The indispensable team member

[Doug McCrae]

Originally posted by JmOz

The field type needs a good head for tactics

What 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.

[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!!!!!

[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!)