How Does One Character Become A Leader In RPG?

[Bartmanhomer]

I always wonder how one character become a leader in RPG. Does it's have something to do what magic, levelling up? What is the secret of becoming a leader?

[False God]

Take the Leadership feat.

Alternatively, have good mental scores and be the party face. It's easy to lead and direct when you're the primary go-to-guy between your party and the NPCs.

And of course: make the right decisions.
-Aside: if you can't make the right decisions, make everyone believe whatever decisions you do make are correct.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Funny thing, there's really nothing to it. If you're decisive and assertive, people will follow you just because you seem like you know what you're doing and they'll stick with you as long as you keep succeeding.

This works whether it's you at the table trying to lead the other PCs or your PC trying to get a mess of frightened villagers to rally against the oncoming horde of bandits due in a few days. Overcoming inherent biases comes into play with odd race choices and dealing with nobility (hopefully only in game and not at the table) but everybody loves a winner and your character should have more than a fair share of competence on display.

As for mechanics to represent your character being a better leader than you are, that's necessarily going to vary from one system to the next. 3e D&D has a feat that does it and a number of classes that build on or grant that feat.

[KillianHawkeye]

Kelb is right, being a leader is mostly about personality.

[Keltest]

Also throwing my hat in with Kelb. Mostly you just need to be able to make a snap decision and stick with it. Making good decisions helps, but unless you consistently lead people to utter failure, people will generally follow somebody with even a bad plan over somebody with no plan at all.

[Telok]

Simple. Three out of four players go "Um, huh? Dunno. <mumble>" when the DM asks what's going on. The fourth player says something about talking to NPCs and makes a decision. The fourth player is the leader.

[RazorChain]

Also throwing my hat in with Kelb. Mostly you just need to be able to make a snap decision and stick with it. Making good decisions helps, but unless you consistently lead people to utter failure, people will generally follow somebody with even a bad plan over somebody with no plan at all.

Like George Patton said "A good plan violently executed today is better than a perfect plan next week"

[GrayDeath]

Almost all of the time: Unintentionally. ^^

[redwizard007]

Funny thing, there's really nothing to it. If you're decisive and assertive, people will follow you just because you seem like you know what you're doing and they'll stick with you as long as you keep succeeding.

This works whether it's you at the table trying to lead the other PCs or your PC trying to get a mess of frightened villagers to rally against the oncoming horde of bandits due in a few days. Overcoming inherent biases comes into play with odd race choices and dealing with nobility (hopefully only in game and not at the table) but everybody loves a winner and your character should have more than a fair share of competence on display.

As for mechanics to represent your character being a better leader than you are, that's necessarily going to vary from one system to the next. 3e D&D has a feat that does it and a number of classes that build on or grant that feat.

Yes... and no.

Take the Avengers for a moment. Who is the leader? Fury recruits them. Thor or Hulk are the most powerful. Iron Man has all the resources. Iron Man and Banner have the best ideas. War Machine and Fury out rank everyone. And yet, Captain America is usually called the leader.

Why? He let's the others do their thing, but adds coordination. Not planning, but direction. If anything, the scientists on the team do more planning. The black-ops types attached to the team do some manipulating. Take (it pains me to say this, but you will all have seen it) the 1st Avengers movie. When Cap starts directing the team they perform the best. He helps let each member of the Avengers find the best way to contribute. That's a good leader. It also sucks in D&D.

If one player is running 5 PCs a game gets old fast. No player should upstaged (unwillingly) in an RPG. What does work is someone gaining consensus, or buy in from the other players. If the mission is save the princess, but her dad is a tool, the "leader" might be the guy that says "screw this guy. Let's take his kingdom. He's inept and its hurting his people." If the other players buy in then they just handed over a small bit of authority to the speaker. If someone else pipes in that "that's funny, but I want to run the actual planned adventure." Then we see another small shift in power. I believe this is the best way for leadership to work in an RPG. Its essentially demagoguery, but with a democratic twist.

[Faily]

Simple. Three out of four players go "Um, huh? Dunno. <mumble>" when the DM asks what's going on. The fourth player says something about talking to NPCs and makes a decision. The fourth player is the leader.

This was such an accurate description of one of my playgroups, it hurt to read it.

#I'mInThisPictureAndIDoNotLikeIt.

[denthor]

Always be thinking about the game. Float all the adventure paths to follow. If there are three things you can do have an opinion on which one you want. If there is no adventures talk to NPC to find them. Be active in your game.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Yes... and no.

Take the Avengers for a moment. Who is the leader? Fury recruits them. Thor or Hulk are the most powerful. Iron Man has all the resources. Iron Man and Banner have the best ideas. War Machine and Fury out rank everyone. And yet, Captain America is usually called the leader.

Why? He let's the others do their thing, but adds coordination. Not planning, but direction. If anything, the scientists on the team do more planning. The black-ops types attached to the team do some manipulating. Take (it pains me to say this, but you will all have seen it) the 1st Avengers movie. When Cap starts directing the team they perform the best. He helps let each member of the Avengers find the best way to contribute. That's a good leader. It also sucks in D&D.

If one player is running 5 PCs a game gets old fast. No player should upstaged (unwillingly) in an RPG. What does work is someone gaining consensus, or buy in from the other players. If the mission is save the princess, but her dad is a tool, the "leader" might be the guy that says "screw this guy. Let's take his kingdom. He's inept and its hurting his people." If the other players buy in then they just handed over a small bit of authority to the speaker. If someone else pipes in that "that's funny, but I want to run the actual planned adventure." Then we see another small shift in power. I believe this is the best way for leadership to work in an RPG. Its essentially demagoguery, but with a democratic twist.

Here's the thing; if your group is made up of people who are all decisive and goal oriented, you don't actually need a leader as long as they have common or at least intersecting goals. If their goals are at cross purposes or unrelated, you -may- need a leader -if- you can justify why they're together in the first place.

Overall social hierarchy dynamics are probably more than a bit beyond the scope of this particular discussion.

[ezekielraiden]

I always wonder how one character become a leader in RPG. Does it's have something to do what magic, levelling up? What is the secret of becoming a leader?

It depends on what you mean by "leader." If you mean "the person who does all the talking," it's as simple as being the most optimized for social stuff. If you're mathematically the best diplomat and liar, people will WANT you to be the speaker. But I don't consider this being the party leader. You are important, sure, but I see the leader as in part the "brains of the operation"--which does not mean being the most numerically intelligent either, though both traits in and out of game help.

The "leader," IMO, is the person most respected by the party collectively. Having that respect means being the first (or sometimes second) choice for every other party member when it comes to making good judgment calls. If you've got the party's respect, they are more likely to follow your guidance, and more likely to obey if you tell them to back down, etc.

Note here the difference between being respected and liked. Someone can be well-loved, but seen as a poor choice for advice or orders, while another may not be emotionally close, but very influential because they are afforded respect. As examples: in the Justice League cartoon, Flash is the "heart and soul" of the team, but he absolutely does not have this kind of "respect" that makes a team leader. Batman, meanwhile, is not very close with his teammates, possibly with the exclusion of Wonder Woman (mutual attraction) and Superman (see: his speech at Superman's "grave")...but literally everyone respects his planning and forethought, even if they sometimes balk at his cold calculations. Superman is both at once, well-liked and well-respected, hence why it is such a blow when he disappears, "dies," etc. (Note that this does not mean the group has no respect at all for Flash etc., but rather that their respect for him falls very short of leadership-level respect. And he's entirely okay with that.)

I tend to play Team Dad. Part of this is just my nature. Part of it is that I like to play Paladins. And part of it is that I am (to my surprise) somewhat charismatic IRL, and pretty intelligent. (I hate having to just say that so bluntly, but pretending I'm only average is false humility.) I think very hard about the moral and practical implications of my actions and plans. As a result, people know that if I support an action, I'm very serious about it, neither flippant nor rash. So, while I don't always want nor receive a leadership position per se, I am often close in counsel with whoever DOES lead the group for these reasons. Of course, I can also be very slow to act/decide, so that can be a liability as a leader or advisor--don't assume I'm fault-free. Far, far from it.

[False God]

Yes... and no.

Take the Avengers for a moment. Who is the leader? Fury recruits them. Thor or Hulk are the most powerful. Iron Man has all the resources. Iron Man and Banner have the best ideas. War Machine and Fury out rank everyone. And yet, Captain America is usually called the leader.

Why? He let's the others do their thing, but adds coordination. Not planning, but direction. If anything, the scientists on the team do more planning. The black-ops types attached to the team do some manipulating. Take (it pains me to say this, but you will all have seen it) the 1st Avengers movie. When Cap starts directing the team they perform the best. He helps let each member of the Avengers find the best way to contribute. That's a good leader. It also sucks in D&D.

If one player is running 5 PCs a game gets old fast. No player should upstaged (unwillingly) in an RPG. What does work is someone gaining consensus, or buy in from the other players. If the mission is save the princess, but her dad is a tool, the "leader" might be the guy that says "screw this guy. Let's take his kingdom. He's inept and its hurting his people." If the other players buy in then they just handed over a small bit of authority to the speaker. If someone else pipes in that "that's funny, but I want to run the actual planned adventure." Then we see another small shift in power. I believe this is the best way for leadership to work in an RPG. Its essentially demagoguery, but with a democratic twist.

One of the problems with literary characters (in this case, comic and movie characters) is that they often are only good at things when the plot needs them to be, and bad at things when the plot needs them to be. All of the Avengers are capable decision-makers when they need to be, and they aren't when it's important for them not to be, either to add tension to a situation or to have one character's idea triumph over another in order to move the plot forward.

Now they don't always make good decisions, but they're all pretty capable of making a choice in the heat of the moment. And in fact their bad decisions are often the primary drivers of the plot, which then revolves around getting out of the trouble they just created for themselves, since the basic principle of a story is to teach some kind of lesson to the reader/viewer. Don't be an arrogant twit (Thor). Stand up for yourself (Capt. America). Get your life together (Iron Man). Friendship is magic (all the team movies).

-----
D&D is odd because of the way its scores and skills work. A fighter is not the guy you ask about military tactics unless he has a weirdly high Int. The Barbarian has survival as a class skill but also probably has a worthless Wis score. But the Wizard can go on for days about boxing, even if he'd probably get his butt kicked trying it. The Sorcerer's only face skill is Bluff but his high Cha means he'll be good at almost anything talky-reated.

-----
At best people like the Avengers are probably playing a more skill-based system, where their final abilities are determined by what they've invested in and used, rather than some fixed set of "base scores". Hence why most of them are often situationally good leaders, rather than universally good at leading or talking all the time.

[redwizard007]

One of the problems with literary characters (in this case, comic and movie characters) is that they often are only good at things when the plot needs them to be, and bad at things when the plot needs them to be. All of the Avengers are capable decision-makers when they need to be, and they aren't when it's important for them not to be, either to add tension to a situation or to have one character's idea triumph over another in order to move the plot forward.

Now they don't always make good decisions, but they're all pretty capable of making a choice in the heat of the moment. And in fact their bad decisions are often the primary drivers of the plot, which then revolves around getting out of the trouble they just created for themselves, since the basic principle of a story is to teach some kind of lesson to the reader/viewer. Don't be an arrogant twit (Thor). Stand up for yourself (Capt. America). Get your life together (Iron Man). Friendship is magic (all the team movies).

-----
D&D is odd because of the way its scores and skills work. A fighter is not the guy you ask about military tactics unless he has a weirdly high Int. The Barbarian has survival as a class skill but also probably has a worthless Wis score. But the Wizard can go on for days about boxing, even if he'd probably get his butt kicked trying it. The Sorcerer's only face skill is Bluff but his high Cha means he'll be good at almost anything talky-reated.

-----
At best people like the Avengers are probably playing a more skill-based system, where their final abilities are determined by what they've invested in and used, rather than some fixed set of "base scores". Hence why most of them are often situationally good leaders, rather than universally good at leading or talking all the time.

Entirely on board with 3/4 of your post, but I dont think that invalidates my point. Rather, it highlights the similarities between Marvel and D&D. Most characters/players in a solo campaign are totally comfortable having the spotlight. They make ALL the decisions, but when added to a group that changes. Call it shyness, introversion, or just sharing responsibilities if you will, but in my experience even natural leaders like to take a step back in roleplaying groups when given the opportunity. They will contribute, but usually try to share the decision making amongst the players. Sort of how super heroes step up when they become most relevant.

The portion of your post I took exception to was the actual D&D paragraph where you tie ability scores and proficiency to over all skill. I have always seen either as being enough for standard skill use (generally) but saw synergies as more of an accelerated level of skill. The difference between Nightcrawler doing acrobatics vs Human Torch, or Wolverine and Punisher with tracking. I'd say that the average fighter knows enough to suggest basic military tactics employed by his culture and how to counter those of any historical enemies regardless of Int. With a high Int he may well school Sun Tzu. Barbarians can track (if proficient) but excel when led by a wise old hunter. The sorcerer is a natural face, but bluff has always come naturally... etc.

[Slipperychicken]

tldr, by being charismatic IRL

[Altheus]

In my experience it is by being willing to make a decision when everyone else isn't.

Last night playing starwars we had a situation where everyone else thought that the firefight was over because every enemy we could see had gone down. I'm sufficiently experienced / paranoid that you don't relax in that situation until you've swept all of the buildings and confirmed them clear. Even then you might have missed something.

Cue NPC running in to a building that had npc landing in a hostage situation.

After some dithering I said "I'm going to take the shot, is there a consensus?" After one positive and 3 uncertain responses from the group and an inquiry if I was going to use stun and sort them out afterwards (no, I didn't do that) I successfully shot the hostage taker in the head.

We're going to be in a social situation next time, I used my xp to buy charm and negotiation skills, no-one else in the group thought of that so it looks like I'll be the prominent one again.

I also have the ability to take a loose brief and turn it in to a set of steps that can be followed to a solution while other people are scratching their heads wondering what to do I'm there saying "OK, we do A, B, C, then either D or E depending on how C goes, F, then exfiltrate." This is partly the result of working in IT and mostly paying attention to what the GM is saying.

I don't try to take charge all the time but if everyone is flapping around loose,unsure of what to do then I'll step up and make something happen. People seem to like being around someone who sounds like they have a plan and knows what to do.

[ezekielraiden]

I don't try to take charge all the time but if everyone is flapping around loose,unsure of what to do then I'll step up and make something happen. People seem to like being around someone who sounds like they have a plan and knows what to do.

It's certainly possible that this is a part of it. I find that, IME, nerds are the type to analyze a situation to death rather than committing to a good but not *perfect* plan: we are often the walking exemplification of "the perfect is the enemy of the good." But even outside of that I have noticed that LOTS of people don't seem to like making decisions. They'll hem and haw, they'll present options and then even when you positively respond they'll present counter options. I have in some sense *had* to become my friend-group's "pick an option and DO it" guys. (I often suggest flipping coins or rolling dice to assuage any lingering reluctance).

So...yeah. At least SOME of the time, becoming a leader is merely a matter of actually standing up and walking rather than continuing to analyze or spin your wheels offering successive alternatives.

[lightningcat]

It's certainly possible that this is a part of it. I find that, IME, nerds are the type to analyze a situation to death rather than committing to a good but not *perfect* plan: we are often the walking exemplification of "the perfect is the enemy of the good." But even outside of that I have noticed that LOTS of people don't seem to like making decisions. They'll hem and haw, they'll present options and then even when you positively respond they'll present counter options. I have in some sense *had* to become my friend-group's "pick an option and DO it" guys. (I often suggest flipping coins or rolling dice to assuage any lingering reluctance).

So...yeah. At least SOME of the time, becoming a leader is merely a matter of actually standing up and walking rather than continuing to analyze or spin your wheels offering successive alternatives.

Sometimes the leader is directing the group. Sometimes the "leader" is forcing the group to act, ala Leroy Jenkins.

[Jay R]

I always wonder how one character become a leader in RPG. Does it's have something to do what magic, levelling up? What is the secret of becoming a leader?

This is not a question about RPGs.

The leader character is usually the character run by the leader player.

Somebody says, "Let's attack the ogres." If everybody attacks the ogres, then that was the leader.