So, I Took The Wrong Character To The 24hr.

[magicaddict]

Gerrard was never the right choice for a lawless tournament, and certainly not to be a captain. I said it in the run up to the game, and then again during it. I signed him up because once he knew about it, he would not only go, but apply for captaincy. Thyrian is a mind-numbing no-hoper, Watcher wouldn't commit himself in isolated cover, and Vilnius was injured, so it was him or monster. On balance, I should have chosen to monster, as both he and I had an utter nightmare all weekend.

How badly he performed under these circumstances, and how badly his poor performance and the reaction to it of the other characters caused me OOC stress, has gotten me thinking. With so many characters mechanically powerful enough and IC inclined to act individually outside of the command structure, either in deliberate subversion of the patrol leader or simply not needing anything the commander can provide, and the lack of recourse for those in command that does not leave them looking like petty-minded tossers (and doesn't work to boot), the question arises as to whether there is a place for a nominal party commander (not just a Defender, but a Marshal, Paladin or anyone else) within a modern TL party.

What role do party commanders fulfil to the majority of characters these days? Is there any positive contribution they provide to the party dynamic, or are the contributions all negative (either to them or the party)?

Before that statement appears too ridiculous, consider the evidence. The commander doesn't glue the party together (that's the charismatic or sympathetic character), or provide the rallying point (that's the strongest warrior), or protect others (as the protection isn't required). Therefore, what contribution are they making that could not be made by their acting as another cog in the machine instead? There are enough patrols that succeed resoundingly by mutual consensus, so I do not agree with the notion that the patrols would simply fall apart or assign a decision maker internally.

Looking back over the last two years of reports, IC opinion has not been positive towards those in charge, the best a commander can hope for being to be invisible and not incur the ire of those patrolees that submit reports. When called upon to point out what the commander is achieving that isn't handled by the rest of the patrol, it is getting harder to come up with anything.

Is it time to do away with them entirely, or perhaps only have them for campaign years? Turn the Defenders into a benevolent organisation, dedicate to protecting everyone as the Bladesingers are to those of elven heritage? Send out patrols without a nominal commander, and let the independent characters go and do the job they are going to do anyway whether there was someone giving the commands or not? Would this work? If not, why not? To the huge number of entirely indepeneant characters, is having someone in charge no more than holding them back?

I know Watcher could perfectly happily operate in the absence of a patrol commander, and there are now dozens of characters who, when the opportunity arises, act outside the chain without consideration for the rest of the party (consider the 'hunting party' that went after the drow in the darkness on Saturday night. They were powerful enough to be in no danger whatseoever).

What use is a nominal leader to these characters?

Comments

[helbling.livejournal.com]

I've wrestled with this. I have no idea about the solution.

As you go up in rank, there do start being higher numbers of characters who look at cooperating with the group as a whole and go away from it, and often, because logistics mean it's often easier and faster for one person to tackle plot than a group, they will succeed at the objective regardless of that fact that they're on their own/in a small minority. And thus believe they've been rewarded for effectively removing one of the reasons someone else is roleplaying, which is really quite shitty. I dislike that they're becoming more common and these days, almost seem to be more the default than someone who will actually work within a unit structure, even if they aren't military.

On the other hand, those sorts of PCs are the bread and butter of the classic heroic fantasy, and doing away with them would be, I feel, a great loss.

I think the answer lies in guilds. At the moment, the pattern seems to be that guild restrictions are harshest when you start the character and then taper off, by a mixture of attrition and the IC reasoning that if you have good history with the guild, they cut you more slack. I wonder if it would be better for party balance to have it the other way around - that restrictions are relatively slack at the beginning because you're new and learning, and then get harsher as you get higher level, because you're supposed to be setting an example for others. Increase the guild bonuses you get as a result, but add in the restriction for most of them that they have to work with and obey the party commander. You go rogue? Fantastic...but don't expect your guild to be impressed, even if you got the objective, because you fucked up your restrictions. You want to go off on your own as a regular thing? Then you have to do without a guild, or without a guild that gives you such shiny things, so your risk of death is higher.

Thus the benefit you get from not being in a group is offset by the fact you...well, you aren't in a group. So you get none of the advanced training or freebies or back up that would come with that.

This has OOC logistics issues, of course. The reason that restrictions are more harshly (usually) adhered to in the campaign year is because you have the campaign GMs to oversee them, whereas once you're out of that year, who would do this? The character refs? They already do a huge amount of work. You could ask for experienced GMs to take it in turns overseeing certain guilds, but that means adding them into the voting system to keep it fair. The committee? That's again a bunch of people that already do a huge amount of work, and committee is supposed to impact OOC stuff, not IC, as it were.

I suspect, as an idea, it has legs if people start running more involved high level plot arcs. Not quite the same level of insularity or involvement as the first year campaign, but similar long running plots focused on a single area or storyline over a longer period of time, and once a character is involved in that, they are officially 'seconded' to an area and the GM for that then takes responsibility for overseeing their adherence to their restrictions? That way, if someone doesn't want the GM doing so? Don't get involved. Still want to play? Don't have your character moved there. But if you do, you will get a greater level of interaction, which will be both positive and negative.

People want to play characters that are outsiders and mavericks and play with that sort of thing, and that's great. But I think if we do so, those characters need to come with downsides as well...namely that they often get left on the outside, and that means when it's inconvenient, as well as when it's handy.

[aralli.livejournal.com]

I keep writing lots and lots of stuff, about lone wolf characters and the things party commanders do achieve but we don't notice/recognise, how they make organising a larp easier/possible for a GM, interpersonal dynamics, and how larp leadership is real-life leadership put through a multi-dimensional blender and glued together with squids, but none of it's consolidating into a point or anything useful or helpful, so I'll leave it for now.

I hope you can find some peace of mind very soon, though we all know answers and fixes will be a long, slow process. It's not fun to see my friends hurting, and I send you lots of hugs. You're not alone in having thoughts and doubts and confusion about how to make these concepts work.

There are parties and games and characters who function better without a traditional leader-role (though, in my opinion, there are still things a leader character can do without being officially in charge). There are also parties and games and characters who really need a single leader role to function properly. Leaders have a place on games, just maybe not every game.

[greg-r.livejournal.com]

Sorry to hear it has such a massive pain for you Doug. I don't deal with that sort of situation at all well so I have so much sympathy for you.

I think that the idea has merits. I think that especially large parties (which TL has far more of in recent years) and high level parties (see: large parties) usually end up with loner characters. Characters that have the tools and boldness to largely ignore chain of command and, as they aren't restricted to operating with the morality of the group or at the pace of the group, they tend to be more successful.

However, I think that a lot of players and characters really rely on the party organiser/leader. Character example: Piglet wouldn't function without a stable leadership in the group. He lacks the confidence and intelligence to cope without a defined chain of command. Player example: I'd have found getting into LARP much more difficult without a chain of command that I was nominally meant to work within. Like any organisational role it's difficult to describe the morale and effectiveness boost that a good commander provides while it's very easy to identify when they are restricting your ability to operate or have made a poor call with the bonus of hindsight. For an example of poor or no party leadership leading to a crappy game for all involved look to the one mission Smithy was party leader for in the Blackgate year.

In summary I think that for low level parties it's pretty essential to have a party leader to effectively organise characters lacking in confidence and potentially players LARPing for the first time. For large or high level parties it's less necessary. High level parties may work better without a rigid chain of command and large parties certainly seem benefit from a greater degree of delegation of responsibility.

[weightofeons.livejournal.com]

Tiny keyboard is tiny but urge to put oar in is great!

The dynamic of party leadership, Defenders and the setting has been a very interesting one over the years.

Small parties and experienced parties (one of which applied for some few years originally) work just fine without a defined leader - consensus is reached easily and action is still quick. The deciding vote ends up in the hands of the Marshal, because the ToJ is the most powerful guild (over ruling Defenders, who were exactly as you broadly suggest they become - helpful assistants with an equal voice, like Spellswords should be).

This is also, broadly, how tabletop DnD parties work - with a leader only appearing by general division of labour and awareness that sometimes an actual plan is needed. Sometimes the leader is solely the person with most ranks in Diplomacy, so they end up speaking for the party.

Larger parties, particularly when low rank with multiple members, can't work this way. Left to own devices, weak characters won't be protected and will be killed, which ultimately over the course of a game results in strong (warrior) characters dying as they now lack healing/buffs. Leaders had to emerge and Defenders were made it.

Remember the Bloom 36 where leadership didn't work. (not going to talk about how or why, but it didn't)
Remember the... Chosen Warriors 36 hour after, where leadership did work. (again not discussing why)

There's a huge difference in a game where those with power and independence are given enough rope, but not too much, enough opportunities by plot but not too much, so the rest of the party can keep up and participate. A party leader improves the parties general ability to keep up, which allows more rope to those wanting it, or more participation by the majority, and thus an ooc better game and probably ic more effective game.

It is however a balance between independent pc players ooc reining in, ic leaders managing to herd effectively, and GMs controlling opportunities and stimulus. When one element doesn't work, the game suffers proportionate to the party size.

All of the above is just opinion of course - no scientific testing exists.