Dealing with IC and OoC internal conflict - help

[That House]

I’m having IC and OoC conflicts with my former best friend and his character

It’s an evil campaign with the goal of collecting monetary wealth and political power. My character, Quint, is the leader of the party, and a CE tiefling bard/warlock specializing in illusion/enchantment spells. Quint is narcissistic, power-hungry, petty, cruel, sadistic, a sociopath/psychopath, and is basically every sin rolled up into one glorious bastard of an abomination. He has to be in control of as much as possible. He’s just generally a terrible person and a murderer. Like I said, it’s an evil campaign. (There is some depth to his character beyond #badboi but it’s not important for this thread). An important piece of information is that, being a psychopath, he only keeps people around as tools, and is happy to discard them as soon as he decides he doesn’t need them.

My former best friend is known to throw tantrums when things aren’t going his way (he nearly ragequit and might have cried when he was denied a baby blue dragon in a previous campaign), and just no longer likes me that much.

His character is a Tortle Monk (a Ninja Turtle), who’s absolutely useless to the party, has no character traits, and has so far shown no signs of being evil, nor has the player actually put any thought into this character. It pisses me off, because everyone else is making an effort to come up with interesting somewhat 3-dimensional characters, (we’re still kind of new), and he’s just not trying and treating it as a joke.

His character has no uses that the other members of the party don’t do better, (except maybe as catapult ammunition :smallamused:) and not only that, but he had the nerve to challenge QUINT’S RIGHT TO BE THE PARTY LEADER. I don’t care too much, party face is a stressful job and all, but Quint is pissed. He’s a control freak. He needs all the power.

Quint probably can’t take the monk in combat (ridiculous AC and all that), but he can spell him to death, get the pro-human population of the town to lynch him, mind control him to death, kill him in his sleep, poison him, the possibilities are endless. However, that would totally destroy what’s left of our friendship, and might make other people mad at me too.

I don’t know what to do.

[zlefin]

I'd recommend starting by talking to the other players about your concerns, without the problem players' presence, to see if they agree with your assessments or not on that player actually trying. Especially the DM may know of some details about the player's char that you don't that would explain things.

Then mention to them that IC your char would be very angry/vengeful, and you're unsure how to work that in without causing problems with that player.
It sounds like that player may not have the capability to handle playing a campaign of this type properly. or more that they just don't care.

don't retaliate IC until the groundwork has been layed by doing the OoC discussions.
There might be a way to retaliate which the group can collectively all find acceptable. "punishing him for his temerity"

[MrSandman]

I would advise talking to that player. Ask why he's (did you say it was a he?) challenged your character's right to be the leader, ask him what he expects to happen... work it out with him.

On a side note, your character needn't retaliate by killing him. There are plenty of ways to be in control without actually having to be the party's recognised leader.

[That House]

Thanks, zlefin!

I’ll definitely do that. It’s been a huge strain on me, having this person in my group again. (He did play with us, then he got kicked out, which in retrospect was a poor decision but it seemed like a good one at the time).

I still don’t know how to break the news that something bad’s going to happen if everyone agrees with me. He’s not a very reasonable person.

[That House]

I would advise talking to that player. Ask why he's (did you say it was a he?) challenged your character's right to be the leader, ask him what he expects to happen... work it out with him.

On a side note, your character needn't retaliate by killing him. There are plenty of ways to be in control without actually having to be the party's recognised leader.

Thanks for the reply! It means a lot to me that people are here to help me with this.

I don’t think his character cares about being leader, I’m pretty sure he’s just doing it because he’s resentful of me and wanted to be a jerk.

I could leave him alone, but party face usually translates to party leader, and Quint doesn’t do things halfway.

[Man_Over_Game]

Find a way that you both find agreeable to determine who the rightful leader may be. Maybe you both make suggestions, and if you can't come up with a solution after the 4th suggestion, neither of you can be leader.

The goal here is to create a solution of his making that he can agree to, but may still work in your favor. Then, if neither of you can agree to it, then neither of you gets it. If someone throws a hissy fit, the opposition and the entire team has full range to murder that person. This way, everyone has a lot of incentive to play along and not make death threats (unless that is the agreed-upon method for the competition).

[Friv]

So, it sort of sounds like there are two problems here.

Problem #1 is that you're playing with someone who you have existing social problems with, and as you relate this they're also someone who doesn't handle social problems well. Problem #2 is that you heard "Evil Campaign" and decided that meant that you were going to sabotage your party.

Both are pretty serious problems, and honestly you're going to have to decide how to approach them.

With Problem #1, you're dealing with the fact that this guy is, in fact, your former best friend. I assume that he's just as aware as you are of the tension between you two IRL, and it sounds like he's imported a chunk of that into the game. So, the question is, can you two spend time together reasonably? Was it, in fact, a mistake to be in a game together? Which of you joined first, or is it a situation where you were both pulled in by the DM? I think, if you're at a point where you don't really like each other, you need to set the game aside and sit down and talk about that.

But then there's Problem #2, which is that this is only the beginning of the end of your adventuring party. You mentioned that you were all kind of new at this, so I'm not surprised that it happened, but evil adventuring parties need stronger reasons to be loyal to one another, not weaker ones. If Mr. Quint sees everyone as disposable tools, the aftermath of him killing the monk is probably the rest of the party killing him. If any challenge to his leadership means disproportionate retribution, he's not looking for a party, he's looking for minions, and players do not like being minions to other players, as a rule. Unless the goal of the game is a constant churn of PvP I would honestly advise toning down the psychopath aspects in favour of some loyalty or camraderie to your fellow evil characters.

[That House]

So, it sort of sounds like there are two problems here.

Problem #1 is that you're playing with someone who you have existing social problems with, and as you relate this they're also someone who doesn't handle social problems well. Problem #2 is that you heard "Evil Campaign" and decided that meant that you were going to sabotage your party.

Both are pretty serious problems, and honestly you're going to have to decide how to approach them.

With Problem #1, you're dealing with the fact that this guy is, in fact, your former best friend. I assume that he's just as aware as you are of the tension between you two IRL, and it sounds like he's imported a chunk of that into the game. So, the question is, can you two spend time together reasonably? Was it, in fact, a mistake to be in a game together? Which of you joined first, or is it a situation where you were both pulled in by the DM? I think, if you're at a point where you don't really like each other, you need to set the game aside and sit down and talk about that.

But then there's Problem #2, which is that this is only the beginning of the end of your adventuring party. You mentioned that you were all kind of new at this, so I'm not surprised that it happened, but evil adventuring parties need stronger reasons to be loyal to one another, not weaker ones. If Mr. Quint sees everyone as disposable tools, the aftermath of him killing the monk is probably the rest of the party killing him. If any challenge to his leadership means disproportionate retribution, he's not looking for a party, he's looking for minions, and players do not like being minions to other players, as a rule. Unless the goal of the game is a constant churn of PvP I would honestly advise toning down the psychopath aspects in favour of some loyalty or camraderie to your fellow evil characters.

Thank you for the advice. I will certainly consider reducing some of Quint’s less appealing aspects if we can’t find a solution.

Problem 1, the answer is I joined first and the DM (a player in the campaign he got kicked out of for various stealing from the party and tantrum shenanigannery) forgot my friend’s reputation as the most annoying person most people know, then invited that friend.

One note on Problem 2 is that I’m not sabotaging the party. I discussed this character ahead of time with everyone in the group except Monk Player. (He joined later. Everyone else was totally fine with Quint, including the DM).

Edit: plus, if Quint gets too uppity and gets what’s coming for him, I’ll be happy that bastard is dead. I have a love/hate relationship with him. So if the party decides to murder Quint for being a controlling *******, I say it’s just what he deserves.

Edit: added some more information

Edit: clarified a troublesome sentence

Edit: another note on Problem 2 is that Quint needs most of the other characters. He has minimal physical brawn, so he needs the fighter and the barbarian, and he has minimal stealth and thievery skills so he needs the rogue as well. If he had a use for the monk, he would never consider straight up killing him. A spot of torture for insolence, perhaps. But he’d live.

Edit: sorry if I seem rude, I’m just trying to explain my case as best I can. Your suggestions are still valid and welcome. Thank you Friv.

[That House]

Find a way that you both find agreeable to determine who the rightful leader may be. Maybe you both make suggestions, and if you can't come up with a solution after the 4th suggestion, neither of you can be leader.

The goal here is to create a solution of his making that he can agree to, but may still work in your favor. Then, if neither of you can agree to it, then neither of you gets it. If someone throws a hissy fit, the opposition and the entire team has full range to murder that person. This way, everyone has a lot of incentive to play along and not make death threats (unless that is the agreed-upon method for the competition).

As I said earlier, he doesn’t want to be leader, he just wants anyone but me to be in charge because he doesn’t really like me that much these days.

Edit: fixed a spelling error

[Man_Over_Game]

As I said earlier, he doesn’t want to be leader, he just wants anyone but me to be in charge because he doesn’t really like me that much these days.

Edit: fixed a spelling error

I get that, but unless you want to deal with it like an adult (and let's be honest, who does?), the next best thing is to handle it in a way that leaves him with having to accept what happens.


It's not actually about who becomes leader. It's about getting him to deal with it. And the easiest way to do that is to have a conclusion that he agreed to.

Hell, have your teammates make up the rules so that he'll agree to decide things on their terms. Ask to include a clause in case someone needs to be revoked as "party leader" so that if he screws up his 'position', you have a means of kicking him out.


Either he starts caring about the position he's fighting for, or he shuts up and lets you do it instead. Both are a win (with one being more of a win).

[That House]

I get that, but unless you want to deal with it like an adult (and let's be honest, who does?), the next best thing is to handle it in a way that leaves him with having to accept what happens.


It's not actually about who becomes leader. It's about getting him to deal with it. And the easiest way to do that is to have a conclusion that he agreed to.

Hell, have your teammates make up the rules so that he'll agree to decide things on their terms. Ask to include a clause in case someone needs to be revoked as "party leader" so that if he screws up his 'position', you have a means of kicking him out.


Either he starts caring about the position he's fighting for, or he shuts up and lets you do it instead. Both are a win (with one being more of a win).

Thanks again for the tips. I’m pretty sure he was trying to put the party barbarian in charge (or so I recall), and it was just a fleeting exchange. OoC the whole leadership thing isn’t an issue. IC, Quint is offended by this challenge to his dominance. I doubt the player even remembers saying he wanted a different leader. Maybe I should just let it go... *shrugs* Nah, I’ll see him hang for this offense. Now that I think about it, maybe I should use all this advice the next time we inevitably butt heads.

I guess this whole thread was really about what to do the next time there’s an issue... Weird. Well now I feel kinda dumb for wasting some people’s time... Oh well, thank you everyone!

[KillianHawkeye]

My suggestion would be to adhere to Wheaton's Law. Google it if you aren't familiar.

[That House]

My suggestion would be to adhere to Wheaton's Law. Google it if you aren't familiar.

Much gratitude. ‘Tis my new motto. Thank you. (Not sarcasm, genuine gratitude).

[Koo Rehtorb]

It sounds like you two shouldn't be playing together.

[Kaptin Keen]

Sounds to me like you've made a character that's impossible for anyone to enjoy playing with. You wanna solve this, you tear up the character sheet, you crumble up the pieces, light them on fire, and bury the ashes deep in a dung heap.

Then you appologize to your friend, and roll up a party healer instead.

[The Kool]

Sounds to me like you've made a character that's impossible for anyone to enjoy playing with. You wanna solve this, you tear up the character sheet, you crumble up the pieces, light them on fire, and bury the ashes deep in a dung heap.

Then you appologize to your friend, and roll up a party healer instead.

Problem #2 is that you heard "Evil Campaign" and decided that meant that you were going to sabotage your party.

Guys, chill. I don't know if you've been personally wronged by 'evil' characters before, but what I've heard here is a character who was designed to be incredibly evil yet work with the party as much as possible. Rule 1 of being an evil PC is to be good to your party, and That House is adhering to it as much as he possibly can. Evil does not have to mean anti-party, and the best evil is pro-party. It is thoroughly possible to enjoy playing with the character, and I get the feeling all but the problem player do (but see below). At this point, his concern (as far as I can tell) is something along the lines of "he is directly disrespecting my character and I can find no justification to keep him around without castrating my PC's personality, and I'm trying to find one... help!" We know he's trying to follow the cardinal rule of evil PCs because he explained the following:

One note on Problem 2 is that I’m not sabotaging the party. I discussed this character ahead of time with everyone in the group except Monk Player. (He joined later. Everyone else was totally fine with Quint, including the DM).

Edit: plus, if Quint gets too uppity and gets what’s coming for him, I’ll be happy that bastard is dead. I have a love/hate relationship with him. So if the party decides to murder Quint for being a controlling *******, I say it’s just what he deserves.

That House, I fully recommend you sit down with the other players and the DM, problem player not present. Do so now, do not wait for the next incident. Ask them if you're doing anything to make this worse, if they see the same issues you do, if it's all in your head? Make sure they actually enjoy playing with your PC. Ask them for ideas on alternative solutions, they know your game and your PC better than we do. If things need to come to a head, ask them to lend you a hand with conflict resolution.
Then talk to the problem player. Ask him if he has anything specifically against you, and ask him not to let it translate into the game if it does. Try to resolve an issue if there is one. Explain in straightforward and polite terms why it is you're struggling to make this work. Offer a few solutions, if you have any, ask him for ideas. The best answer is that he eases up and makes an effort to be more involved and not causing IC problems, but the chances of this happening without you having this conversation are almost nil. The worst case scenario is that he throws a fit, in which case you've already raised your concerns with the DM and you should go back to the DM and explain what happened. In this hypothetical worst case scenario, you two probably shouldn't be in the same group.

I give an OOC course of actions because this is an OOC problem, but also because the IC issues here could also be solved as simply as "oh, my bad, I didn't realize". After all, someone who presents a less personality-driven character may have difficulty understanding the personality driving other peoples' characters, and may not have thought it was an issue, may have intended it as an OOC party suggestion (I don't actually know, I'm just presenting an optimistic scenario). Anyway, best of luck getting this sorted out, but again, I recommend you do so before another incident occurs.

[That House]

Guys, chill. I don't know if you've been personally wronged by 'evil' characters before, but what I've heard here is a character who was designed to be incredibly evil yet work with the party as much as possible. Rule 1 of being an evil PC is to be good to your party, and That House is adhering to it as much as he possibly can. Evil does not have to mean anti-party, and the best evil is pro-party. It is thoroughly possible to enjoy playing with the character, and I get the feeling all but the problem player do (but see below). At this point, his concern (as far as I can tell) is something along the lines of "he is directly disrespecting my character and I can find no justification to keep him around without castrating my PC's personality, and I'm trying to find one... help!" We know he's trying to follow the cardinal rule of evil PCs because he explained the following:


That House, I fully recommend you sit down with the other players and the DM, problem player not present. Do so now, do not wait for the next incident. Ask them if you're doing anything to make this worse, if they see the same issues you do, if it's all in your head? Make sure they actually enjoy playing with your PC. Ask them for ideas on alternative solutions, they know your game and your PC better than we do. If things need to come to a head, ask them to lend you a hand with conflict resolution.
Then talk to the problem player. Ask him if he has anything specifically against you, and ask him not to let it translate into the game if it does. Try to resolve an issue if there is one. Explain in straightforward and polite terms why it is you're struggling to make this work. Offer a few solutions, if you have any, ask him for ideas. The best answer is that he eases up and makes an effort to be more involved and not causing IC problems, but the chances of this happening without you having this conversation are almost nil. The worst case scenario is that he throws a fit, in which case you've already raised your concerns with the DM and you should go back to the DM and explain what happened. In this hypothetical worst case scenario, you two probably shouldn't be in the same group.

I give an OOC course of actions because this is an OOC problem, but also because the IC issues here could also be solved as simply as "oh, my bad, I didn't realize". After all, someone who presents a less personality-driven character may have difficulty understanding the personality driving other peoples' characters, and may not have thought it was an issue, may have intended it as an OOC party suggestion (I don't actually know, I'm just presenting an optimistic scenario). Anyway, best of luck getting this sorted out, but again, I recommend you do so before another incident occurs.

Thank you, yes, my goal with Quint was to make a very evil character who still saw the need for people in the team. IC, Quint sees everyone as tools, OOC he’s really just the party leader, and everyone still does what they want, they just take suggestions.

I will definitely plan on talking it out with everyone else first, then with the problem player.

Thank you so much for the advice! (And for the better thread title).

[That House]

It sounds like you two shouldn't be playing together.

Probably not, but I’m not Quint, I don’t want to kick him out a second time. (This was his last chance and all). He hasn’t been as bad as he was last time yet, but there’s a lot of OoC tension.

[Kaptin Keen]

Guys, chill.

Thankfully, I don't need any arguments, because the OP has so eloquently described his character as someone I would never even for a moment consider in my group - not as a player, not as a GM.

I’m having IC and OoC conflicts with my former best friend and his character

• is the leader of the party
• is narcissistic, power-hungry, petty, cruel, sadistic, a sociopath/psychopath
• has to be in control of as much as possible
• he only keeps people around as tools
• is happy to discard them as soon as he decides he doesn’t need them

he had the nerve to challenge QUINT’S RIGHT TO BE THE PARTY LEADER. I don’t care too much, party face is a stressful job and all, but Quint is pissed. He’s a control freak. He needs all the power.

If that sounds to you like someone who works well with others ... well, I don't know how you arrive at that conclusion, but then I guess that's fine. To me it sounds like the most unfun BS ever - totally unworkable in any relation with other people involved.

Hence my friendly suggestion to throw it in the garbage, and pick up a role that supports the party.

[That House]

If that sounds to you like someone who works well with others ... well, I don't know how you arrive at that conclusion, but then I guess that's fine. To me it sounds like the most unfun BS ever - totally unworkable in any relation with other people involved.

Hence my friendly suggestion to throw it in the garbage, and pick up a role that supports the party.

Surprisingly, it’s actually worked rather well, everyone in my group is okay with the character, and some of them (esp. the party rogue’s player) are having fun getting Quint embarrassed and stuff through doing stupid things. There haven’t been any major conflicts yet, even the whole “challenge for leadership” was just a passing comment that Quint would blow way out of proportion. Everyone’s having fun playing, even the problem player, and the only reason he dislikes how I’m playing Quint is because he has a personal grievance with me.

I will be talking to everyone in the group (minus the problem player) to make sure that they’re actually okay with Quint, but no one really seems to care that much. We’re all really good friends OoC, so what happens IC doesn’t affect us too much. The internal conflict is usually pretty funny actually, such as when the fighter tied up the rogue for being annoying and refused to untie him. Everyone (including the rogue’s player) thought it was much fun. But I will be checking in with people to make sure I didn’t go too far. Thanks for reminding me that not everyone likes having a self-obsessed a**hole for a leader.

Edit: if people in the party (other than problem player) want me to roll back on some of Quint’s worse aspects, I’ll do it. If not, he’ll stay a horrible, controlling person.

[The Kool]

Thankfully, I don't need any arguments, because the OP has so eloquently described his character as someone I would never even for a moment consider in my group - not as a player, not as a GM.

If that sounds to you like someone who works well with others ... well, I don't know how you arrive at that conclusion, but then I guess that's fine. To me it sounds like the most unfun BS ever - totally unworkable in any relation with other people involved.

Hence my friendly suggestion to throw it in the garbage, and pick up a role that supports the party.

Oh if that was a description of a player, I'd 100% agree with you. It is, however, the description of a character, and That House has assessed (and I hope he's right, but as I suggested he should check to make sure) that the players are good at keeping IC and OOC distinct, even enjoying tormenting their characters and causing light IC strife. I know I too enjoy that kind of thing. If you don't, nothing wrong with that, this just isn't your style of game.

Sidenote: Healers suck. Bards suck too. In most games (granted, not every game, not every table). If your build is 'healer', then you're resigning yourself to a fairly dull style of play that many people actively do not enjoy, and many groups don't even remotely need. There are many other ways to be a party support character than 'healer'. Battlefield control is one of my favorites, and can be achieved both as a caster and a martial. Buffs are a classic, and while dull at times that part can be skimmed pretty well and then you get to the fun stuff (just buff before combat, not during). If you absolutely want to play a healer because you enjoy it or your party miraculously needs one, the Healer class is one of THE most reworked classes in the entirety of 3.5... there's some good version out there [insert shameless self-plug here for my version].

Thank you so much for the advice! (And for the better thread title).

...title?

Probably not, but I’m not Quint, I don’t want to kick him out a second time. (This was his last chance and all). He hasn’t been as bad as he was last time yet, but there’s a lot of OoC tension.

It's good to hear that he's improving. It implies he's trying to improve, which speaks volumes of his (the person's) character.

Edit: if people in the party (other than problem player) want me to roll back on some of Quint’s worse aspects, I’ll do it. If not, he’ll stay a horrible, controlling person.

I personally am rooting for your horrible, controlling character. I'd love to hear his exploits at some point. As long as the party is enjoying it, of course.

[That House]

"he is directly disrespecting my character and I can find no justification to keep him around without castrating my PC's personality, and I'm trying to find one... help!"

This was the better title I meant.

[That House]

I personally am rooting for your horrible, controlling character. I'd love to hear his exploits at some point. As long as the party is enjoying it, of course.

I definitely plan on writing up something about the campaign if it turns out alright. So far we’ve done some jobs for the mafia and are planning a bank heist (as we’re nearly broke right now). I think the best moment so far was when the rogue got blackout drunk before we met with the mafia boss and started screaming about being “the supreme being” (which Quint disagreed with. We all know who the real supreme being is) and I think his character peed on the floor or some s***. Quint had the bugbear fighter tie up the rogue, but needless to say it made a bad first impression on the crime lord. (Quint then had something to prove and was especially... brutal on his first job, but oh well).

Quint has been such fun to play.

[Kaptin Keen]

Thanks for reminding me that not everyone likes having a self-obsessed a**hole for a leader.

It's important to note that the topic of discussion is your character, and not you. But I can tell you freely that'd I'd never play in any party where one character thought of himself as 'leader'.

Sidenote: Healers suck.

The most individually powerful character I ever played was a pure cleric, focussed quite simply on Sanctuary, buffs and healing. Having wildly boosted save DC's for his sanctuary, he essentially made combat unwinnable for the GM. Nothing ever worked. Of course, I insisted that should any npc decide to beat the clerics Sanctuary, they would lose their action that round if they failed. So essentially, he was simply left alone to keep everyone buffed up and at max HP.

He wasn't the most fun in combat - obviously - but out of combat, he had similarly high skill bonuses to Diplomacy and .... I think it might have been Bluff? Anyways, that one character is the only time, ever, a GM has asked me to tone it down.

I'd also like to add on an entirely general note, that if you ever have any OOC, personal conflict at the gaming table - you really should consider how you're the problem. Just .. do away with the notion that it's someone else. Assume it's you, solve it. If the problem proves to persist despite this, then maybe it wasn't you.

[Friv]

Thank you for the advice. I will certainly consider reducing some of Quint’s less appealing aspects if we can’t find a solution.

Problem 1, the answer is I joined first and the DM (a player in the campaign he got kicked out of for various stealing from the party and tantrum shenanigannery) forgot my friend’s reputation as the most annoying person most people know, then invited that friend.

One note on Problem 2 is that I’m not sabotaging the party. I discussed this character ahead of time with everyone in the group except Monk Player. (He joined later. Everyone else was totally fine with Quint, including the DM).

Edit: plus, if Quint gets too uppity and gets what’s coming for him, I’ll be happy that bastard is dead. I have a love/hate relationship with him. So if the party decides to murder Quint for being a controlling *******, I say it’s just what he deserves.

That certainly assuages any of my concerns about Problem #2. If you've discussed the situation with the other players (minus Problem Guy) and you're prepared for the possibility of Quint's horrible death, I'd say you are super on top of it. :)

Good luck with the primary problems. I hope to hear more about what happens, and I hope this guy doesn't blow up the group.

[Koo Rehtorb]

It's important to note that the topic of discussion is your character, and not you. But I can tell you freely that'd I'd never play in any party where one character thought of himself as 'leader'.

What a weird hangup. Probably fully half the games I play or GM in ends up with a PC that is broadly seen as the leader. Perhaps it's a factor of game style? If you're going from linear adventure to linear adventure then there's not much point in a leader. But if the players have broad discretion in pushing the campaign direction then it's much more helpful having one person responsible for keeping the party united and pushing in the same direction.

[Kaptin Keen]

What a weird hangup. Probably fully half the games I play or GM in ends up with a PC that is broadly seen as the leader. Perhaps it's a factor of game style? If you're going from linear adventure to linear adventure then there's not much point in a leader. But if the players have broad discretion in pushing the campaign direction then it's much more helpful having one person responsible for keeping the party united and pushing in the same direction.

It may be a personal thing. Nothing I ever participate in has a leader - unless I'm being paid. But I've played in very, very many games, with very, very many people, and I've never been in a group with any sort of leader. I cannot even see how that would work.

I'll concede a small point: I play with some guys, and they seem woefully incompetent at tactics, so I sort of gently push them towards reasonable actions in combat. But that's not leadership, it's manipulation (there's a subtle difference) and I specifically keep my mouth shut in other contexts, where their input is ... less generally disruptive.

It's propably not a bad thing that they don't come to these forums. But the point is, I consciously do the polar opposite of the OP, toning down my influence to keep the group happy and on an even keel.

I even play a tiefling bard of highly debatable morals, too =)

[That House]

It may be a personal thing. Nothing I ever participate in has a leader - unless I'm being paid. But I've played in very, very many games, with very, very many people, and I've never been in a group with any sort of leader. I cannot even see how that would work.

I'll concede a small point: I play with some guys, and they seem woefully incompetent at tactics, so I sort of gently push them towards reasonable actions in combat. But that's not leadership, it's manipulation (there's a subtle difference) and I specifically keep my mouth shut in other contexts, where their input is ... less generally disruptive.

It's propably not a bad thing that they don't come to these forums. But the point is, I consciously do the polar opposite of the OP, toning down my influence to keep the group happy and on an even keel.

I even play a tiefling bard of highly debatable morals, too =)

I don’t think there’s ever been a time in my games where there hasn’t been some sort of party leader. To each their own, I suppose.

Morally grey (or worse) tiefling bard high five!

[icefractal]

IME, there's usually not an official leader, and when there is, there's usually an OOC agreement that they're only going to "order" the other PCs to do things that the other players want to do.

At a given point, a particular PC may be taking the lead, but which one varies over time.

[geppetto]

Thankfully, I don't need any arguments, because the OP has so eloquently described his character as someone I would never even for a moment consider in my group - not as a player, not as a GM.



If that sounds to you like someone who works well with others ... well, I don't know how you arrive at that conclusion, but then I guess that's fine. To me it sounds like the most unfun BS ever - totally unworkable in any relation with other people involved.

Hence my friendly suggestion to throw it in the garbage, and pick up a role that supports the party.

Sounds like the average CEO actually. They work just fine with people as long as those people are competent and know their place.