terms of his interaction with his faith. And it is worth noting as well that the Paladin's player is interested in this story idea, since otherwise I come off as the sort of DM who engineers excuses for the Paladin to fall, which is really farthest from the truth.

Fortunately Paladin's can't fall in 4E, so don't really worry about that too much.

[Project_Cobalt]

Fortunately Paladin's can't fall in 4E, so don't really worry about that too much.

Well that's certainly a load off. Thanks for the information!

This "**** or get off the pot" response would be appropriate if the player was whining and being a git, or insisting that she play a role she is clearly unsuited to play.

But what is happening is that the player wants to try something different. Just as she probably has little experience being an actual ranger, she evidently also has little experience being a leader. But she wants to try, so she asked the DM about it. And the idea was good enough for him to consider how to make it work as a story.

Yes, this is the case. The Paladin is the leader not because he wants to be, but because he has the most experience as a player and the other players listen to him. What I'd like to do (of course, the players decide on this, not me) is have the Paladin in the role of adviser. His experience comes to use, but he doesn't just lead because no one is willing to challenge his knowledge of the game and it's workings.

The Ranger is interested in being the leader because it's a role that no one is intentionally filling at the moment. The party follows the Paladin because of his player's certainty from experience, not based on the Paladin himself. And I'm interested in having the Ranger lead because it helps to give her direction and purpose in a party where she feels directionless. Of course, if the Paladin felt slighted by this, then we would discuss it together with the Ranger and come to a beneficial compromise.

But what this meant was the player really had to *think* hard about how to play the character, and the character had to suffer a little and grow a lot and develop into a paladin. This made for a challenging, but immensely satisfying, roleplaying game. Every week.

We often choose characters that let us explore aspects of our personality we don't understand. This player did struggle with anger, as it happens, and so the paladin character was hard but rewarding.

I think this is a similar situation. Leadership is tough. It is more interesting when the leader really has to think and struggle a little with the role, and if other characters challenger or question her from time to time. This is what makes Role Playing fun. This may enrich not only the game, but strengthen the bond of their friendships in real life. That is the true magic in roleplaying games.

And this sort of thing is exactly my aim. The Barbarian causes party conflict because of her anger. The Rogue causes party conflict because of his cowardice and self-serving nature. The Ranger wants to lead because of her want to smooth out those conflicts. As it stands right now, the Paladin directs the chaotic nature of the party towards righteous ends - but my hope is that the Ranger can help to make them a much more functional unit, not only as a party of characters but as a group of players.

[Man on Fire]

Here is what you do:

Nothing.

If Ranger wants to be a leader, her character must earn it. Captain America didn't automatically became leader of the Avengers either - in first issues leadership was rotating, Cap had become team leader after proving how good he is at it and leading team made of him, Hawkeye and Maximoff twins once the rest has other matters on their heas. Leaders aren't appointed or born, they are made, they earn the right to lead and if your players wats it, you should let them both go for it and see who wil lthe party follow. I once had fun roleplay when my character challenged team leader and got a chance to prove himself.

Hoever, if the leadership arguments starts breaking in OOC, you should put your hands own and tell them that - that the leader is the one who can get people to follow him/her IC.

[Asheram]

Here is what you do:

Nothing.

If Ranger wants to be a leader, her character must earn it. Captain America didn't automatically became leader of the Avengers either - in first issues leadership was rotating, Cap had become team leader after proving how good he is at it and leading team made of him, Hawkeye and Maximoff twins once the rest has other matters on their heas. Leaders aren't appointed or born, they are made, they earn the right to lead and if your players wats it, you should let them both go for it and see who wil lthe party follow. I once had fun roleplay when my character challenged team leader and got a chance to prove himself.

Hoever, if the leadership arguments starts breaking in OOC, you should put your hands own and tell them that - that the leader is the one who can get people to follow him/her IC.

Agreed. You can't create artificial leadership. A boss isn't the same as a leader, if you've got a boss then you've got a monetary incentive to do as he says. A leader has to be someone the others either look up to or someone who repeatedly takes the initiative to do something the others can stand behind.

I suppose that the only real tips I can give is about leadership.

1. Be assertive.
2. Take the initiative.
3. Ask and take advice from the rest of the group.
4. Delegate responsibility.
5. Make sure to treat everyone in the party equally.

Edit. I forgot the most important thing.
6. Promote the interests of your party members.

[Jay R]

I suppose that the only real tips I can give is about leadership.

1. Be assertive.
2. Take the initiative.
3. Ask and take advice from the rest of the group.
4. Delegate responsibility.
5. Make sure to treat everyone in the party equally.

I agree with everything you said, but you left out the crucial aspect.

Make the right decisions. Be assertive about the right decisions. Take the initiative about the right decisions. Ask and take advice to get the best decision.

The leader is the person who can convince the group do what she says. A good leader is one who tells them the right thing to do.

[7RED7]

Question 1) Why does the ranger want to lead? What does she hope to get out of it?

Question 2) If the paladin is the de-facto leader, is it by choice, or is it solely due to having the most experience where the newbies are hesitant to step up?

Question 3) Would it the paladin be opposed to a change of leadership? Is 'being the leader' where he's getting his jollies?

If the ranger has motives that are inline with how you run your game (e.g. she doesn't just want to be bossy), and the paladin isn't already attached to the whole leader thing, then here's my suggestion; Discuss the situation with the paladin player outside of game sometime, and if he's cool with it then ask him to have his paladin offer to mentor the ranger in the finer points of leadership (he sees a similar spark of greatness or somesuch). This could make everyone happy, but also puts the group into a position where they have a lot of routes they can take with it, with less chance of a lot of negativity associated with power struggles or feelings of someone arbitrarily put in charge over them. Set it up to happen naturally in a way that gets everyone involved and adds to the story. It may end up happening or it may not, but they are taking the journey and that's what counts.

[Project_Cobalt]

Question 1) Why does the ranger want to lead? What does she hope to get out of it?

She is really looking for a direction to take her character that she's never done before, and looking to help smooth out some of the growing (in character, and entirely welcome) conflict between party members. She's interested in becoming a mediator and getting more done than the group is now.

Question 2) If the paladin is the de-facto leader, is it by choice, or is it solely due to having the most experience where the newbies are hesitant to step up?

It's the second one. It's less that he wants to lead, and more that the newer players stand back and let him make choices because of his experience.

Question 3) Would it the paladin be opposed to a change of leadership? Is 'being the leader' where he's getting his jollies?

I don't believe that being the leader is really important to him in any way, no. I've been speaking with him about the idea, and he's yet to voice any concerns on the matter.

If the ranger has motives that are inline with how you run your game (e.g. she doesn't just want to be bossy), and the paladin isn't already attached to the whole leader thing, then here's my suggestion; Discuss the situation with the paladin player outside of game sometime, and if he's cool with it then ask him to have his paladin offer to mentor the ranger in the finer points of leadership (he sees a similar spark of greatness or somesuch). This could make everyone happy, but also puts the group into a position where they have a lot of routes they can take with it, with less chance of a lot of negativity associated with power struggles or feelings of someone arbitrarily put in charge over them. Set it up to happen naturally in a way that gets everyone involved and adds to the story. It may end up happening or it may not, but they are taking the journey and that's what counts.

I'm relatively certain that, when all is said and done, the following sequence of events will take place, in-character.

• The Ranger will, over the course of the progression through the Paragon Tier, shape herself into a leader while respecting the Paladin's status as party leader.
• The events of the Paragon Tier will push the Paladin and are designed (for no reason other than the interesting RP involved, and certainly not to get him to step down as leader) to test what his breaking point is.
• The climax of the Paragon Tier will either break the Paladin (whose player is supremely interested in a redemption/picking up the pieces-style story), or will push him to make some choices he'll need to reconcile, and he will step down as leader after questioning if he has led the group to the right places morally.
• The leadership role will open up, giving the group a chance to organically find a new dynamic.
• The ranger will, if she works for it, become the new leader. If she doesn't, then the party will work itself out and we will deal with the repercussions.

Here is what you do:

Nothing.

If Ranger wants to be a leader, her character must earn it. Captain America didn't automatically became leader of the Avengers either - in first issues leadership was rotating, Cap had become team leader after proving how good he is at it and leading team made of him, Hawkeye and Maximoff twins once the rest has other matters on their heas. Leaders aren't appointed or born, they are made, they earn the right to lead and if your players wats it, you should let them both go for it and see who wil lthe party follow. I once had fun roleplay when my character challenged team leader and got a chance to prove himself.

Hoever, if the leadership arguments starts breaking in OOC, you should put your hands own and tell them that - that the leader is the one who can get people to follow him/her IC.

The thing that I find frustrating about this response is that there is no real argument in regards to leadership. It's not a matter of "he leads, and she wants to" it's a matter of "he leads without even realizing, and if I don't point it out, it will turn into an argument".

If I, in a position of authority as DM (because, in my group at the very least, I'm the person in charge of this sort of player -based discussion), don't step up and tell him that she wants to take the role of leader, he won't even realize that he's filling the role of leader. If I do nothing, then she won't bring it up to avoid it turning into an argument (which it probably won't, but she doesn't know him well enough for her to say for sure), and he won't notice she wants the role he doesn't really know he's filling.

It's also a matter of it being sort of frustrating that you talk about how she'll need to work at it and prove herself when he's done nothing of the sort. I guess I just don't see how it's somehow wrong for me to talk about this with them and try to help her along in her goal of becoming leader when it's a position he doesn't care about and only inhabits because no one else called it.

I understand how it would be wrong for me to just install her as leader, but for me to mention out-of-character that she hasn't been enjoying herself as much as she should because she wants to fill a role that she didn't get the chance to choose when the campaign started - I don't really see how that is wrong. As a group, it makes more sense for me to try and make sure everyone's happy and talk about it up-front, rather than just sit-back and watch as she is unhappy with her role in the party, and he is oblivious both to her unhappiness and that he even occupies the role she wants.

[Asheram]

I agree with everything you said, but you left out the crucial aspect.

Make the right decisions. Be assertive about the right decisions. Take the initiative about the right decisions. Ask and take advice to get the best decision.

The leader is the person who can convince the group do what she says. A good leader is one who tells them the right thing to do.

Indeed, but that's why I edited in #6 there. Since you can't know what the best decision beforehand, you'll have to go with the consensus of the group and what they(and you) believe to be the best thing.

[Asheram]

She is really looking for a direction to take her character that she's never done before, and looking to help smooth out some of the growing (in character, and entirely welcome) conflict between party members. She's interested in becoming a mediator and getting more done than the group is now.

It's the second one. It's less that he wants to lead, and more that the newer players stand back and let him make choices because of his experience.

I don't believe that being the leader is really important to him in any way, no. I've been speaking with him about the idea, and he's yet to voice any concerns on the matter.
(snip)
The thing that I find frustrating about this response is that there is no real argument in regards to leadership. It's not a matter of "he leads, and she wants to" it's a matter of "he leads without even realizing, and if I don't point it out, it will turn into an argument".

If I, in a position of authority as DM (because, in my group at the very least, I'm the person in charge of this sort of player -based discussion), don't step up and tell him that she wants to take the role of leader, he won't even realize that he's filling the role of leader. If I do nothing, then she won't bring it up to avoid it turning into an argument (which it probably won't, but she doesn't know him well enough for her to say for sure), and he won't notice she wants the role he doesn't really know he's filling.

It's also a matter of it being sort of frustrating that you talk about how she'll need to work at it and prove herself when he's done nothing of the sort. I guess I just don't see how it's somehow wrong for me to talk about this with them and try to help her along in her goal of becoming leader when it's a position he doesn't care about and only inhabits because no one else called it.

I understand how it would be wrong for me to just install her as leader, but for me to mention out-of-character that she hasn't been enjoying herself as much as she should because she wants to fill a role that she didn't get the chance to choose when the campaign started - I don't really see how that is wrong. As a group, it makes more sense for me to try and make sure everyone's happy and talk about it up-front, rather than just sit-back and watch as she is unhappy with her role in the party, and he is oblivious both to her unhappiness and that he even occupies the role she wants.

When starting a new campaign, or when in a situation where no one really knows what do to, it's most often the person with the most will who will take the lead. Not due to some form of natural leadership or even competence, but by simply giving some direction to a group which doesn't know what to do.

This is why I listed my #1 point as Assertiveness. A group naturally wants to stay together in an uncertain situation, an easy way to see this is a catastrophy movie, it's usually the guy who acts with some form of authority or who promotes the needs of the group which will become the leader.

The two magic sentences are "This is what we need to do." and "I'll take responsibility."

[MonkeyBusiness]

If I, in a position of authority as DM (because, in my group at the very least, I'm the person in charge of this sort of player -based discussion), don't step up and tell him that she wants to take the role of leader, he won't even realize that he's filling the role of leader. If I do nothing, then she won't bring it up to avoid it turning into an argument (which it probably won't, but she doesn't know him well enough for her to say for sure), and he won't notice she wants the role he doesn't really know he's filling ...

I understand how it would be wrong for me to just install her as leader, but for me to mention out-of-character that she hasn't been enjoying herself as much as she should because she wants to fill a role that she didn't get the chance to choose when the campaign started - I don't really see how that is wrong. As a group, it makes more sense for me to try and make sure everyone's happy ...

This tells me you are a good DM. You want your players to be happy, you want each character to have an important role in the game, and you try to make this all happen in the game itself.

At this point, the question seems to be not whether you should do this, but how you should incorporate this change in the game itself. Is the question you need answered?