ycleption - 2/20/2007 2:45 PM Honestly, I disagree with the notion that a party "decide" a leader (I agree with the rest of the post though). Think about, how many times in group projects of whatnot do you actually decide someone leads. Sometimes, someone will naturally assume leadership, other times, no one will and things just flounder along, sometimes, there are multiple people trying to be leaders and they butt heads. Regardless, I think both in real life and in role-playing these things happen naturally, and to me the idea of appointing a leader seems artificial. I have no doubt it makes things more efficient, as you say. If you play a character who likes order and hierarchy, sure, ask to name a leader, if you play an individualist, you may not want to. Really, I guess what I'm saying is let roleplaying dictate the issue, rather than trying to conform to a certain idea of party-style adventuring.
Laldiien - 2/20/2007 12:05 PM Feel free to disagree, but also realize that just barrelling ahead and appointing oneself to be the speaker is grating, agitating, annoying and short-sighted.
But being a leader isn't about being in the spotlight, getting the glory or having all the attention. Being a leader means when the group makes a mistake, YOU are responsible.
the biggest job a leader can do is just to speak first, in order to empower others.
Honora - 2/20/2007 5:24 PMYes, it is absolutely contrived to appoint a leader... I guess I look at it this way; in any large group with a common goal, someone will end up keeping the threads together, contrived or not.