The indispensable team member

[Hermit]

What niche in the super team do you find indispensable?
Who do you most regret not having?

The guy strong enough to hold up the crumbling building...
The detective type who can actually tell you what all the clues mean...
The Science wiz who knows how to shut off the Mastermind's "Doomsday Device"
The "man with the van" , whoever owns the vehicle or other method of group transport
Mr. Moneybags- Because even heroes need cash
The intrepid Leader
Heck, the intrepid Follower (Someone has to take orders)

Every find yourself short one of these in a campaign? :)

[MarkusDark]

Recently, my group has found itself short of someone with medical training/skills. I would say that most missed are the characters that are liguists or broad range scientists so that you can get clues from various angles.

[slaughterj]

Originally posted by Hermit
What niche in the super team do you find indispensable?
Who do you most regret not having?

The guy strong enough to hold up the crumbling building...
The detective type who can actually tell you what all the clues mean...
The Science wiz who knows how to shut off the Mastermind's "Doomsday Device"
The "man with the van" , whoever owns the vehicle or other method of group transport
Mr. Moneybags- Because even heroes need cash
The intrepid Leader
Heck, the intrepid Follower (Someone has to take orders)

Every find yourself short one of these in a campaign? :)

The first 3 are big - transportation isn't much of an issue so far as I've seen, since players like supermovement.

[misterdeath]

Most often it's been the leader.

Normally, if I'm playing, I'll take that position. My wife will too, if she's not running.

But, it's a PINTA to have to see your very much not leader type character get pigeonholed into the role.

"I'm playing a semi-autistic idiot savant with Instinctive Combat skills? You want me to be the leader?"

Sigh.

If nobody wants to take some sort of coordinating role, then things can fall apart as Neil runs off to check this lead, and Jeff runs off to talk to that contact, and Joe runs off to get into a barfight because he's bored and everyone does their own thing.

I can work around not having a scientist, or a medic, or a brick.

D

[mattingly]

I agree with Mister D. The Leader is hard to to without. I can do without someone to lead the team into battle, but the team needs a purpose. Sure, that can be provided by an NPC mentor or employer, but when that figure isn't around, who makes the decisions?

The other team member that's hard to do without is the team conscience. Besides a head (the leader), every team needs a heart. That's the person who gets the team to do the right thing, and stops them from doing the wrong thing.

[MarkusDark]

When I GM, I tend to pick the leader whether they want it or not. I wait for a couple of sessions to go by, then based upon what the public witnesses - they choose the leader. No matter what the team says, "Really, we have voted this guy the leader, not me!" the media and public has already branded him a leader. Sometimes, that is enough of a push to help get the usually 'non-leader' type into the roll.

[TheImperialKhan]

I have to go with the trend here. The leader is the one role that you really can't do without. I've seen what happens when you try to run a hero team by committee and trust me on this one it just doesn't work.

You want examples look at The Avengers; pre Cap they were individually powerfull, but after Cap took over as team leader they became just that, a team. And consequently far more effective.

Also look at the JLA; with all that power no one should be able to offer them much more than token resistance. But they have no real leader and so do not achieve their potential. And sorry but no, Batman is not a leader. He tries hard but he's too much of a loner to be able to inspire his teammates the way Cap does. Superman could but he doesn't want the job and hasn't had the training for it.

In any case I go with the Leader as the indispensable one.

[Ghost Archer]

Oh, yeah, the Leader is the major sticking point in my campaigns too. even when I have a vict . . . er . . . volunteer nobody listens to them. When I play, I always end up being the leader by default, even, as misterdeath says, when the character isn't a leader type.

The other type I have trouble with is the detective when I GM. Most of my players have no idea what detective work is and couldn't deduce it was raining if they were soaking wet so I tend to shy away from deep investigations. Again, when I play, I am the detective, but since two of my main characters ARE detectives, it works but then my Co-GM has to work hard to keep the detective in me happy.

[Beetle]

Hate to sound like a broken record, but a good leader is indispensible. The problem in my circle is that one GM's campaigns were so bloody that nobody wanted to be leader (high guilt when your decisions lead to the death of another player's character).

In the monthly Champs game that I'm in, we don't have an official team leader. The other players are looking to me to do that, since I've got the most experience with the system. The problem is that I'm playing a character with all the fun speedster disads (mega impulsive, highly overconfident). Last session, we were called to a hostage situation. The team wanted to get all the details from the police. Bolt said "Bleep that! We can take these clowns!" One totally destroyed building and three dead hostages later (Who knew the hostage takers had bombs? Not us, we didn't ask.) and they still want Bolt to be leader.

[Trebuchet]

In our current campaign my character has become the leader since she has the most seniority, was deputy team leader, and the original leader/founder is taking a year long leave of absense. That's been an interesting role-playing challenge for me, because I am not a leader type myself.

So far she's done OK. :)

[BlackCobra]

Actually, it was the case in a galactic defense (Cosmic-level power) super team that every character but one on the team were the ideal support characters. One was a galactic-level teleporter to get the team there, one the people person, one the tech person, etc. But those characters were all a little light in the combat. One character wasn't (see the Invulnerability discussion thread for specifics). As a team, we were (could be) really gross. The support team did everything it needed to do to get the Gross Guy up next to the bad guys and then he took them out. (I guess he was the Brick)

And when we had scenarios without him, we really really missed him. We had to actually think! :)

[JmOz]

Not quite indespencible, but I enjoy playing and quite uesful in some campeigns is the agent smasher, the guy with abunch of AE and AF attacks, usualy not a heavy hitter but still tough as anything

[Syberdwarf2]

Following the broken record treend, I'd also say the the Leader is the most indespensible. However, in most Champs game sI've played in, the money has to come from somewhere. Anybody that has lots of money and is self-motivated enough to put his life and fortune on the line on a regular basis probably has good leadership qualities. The Mony Guy usually ends up as the leader. After all, how did he get all that money if he can't at least reasonably lead people?

[st barbara]

I can empathise with "Trebuchet". "St Barbara" was sort of "dragooned" into being team leader over my objections because no-one else wanted the job either. I have trouble thinking tactically so she made a poor fist of it. Things have improved lately because the team has added a member who was specifically designed to be a tactician. However, in a few months we will be moving from one "alternate world" to another, with "St Barbara" being the only continuing character ! What's the bet she gets stuck with the job again, on the grounds of "seniority" .

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by st barbara
I can empathise with "Trebuchet". "St Barbara" was sort of "dragooned" into being team leader over my objections because no-one else wanted the job either. I have trouble thinking tactically so she made a poor fist of it. Things have improved lately because the team has added a member who was specifically designed to be a tactician. However, in a few months we will be moving from one "alternate world" to another, with "St Barbara" being the only continuing character ! What's the bet she gets stuck with the job again, on the grounds of "seniority" .

Let's hear it for the rule of the super-gymnasts! :D

[death tribble]

With the teams we had, numbers were never the problem and a vast array of powers were not either. We voted for our leaders. That's when the trouble started. In some cases leaders got in who members of the team hated. Good roleplaying but it can breed resentment.

The leaders varied in both power and capability. But we always had one.

[BNakagawa]

Going a little out of game, but I have always felt that the most important team member was the player with the house that was big enough to host the game comfortably.

[Blue]

A leader inevitably surfaces, and I'm curious to see who it will be in the campaign I am about to start up. I have players who are "resistant" to making characters so only a few have vollunteered their concepts for me. Boy is it an intersting bunch:

A human turned Avenging Angel
A Girl from a sewer civiliazation
A man from the future returned to save the world
A rodeo Clown (Yes you read that right)
An optometrist with all sorts of funky eye-related powers

Can't wait to hear about the others. Knowing my own campaign, so far the indespensible guy has potential to be the "Man from the future", because of the game's bent toward a world-ending event.

But I'll laugh my ass off if the rodeo clown winds up in charge.

[Burnout]

Originally posted by Blue

But I'll laugh my ass off if the rodeo clown winds up in charge.

ROFLMAO!!!

[Mentor]

Trebuchet is a good team leader and all, but I sure do miss our investigator/detective. Nowdays we stumble around until the baddies get hacked off and attack us.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by Mentor
Trebuchet is a good team leader and all, but I sure do miss our investigator/detective. Nowdays we stumble around until the baddies get hacked off and attack us.

Hey, whatever works! At least we never have trouble getting the bad guys pissed off. But I miss the detective too.

[Seenar]

I often end up in the role of leader, even if it is "voice of reason", which is cool, but tend to make playing a twisted loner difficult. Somebody has to take the job, and I seem to have it thrown at me, cross Genera's.

[Hermit]

Team Leaders are in high demand, that's cool. I guess we should now ask what makes a good team leader, both IC and OOCly?

Clearly willingness ranks near the top.

[JmOz]

Hermit: What is IC and OOCly?

What makes a good leader, interesting question: First I think a team can have two or more leaders (A battlefield and a PR type thing)

The field type needs a good head for tactics, the ability to think fast and while caring about his teammates, the willingness to let them die. If any of you remember the episodes of Angel that introduced Fred we got to see that Angel was a terrible leader while Wes was, because Wes realised people would die, and Angel wanted to save them all.

The PR leader needs a high PRE, an ability to deal with the Press, polititions, etc...

[Doug McCrae]

Originally posted by Syberdwarf2
The Mony Guy usually ends up as the leader. After all, how did he get all that money if he can't at least reasonably lead people? Inherited wealth.

[Doug McCrae]

Originally posted by JmOz
The field type needs a good head for tacticsWhat if the character is a good tactician, but the player isn't?

[JmOz]

Two solutions,

The team of players is allowed to come up with ideas and then the Leader Character gets to act like he came up with it, or the Leader should be designed as to make up for the players short commings, with maybe some skill levels UBO x8 or other methods to help the team succeed

Both ideas can work together

[Doug McCrae]

For the past four or five years, my wider gaming circle has lacked any recognised leader (I'm talking about players here, not characters) and I think the games have suffered for it. Everyone goes their own way or splits up into ones and twos.

My gaming group are, for the most part, anti-authoritarian, left-wing and value personal freedom very highly. (Their own, not other people's). They are not team players, they have no concept of team. I don't know if these people should even be playing role-playing games.

[Hermit]

Originally posted by JmOz
Hermit: What is IC and OOCly?


Oh, sorry, chat speak slipped in...
"In Character" and "Out of Character" :)

In short, what do you think a character needs to be a good leader,
and what do you think a player needs to play one?

[Blue]

Out Of Character:
The ability to communicate ideas effectively, to listen to what other suggest and to talk them down when they're going the wrong direction, mediate conflicts within the character group (A *BIG* issue among my players) and the ability to allocate team resources effectively. Most importantly: The ability to admit when you are/were wrong.

In Character:
None of the new team look like a leader. Thank god I'm not out in the field with them. I expect they'll be gone in a week and I don't want to be around to witness the self-destruction first hand. Now the old team leader, Gossamyr, there was a leader! She never talked down to anyone, always took suggestions and made a decision in a timely manner, and the team was prosperous but for the last fight. RIP Gossamyr.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by Doug McCrae
My gaming group are, for the most part, anti-authoritarian, left-wing and value personal freedom very highly. (Their own, not other people's). They are not team players, they have no concept of team. I don't know if these people should even be playing role-playing games.

Interesting. My current group is all conservative (The prime attribute we require for admission into our by-invitation-only group is personality compatitibility), and our teamwork is extraordinary. We cover each other carefully, giving our team a synergy far beyond what would appear on paper. We would (and have) clobbered much more powerful teams pointwise.

I don't know if that has anything to do with political orientation, or just this particular group. It might be interesting to discuss it further (Perhaps on the non-gaming forum?). Are conservatives more cooperative? I don't know.

[misterdeath]

Some groups just gel, some groups don't. I think it depends on the leadership style and the reasons why the group plays.

If the group is just blowing off steam, trying for a "beer and pretzels" type game then there is little tactical coordination.

If everyone in the group is a spotlight hog, then well, everyone hogs the spotlight, and it's impossible to coordinate.

If everyone's there to have fun, and understands that Everyone has to have fun, then things go pretty well together.

If the people are military, or ex military, boy o boy do you get tactical coordination.
____

In my liberal type group, having a tactical coordinator worked very well. The only pain was the most conservative member, who wouldn't do anything. But that was just 'cause Bob was a arsehole, who got off on dicking the party over.

Because that was because Bob was a spotlight hog, and the rest of us were out to maximize fun for everyone.

Obviously not anything to do with politics. :)

D

[misterdeath]

Originally posted by Hermit
Oh, sorry, chat speak slipped in...
"In Character" and "Out of Character" :)

In short, what do you think a character needs to be a good leader,
and what do you think a player needs to play one?

How I Survive Being Leader:

The player of the leader needs to have some sort of understanding of the other players, just like the leader of the characters should understand the characters.

Know where your "problem characters" are, and get some idea how to deal with them before things become issues.

Be able to mediate, dole out responsibility, and listen to everyone. But be able to shut them up and say, "enough debate, time to rock n roll."

If that's a need to be autocratic, cool. If it's convince everyone to build a consensus, cool. If it's manipulate everyone into doing what you want, cool too.

But, as the leader, it becomes your responsibility to make sure things get done. Make them understand that too.

And so, a good understanding of psychology, is a great help, IMX.

Tactics are a nice addition. It's good to be able to make nice plans. But, if you can get everyone's opinions, and make semi good plans out of those, then that's good enough.

No plan survives contact with the enemy. So don't sweat the plan too much. ;)

In combat, make sure you're aware of what's going on. If you see someone faltering, or having trouble, adjust what's going on. Depending on the genre, you may go with the "geek the mage" syndrome (find the most dangerous guy, everyone gang attack him, lather rinse repeat), or pick an opponent and go one on one (4 color baby). Remember to switch off opponents if necessary.

Awareness is the key in combat. Make sure you catch the clues the GM will drop (Vulnerabilities, Weaknesses, plot cues). You can look darn near omniscient, as well as tactically brilliant, if you can recognize the look in the GMs eye that says "Next Phase, the reinforcements get here. I've got them now" and turn and look right at the bad guys as they're sneaking up on you. Especially if you don't tell the GM how you always figure it out.

So, know your players and know your GM. Have a forceful enough, but likeable enough personality that people will want to listen, and will listen.

D

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by misterdeath
If everyone's there to have fun, and understands that Everyone has to have fun, then things go pretty well together.

If the people are military, or ex military, boy o boy do you get tactical coordination.

I think you've hit on it there: If everyone tries to let everyone else have fun, everyone will have fun. It's amazing how cool it is when every single player in a group is trying to help everyone else's character shine. Even if your character can't do something himself directly , he might be able to help another character out. That's what teamwork is all about.

My own martial artist Zl'f is continuing her long-established trend of being knocked unconscious in 3 out of every 5 games she plays in. She gets KO'd often, but thanks to her 9 SPD & 12 REC, she always gets back into the fight before it's over. Plus of course the teammates who cover her tiny unconscious butt while she's out cold.

I'm the only military veteran in my current group, so that blows that theory. :p

[Tamashii2000]

Originally posted by Doug McCrae
For the past four or five years, my wider gaming circle has lacked any recognised leader (I'm talking about players here, not characters) and I think the games have suffered for it. Everyone goes their own way or splits up into ones and twos.

My gaming group are, for the most part, anti-authoritarian, left-wing and value personal freedom very highly. (Their own, not other people's). They are not team players, they have no concept of team. I don't know if these people should even be playing role-playing games.

Ohh I love crushing players liek that with a small supergroup built on less points that uses tattics.

[Tamashii2000]

Originally posted by Trebuchet
Interesting. My current group is all conservative (The prime attribute we require for admission into our by-invitation-only group is personality compatitibility), and our teamwork is extraordinary. We cover each other carefully, giving our team a synergy far beyond what would appear on paper. We would (and have) clobbered much more powerful teams pointwise.

I don't know if that has anything to do with political orientation, or just this particular group. It might be interesting to discuss it further (Perhaps on the non-gaming forum?). Are conservatives more cooperative? I don't know.

Of coarse they are its all part of the vast right wing consp. thing!!!!! :rolleyes: ;) :rolleyes:

[Catacomb]

I think that the 'axe wielding maniac' is an archetype that no group can do without.

[lemming]

Hmm, my group down in the Bay Area had way leftwing liberals to very conservative political views. We didn't have much of a problem. Of course, we also played characters that didn't nessasarily follow the same political views as our own beliefs either, so maybe that helped.

[st barbara]

LOL ! "Trebuchet" "Rule of the super gymnasts" indeed ! Actually i thought that a "cuteocracy" might be an even better idea. None of your big ugly bricks allowed !(Only big CUTE bricks!)