Tann seems to be showing some Leadership initiative!

You were both successful.

When ya gonna put up the character thread??

As to being leader if all the players want that, I'll lead

..... it would seem to be a good thing to be involved in a game where there is a leader of sorts!

Would be interesting to follow the lead of the Tann character!

Nice Change of Pace!

I believe the party's decisions should be handled democratically.

when a plan of action or a solution is needed, each party member nominates a path, plan, or direction or seconds someone elses suggestion, and if a leader is needed, said "leader" is the tie breaker in a stalemate. Other than that, everyone has a say.

Also Im working on a photoshopped pic of the male gelfling from The Dark Crystal. Only the females have wings in the movie so I have to add wings to his pic. After all he is a Kelden not a gelfling.

Seconding Tiamat's notion of democracy.

Sinus infection and double ear infection (that i wated too long to treat...) has be damn near incapacitated. Will be back soon. Applogies to those I leave in the lurch, just feel like craptoast.

Well, I have been silent up till now on the whole thing of Leadership; Here is my opinion:

Leadership can be a good thing in that the game moves along as the leader coordinates everything and instructs people in what they should do.

On the other hand, I think having a leader takes away from the individuality of the game. No one person knows how to best play all the characters so why should one person have all the say in things. Sure people will have different opinions on what should be done, but taht is what makes the game fun. Personally if people want to do different things then let them. If half the party wants to go this way and half that way then they should be able to chose for themselves. Of course if it is a mistake the DM will let them know by destroying half or all of the party to teach them a lesson.

Live is learning and the only way you learn is from your mistakes. So my vote is we go without a leader; and if later we think we need a leader then it should be decided In-Game with what the characters show and not here in OOC before the game has even started.

My 2 cents!

Ok I think Tiamat, you and Lady Dark have the wrong idea of what I meant by a party leader. It is pretty much what you said above.

Say we find a cave with 3 Ogres and an Evil Wizard we all post our ideas of how to go about defeating said bad guys, some are good, one or two are bad and then we as a party decide on how to proceed. The party leader then assigns who is going to do what IN GAME in relation to their skills and the plan so the DM knows exactly whats going to happen and we attack as a group hoping all goes well.

In the case of a stalemate, he as leader picks the best plan and the party goes forward doing its thing. In a case where the party cannot agree on any plan he again picks the best one of the ones proposed and makes a final choice and the party moves forward.

I believe having a party leader helps keep the game from slowing down due to party indecisiveness and helps find a middle ground the players can all agree on. Yes the party leader has the final say but it’s not going to be a dictatorship if that’s what your afraid of. I put my name in the ring for party leader because Hammer suggested it and in truth I wouldn’t mind being the party leader for once, but that in no way means it has to be me that can be decided by everyone before the game starts or even in game if that’s what is wanted.

I don’t have to be leader but it will determine how I play him in the game as being party leader will make him more responsible as far as the party is concerned. Not being party leader just means he will look out more for himself and his friend Wan then the rest of the party. Either way’s ok by me.

EDIT: Or we can do as RP posted above .

Just let me state for the record here that Tann and I are friends and have been for awhile so there is no animosity in this discussion. We have it often and frankly I don't mind discussing game theory with new people.

I like what RPN suggests as it makes the most sense to me. If you think of this is "realistic" prespectives of a group of adventurers gathered around a table discussing a quest, I don't think "who is the leader" is a question that would come up. What supplies do we need? When are we leaving? are you gonna eat that? - that seems to be more in line with such a gathering.

Take Tann's example "Say we find a cave with 3 Ogres and an Evil Wizard". Well the fighters will charge, with finesse fighters taking the ogres on the sides while the armour and axe warrior comes up the middle and draws attention. The archer moves to one side to fire arrow, the spellcaster steps back to cast a spell and the thief crouches low and to the shadows to look for a exposed back. Do you really need one person to direct you for that?

I have Dm'ed since 1982 (Good Golly that is a long time! Has it really been 30 years! Crap, I'm getting old.) and the idea of a party leader was always the first one abandoned by my players. It usually causes infighting and with online games you have the posting of thoughts of "I don't like this leader" which leads to real life feelings being hurt.

Crow putting Wan over the other members is a natural impulse (they are friends) and good role playing. Same as Bjacki might put Gamard over the others as they are the same race, ditto for Talon and Crow. But you are a team and you need to watch each others back.

Oh, and never make the thief the leader! It is like putting him in charge of the gold!

Anyway, as I said, I bow to the wisdom of the party.

... I've never been a big fan of designated leaders. And just to be clear, I'm one of the players Alacrity was referring to in his last post--the ones who tended to ditch the leadership idea pretty much immediately. My own experiences playing with group leaders is that the other characters are in danger of falling into subordinate roles, which are just not very satisfying to play.

I've found that leadership does tend to emerge spontaneously, though, and to shift according to the situation: a warrior will probably take the lead in a situation defined primarily by armed conflict while a mage or cleric will be more likely to lead when magic is called for. Characters' relationships, as they become accustomed to playing together, also tend to matter a great deal. Alignment is a factor as well. When I play chaotic good characters, it really doesn't matter who the leader is: if things head south, the character will act on his own initiative--in the party's interest but not necessarily according to plan.

I also need to be honest about one more thing: while I've been gaming for 30+ years, I'm new to the on-line thing, and realize that my table-top experience may not translate exactly.

Hello, by the way. This is my first post in this string. I'm looking forward to getting to know you all.

Last call for all those who need to give me equipments or changes to characters. I will be posting them soon and if you don't tell me what you are carrying, you are travelling very light - backpack, bedroll, clothing (this is a PG site), one torch, flint and tinder, some iron rations and a belt pouch for your coins.

..... good to go!

No Changes!

Bring It On!

I applaud Hammer's enthuasiam.

... when you forget to include a bedroll in your equipment list, and of course tunics do not come with change pockets. A small belt pouch for coins would come in handy. I seem to have forgotten both of those things. A little rusty, I guess.

Other than that, I'm good. Axe is sharp, helmet on more or less straight. That about covers it.

I believe I sent you everything; you didnt respond so I will take that as things were ok?

Lets get this show on the road.