Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Question for you. If the king of a nation doesn't have the Leadership feat, does that mean he can't even command his own royal guard, much less his armies?It means they're no more loyal than their pay and their own self-interest imply, and no more.
Speaking of armies, if a king's Leadership feat does limit that nation's army, then how do you deal with the fact that a decently optimized mid-level party with decent tactics can essentially completely overthrow the entire military might of any conceivable nation?That happens regardless of army sizes, unless you do stupid stuff like declaring the average soldier is a 10th level magus or something, which I think is lame.
If a party invades Hell with the express purpose of killing an archdevil, does only that archdevil's personal summons get to engage the party?See above.
If you are the king of a nation, a being of vast power in the multiverse, or even the head of government for a decent-sized city, you have "followers" that don't depend on your (possibly non-existent) Leadership feat, and you should basically ignore WBL.In terms of gp? Sure, you gotta pay the troops. In terms of gear? Still strictly within limits.
Not even PC-level gear for the king? (With appropriate CR adjustment, of course.) ^_^
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not even PC-level gear for the king? (With appropriate CR adjustment, of course.) ^_^
The CR adjustment covers PC level gear, and it would therefore then be correct WBL, n'est-ce pas?
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Therefore, that whole "the GM is entitled to do whatever" sentiment that you said was "the default" is, well, not. That is, unless the GM discusses that notion with the group in advance.Except that your point is overridden by statements that preceded and followed your very judicious quote.
Nope. Look again:
"Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs
For one thing, you seem to be implying that this quote is addressing the GM. It's not. This passage is from the Core Rulebook, and is addressing everyone.
So you could say "Remember that these rules are the players'. The players can change them to fit their needs.", and it would be just as true as what you're claiming on behalf of the GM.
So no, that does not "override" what I was saying earlier.
... Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules ... "
Well, Mr. AccuseMeOfCherryPickingQuotes, at least I didn't cut any sentences in half. Here's the full line:
Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.
This line is explaining how to handle unclear or disputed rules, and sets the GM as the "arbiter" within the context of everyone at the table having a discussion.
So, this ALSO does not "override" what I was saying earlier that the default assumption is that any houserules (such as not following the d20 mechanics, aka fudging) need to be discussed up front, and anything not discussed up front would be naturally assumed to be as written.
Look real hard at what you did: you took a quote saying that the rules belong equally to everyone and a quote that lets the GM arbitrate table-wide discussions, and you tried to make them look like the opposite.
Oh, and ... here's another: "The Game Master must be the arbiter of everything that occurs in the game. All rule books, including this one, are his tools, but his word is the law."
Where are you getting that quote? I can't find it anywhere, despite multiple searches of the entire PRD.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds pretty boring to me to limit what NPCs I can use, but if that works for you, kudos. I think I would go bonkers with boundaries like that. The best thing about GMing to me is I can throw in whatever I want—a goblin commoner with a rod of wonder, a dragon in the willing service of a kobold warlord, a troglodyte riding a bulette, etc. I would never fudge the dice, but I guess I do "fudge" the encounter design (though I'd see it as more you imposing personal limitations). :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, guys, stop. Can we try to be more passive-aggressive here? I have a feeling we're finally getting somewhere valuable in this discussion.
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, guys, stop. Can we try to be more passive-aggressive here? I have a feeling we're finally getting somewhere valuable in this discussion.
Well, maybe if some people weren't too busy with other things, we could have a little more of... whatever it is you want, I guess.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, guys, stop. Can we try to be more passive-aggressive here? I have a feeling we're finally getting somewhere valuable in this discussion.
Yes, we can stop all passive-aggression on the internet right now. No more passive-aggression will every be present on the forum. It's all someone's fault.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I accused you because that's what you did. Once you open the door, who are you to say how far to go inside? If I were trying to hide that I'd judiciously quoted, I would probably have conveniently omitted those ellipses, eh?
Ellipses are the bare minimum for basic academic honesty. You don't get to cite them as if using them means a quote wasn't deceptive.
And since I figured you'd scurry back and obsessively scrutinize, as you did, what's the harm? :P
I mean, you got to feel all self-righteous, didn't you? ;)
Wow, this sure added a lot to the discussion. A thinly-veiled insult ("You fact-checked, so I'm going to use words like 'scurry' and 'obsessively scrutinize') followed by a non-veiled insult.
Your interpretation of what I did is noted. You just don't want to admit that "the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules" is the trump phrase in that entire paragraph, when relevance is distilled.
You know, I don't know why, but I'd gotten a very different impression from you, Jaelithe. I didn't know this sort of passive-aggression was how you resolved disputes.
Well, then, I must be making it up. [Rolls eyes.]
That would be a logical assumption to make if someone quotes something that doesn't appear to exist, yes. However, he didn't say that. He simply asked you to cite it. Which you did. But please continue, I'm sure that sarcasm will convey your points better.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, guys, stop. Can we try to be more passive-aggressive here? I have a feeling we're finally getting somewhere valuable in this discussion.Yes, we can stop all passive-aggression on the internet right now. No more passive-aggression will every be present on the forum. It's all someone's fault.
But that is the opposite of what I said! D:
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You just don't want to admit that "the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules" is the trump phrase in that entire paragraph, when relevance is distilled.
Or maybe you're not really reading carefully, because your pre-biased filters are so thick that you can't take the paragraph for what it is? Honestly, how can you read an entire paragraph all saying the same general message of "everybody work together to mold the rules for maximum fun" and say that a single clause "trumps" that entire message rather than thinking maybe it means something within that paragraph?
I think you're starting with what you believe, finding a phrase that can support it, and bending everything around into compliance; instead of starting with "What does this say?", reading for the "big idea", and interpreting any given phrase within the context of the sentence and paragraph in which it appears.
Where are you getting that quote? I can't find it anywhere, despite multiple searches of the entire PRD.Well, then, I must be making it up. [Rolls eyes.]
Quit being a jerk; I made no such accusation. Anyone who's ever followed me on the rules forums knows I ask for references so I can learn more. If you can't read "I can't find that line" without assuming I'm accusing you of lying, that's on you, not me.
Chapter Twelve: Gamemastering, page 396, of whatever edition of the Core Rules I bought, long ago. Therefrom (with the sentence following):
"Judge: The Game Master must be the arbiter of everything that occurs in the game. All rule books, including this one, are his tools, but his word is the law. He must not antagonize the players or work to impede their ability to enjoy the game, yet neither should he favor them and coddle them. He should be impartial, fair, and consistent in his administration of the rules."
I believe you that it exists on that page. Perhaps you'll also believe me that it doesn't come up in searches of the PRD, and therefore understand why I asked.
Yes, that paragraph does suggest more authority on the part of the GM. Added to what else we've read, it does change the net result. That's why I was interested in finding it: to see and understand what information you were working with, not to accuse you of making it up. I'm trying to end up learning something here.
Thanks for providing the whole quote this time; it's interesting that in the very same paragraph as the "his word is the law" part it also says that the GM "should be impartial, fair, and consistent in his administration of the rules". I'm very curious how the type of fudging you're talking about fits into "impartial, fair, and consistent", as well as your interpretation of the "big picture" painted by a paragraph whose general description of the role of the GM includes both "his word is law" and "impartial, fair, and consistent".
I saw someone mention GM's and cheating, so I figured I'd add my $0.02. A GM can not cheat. GM's are the god at your table and they can do what they want. I almost always roll behind the screen and if I think a miss would have been a hit, it will be. Especially if I need to knock a player off of their high horse. To me this is no different that adding the advanced template to creatures.OLD SKOOL! (Yes, the "K" is correct.)
I've found a healthy flogging of players before the game starts goes a long way towards a good game, as well.
Just make sure the nails are extra-rusty.
(And if you're not at least occasionally kicking them in the crotch, can you really be sure they're enjoying the rest of the game, when they're not being kicked in the crotch?)
So you're saying your players neither flee, nor fight back, nor call the police nor refuse to return to your game in future sessions?
What strange magic did you use on them?
OLD SKOOL, man. OLD SKOOL. They just keep coming back for more. "GM is god" and all that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see it as passive-aggressive in that it implies the poster is in denial, but is a minor part of the overall sentence. But yeah, that could be wrong.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the other hand:
So, this ALSO does not "override" what I was saying earlier that the default assumption is that any houserules (such as not following the d20 mechanics, aka fudging) need to be discussed up front, and anything not discussed up front would be naturally assumed to be as written.Rolling Dice: Some GMs prefer to roll all of their dice in front of the players, letting the results fall where they may. Others prefer to make all rolls behind a screen, hiding the results from the PC so that, if they need to, they can fudge the dice results to make the game do what they want. Neitehr way is the "correct" way; choose whichever you wish, or even mix and match as feels right for you.
I definitely did not think to look under a heading of "rolling dice". Thanks for adding to the discussion. That definitely changes the picture a bit.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously, the forums needn't dissolve into nitpicking discussions over active vs passive aggression.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the other hand:Rolling Dice: Some GMs prefer to roll all of their dice in front of the players, letting the results fall where they may. Others prefer to make all rolls behind a screen, hiding the results from the PC so that, if they need to, they can fudge the dice results to make the game do what they want. Neitehr way is the "correct" way; choose whichever you wish, or even mix and match as feels right for you.
There's also this from page 402 of the CRB:
Cheating and Fudging: We all know that cheating is bad. But sometimes, as a GM, you might find yourself in a situation where cheating might improve the game. We prefer to call this “fudging” rather than cheating, and while you should try to avoid it when you can, you are the law in your world, and you shouldn’t feel bound by the dice.
How about we just get this thread back on topic. Dice fudging is a never ending debate that will not be solved here.
How much cheating do you tolerate? What cheating do you tolerate?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously, the forums needn't dissolve into nitpicking discussions over active vs passive aggression.
DEVOLVE, please.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about we just get this thread back on topic. Dice fudging is a never ending debate that will not be solved here.
Well, we weren't trying to decide whether fudging was okay, we were exploring whether its use as a GM tool was a default assumption or not.
How much cheating do you tolerate? What cheating do you tolerate?
I think it got established pretty early that most folks won't tolerate the things they call cheating, and the differences of opinion center on what actually counts as cheating. This led to the related subtopic of expectations and social contracts (after all, if you join a game with full knowledge that the GM will fudge, you can't really complain about fudging). That led to the current discussion about what's the "default state" that goes without saying, versus a houserule that it would be jerkish to not discuss ahead of time. Since that's tied in to expectations and therefore definitions of what constitutes cheating, it's entirely on-topic. :)
Dangit...I normally would hide this thread at this point, with the tremendous siderail and all, but I'm really curious to know how Bookrat handled the new information about the player in question.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ellipses are the bare minimum for basic academic honesty. You don't get to cite them as if using them means a quote wasn't deceptive.So, I was basically academically honest? ;)
Emphatically.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something I thought pertinent to add having been stalking this thread for a bit. There is a quote from one of my favorite rpg's Paranoia. It comes from the GM section which is above your clearance, but goes like this: "As the Game Master, GM, you are the world, you are The Computer (see: god) and your word is law. It is your job to ensure both yourself and the troubleshooters (see: players) are having fun, if any rule in this book makes that harder, the book is wrong. If the dice roll one way but it would be more fun if they rolled another, the dice are wrong..."
The way I've always GMed is I try to bring about interesting, dramatic and most importantly, fun stories and games to those at my table. Sometimes this means I fudge die rolls to prevent a boss, or major enemy, from being one rounded. Sometimes it means I fudge them so a player isn't randomly murdered.
I once had a player who constantly rolled really high (later learned he was cheating) and always used power-gamey builds, where the rest of the party were more casual players with non-optimized characters. If I had a boss who was a challenge fro the power gamer the other players couldn't touch him, likewise if I had a boss to challenge the rest of the party it would be one rounded by the power gamer.
So, behind the curtains I imposed a -2 penalty on everything the power gamer did, the boss' AC and saves were 2 higher against this player, had DR 2/- vs the player and got a +2 to hit the player in combat. The result was a boss who could challenge both the power gamer and the rest of the party. Was it technically cheating? ya, without a doubt. But without this cheating not everyone would have fun.
Granted, while 'cheating' by the GM, in moderation with good reason can make the game better, it can also be perverted. This power-gamer caught on I was... nerfing him somewhat, I tried talking him into not power-gaming as much but he refused and, in fact, went the other way. Though he never said so, it seems he thought that if I was cheating he could cheat too. I called him on it and he didn't bring up my targeted cheating to bring him into line, probably because he knew his power-gaming had forced me to fudge some rules, but for a couple weeks the game was no fun for anyone thanks to him. (kicked him at the end of those two weeks and the game went on as before)
So, in short, cheating to ensure everyone has fun is acceptable in my opinion, cheating to ensure only you have fun is not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I always heard the term "Benevolent Dictatorship."
Quit being a jerk.Not that I take orders from you, but ... since I was somewhat out of line, I'll comply.
And I'm a colossal jerk. Don't you forget it.
Below where we type text, there's a little phrase from our friends at Paizo:
"Help us keep the messageboards a fun and friendly place."
I could have sworn that it also use to say "Don't be a jerk."
Oh, I believe you. I have the Core Rules from 2010. I wonder if it's been excised or changed?
The PRD does not contain the entire text of the books. You get more by purchasing the books than you do from the free PRD. Especially from the Game Master Guide, where only the mechanical rules rather than the game mastering advice is published online for free.
Quit being a jerk.Not that I take orders from you, but ... since I was somewhat out of line, I'll comply.
And I'm a colossal jerk. Don't you forget it.
Below where we type text, there's a little phrase from our friends at Paizo:
"Help us keep the messageboards a fun and friendly place."
I could have sworn that it also use to say "Don't be a jerk."
Oh, I believe you. I have the Core Rules from 2010. I wonder if it's been excised or changed?The PRD does not contain the entire text of the books. You get more by purchasing the books than you do from the free PRD. Especially from the Game Master Guide, where only the mechanical rules rather than the game mastering advice is published online for free.
Great points...
...But since you're back, what has happened since you found out the player is a competitive douche that all his friends (how does a personality like that even get friends?) say will cheat to get his way?
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quit being a jerk.Not that I take orders from you, but ... since I was somewhat out of line, I'll comply.
And I'm a colossal jerk. Don't you forget it.
Below where we type text, there's a little phrase from our friends at Paizo:
"Help us keep the messageboards a fun and friendly place."
I could have sworn that it also use to say "Don't be a jerk."
It used to. They decided it wasn't specific enough, I believe. ^_^
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Quit being a jerk.Not that I take orders from you, but ... since I was somewhat out of line, I'll comply.
And I'm a colossal jerk. Don't you forget it.
Below where we type text, there's a little phrase from our friends at Paizo:
"Help us keep the messageboards a fun and friendly place."
I could have sworn that it also use to say "Don't be a jerk."
Oh, I believe you. I have the Core Rules from 2010. I wonder if it's been excised or changed?The PRD does not contain the entire text of the books. You get more by purchasing the books than you do from the free PRD. Especially from the Game Master Guide, where only the mechanical rules rather than the game mastering advice is published online for free.Great points...
...But since you're back, what has happened since you found out the player is a competitive douche that all his friends (how does a personality like that even get friends?) say will cheat to get his way?
First, updates: Not much has happened. All the things I said I would do I have not done yet. This is for two reasons. 1) I talked with his friend privately, as I said, and his friend has talked to him privately and he said he would fix it. For this reason, I have held back with hopes that he will listen to his friend. 2) I am extremely forgiving of people, and will often go a ways out of the way to help someone - even someone who has slighted me (so long as they're not trying to take advantage of me - and I am a very intelligent individual who is able to tell when someone is taking advantage of me. Some folks have learned this the hard way when I leave them to their own troubles at the worst possible time *because* they were trying to take advantage of my kindness).
Second, to answer your question: Let's start with the traditional "Close your eyes and listen to my voice..." Ok, wait. Don't do that. You can't hear me and you won't be able to keep reading. But the tactic is the same - you have to become someone else (roleplay a character, so to speak) to understand this.
Now, I feel like I know you, Green Tea. You are confident, intelligent, sarcastically witty, and you have a healthy sense of humor. I feel like we would get along really well and have a blast gaming together and debating each other over silly rules and serious philosophy. There are more than a handful of people like that here on the boards. Most people like you haven't had a rough past. Maybe you have? But most haven't. I'm the same way, and my past has been exceedingly easy living. Seriously, I got lucky in life (not with familial money, but with a good home and a good upbringing). But I was also the key kid who was bullied in high school. I lacked confidence in myself, I wasn't handsome, I wasn't strong, and I was the epitome dork wannabe. While I was sociable enough (more than a lot of nerds and dorks could say), I was just sociable enough to get along with almost every clique and yet still be the one who was teased and bullied from every group - jocks, cheerleaders, math kids, CGC players, drama kids, music kids, goth kids, druggies, ROTC kids, cowboys.. the list goes on. It wasn't until I was in college that I discovered that girls actually liked me, and it wasn't until I joined the army and passed basic training that I gained confidence in myself. But that was a long time ago.
Now imagine that you're still in high school (or just out of it) and you still have all those teenage feelings of inadequacy and lack of confidence. Now multiply that by a thousand because you have legitimate psychological health issues from either a chemical imbalance or abusive parents or anything else that causes problems yet unknown to science. Try to imagine the social anxiety developed from years of being abused by bullies in school only to have to deal with them when you get home because they stalk you online just to bully you some more. try to imagine what it's like when you fear leaving your house because not only do all of your classmates tease you and push you and laugh at you and call you stupid, but so does your teacher (and perhaps even your parents and siblings and uncles and aunts and...).
Imagine what kind of life you have to suffer through where the only person who is willing to be your friend is someone who is compelled to lie and cheat just to win a fake make-believe game.
D&D was a game of the nerds. A game for the social outcasts and awkward kids who needed to escape in a world of fantasy rather than deal with the harsh realities of their world.
Now, a lot of us grew up. A lot of us (myself included) are capable of separating fantasy from reality and still play this game - not as a form of escapism from a reality that we can't handle - but because it's fun and it gives us a change to hang out with some friends.
For me, D&D was a tool that *helped* me develop. It gave me friends, it provided me with a social environment in which to grow, it forced me to think about not only my own actions but the actions of someone else (my character) who was raised in an environment completely foreign to my own.
A lot of the reason why I really try hard to never "kick someone from my game" is because I want them to grow and learn as well, and when I'm playing this game with young adults fresh out of high school, I really want this game to be every bit of a growing opportunity for them as it was for me.
Looking back at my post, I realize that I never answered your question directly, so here's the quick and dirty (or TLDR) version: A personality like that gets friends because their friends are so desperate for a friend that they'll take who ever they can get.
Take a half hour out of your life and listen to this.
Even if you do get it, you should still take that half hour and listen to it. Not read the transcript, but actually listen to it. Get yourself some headphones and listen.
Seriously. It's worth it. That episode really shows what it's like to be bullied.
And if you're lucky, maybe you'll learn something from it and end up helping to make a better life and a better world for yourself and others.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't necessarily agree with you, bookrat, but your post was well-written and I respect the way you approached it. Often favorites are used solely as a "ditto" rather than the "this is a good post". To clarify, that favorite was of the latter variety.
Why thank you, you crazy kobold you. :)
Ok, so I made a new character for him; simply removing anything that was wrong and leaving his character unoptimized from this.
I proposed to the group on our forum that he could ether take this character I made OR fix it himself. If he chooses the later, hen all aspects of his character that are wrong will not be allowed to be used in game until they're correct. As of right now, this means that the only thing his character can do in game is talk and take hits.
I also proposed that f he refuse to do either of the two options I gave him, then we vote to remove him from the game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Man, I'm going to use my whole bloody lunch break to type this up, probably.
I haven't been in the habit of making long posts since my computer broke and I've been using my smartphone, but you don't just reply to a well written post like that with a "Yeah, I hear you" or "totally disagree".
I completely understand where and why you're saying what you are, and God bless you for having that level of flexibility and forgiveness with people, but I simply am not on that level - and I actually have a very long fuse for most stuff.
I actually was one of those socially isolated kids, and while I had a loving family, I had my share of tragedy to some degrees. I grew up a grumpy, foul tempered, arrogant @$$, and people don't usually like to make friends with a cocky bastard, even if his confidence is well founded. So I didn't have a lot of friends. However, as you said, I grew up, and I didn't like how isolated I was, so I made conscious efforts to adjust myself for those around me, because I learned it would be foolish of me to ask them to change their perspective, when all I could do is work on myself.
Am I perfect? No, far from it, but I make the effort, and when I notice myself getting out of line, I take the time to stop and ask forgiveness of my friends for being out of sorts...and I have a couple of pretty dang annoying borderline disabling mood disorders I battle...So it's hard for me to be forgiving when someone isn't even making an effort to try to get along with those around them.
There's a time to put that "I'm not good with people" excuse on the shelf and realize all of us can at least attempt some semblance of socialization in our extremely social hobby. I forgive those who are trying, and that's why I hope for your sake, Bookrat, that you made the right call.
I didn't know the entirety of the situation, and only made a judgment call based on what was presented. Forgiveness is always better than moving on, but there comes a point where you're not showing forgiveness, you're being an enabler. I hate to see good people walked all over by the selfish, and it's something I encounter all day, so my cynicism (which is another trait I battle uphill against) tends to default with "walk away" when confronted with Dickish behavior, because while there are unintentional slights, there are also a lot of selfish pricks that just plain need to be as isolated as they are, because they don't possess the common decency to try to get along with their fellow man.
...out of lunch time. (Had to eat after all.) The short version - you probably made the right call, but my distrust of most people leads me to think otherwise. I hope I'm wrong.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another update: the GM has privately thanked me for standing up to the guy even while he could not.
Green tea: I hear ya.
I mean, I really don't want to respond with such a shallow post when you've taken the time to give a good reply, but I don't really know what to say.
I truly understand what you mean. I absolutely am more forgiving than most people I know - especially for younger people (and this guy is in his late teens). I think it comes from growing up in a daycare center for toddlers - you learn a lot of patience dealing with toddlers your whole upbringing.
For me, I will gladly give someone multiple chances so long as they're taking at least a little step each time. The older you get, the more educated you are, the more experienced you are, the less forgiving I am. This is because I expect more from someone with knowledge, experience, and age. This guy has none of these, which is why I am more forgiving.
So instead of flat out booting him, I've given him an opportunity to improve. And if he chooses not to, well - then it's time to learn that actions have consequences, and bring a jerk doesn't guarantee that there will put up with you just because you're stubborn. And if someone ever wants to have a battle of wills about who can be more stubborn - well, I can be very stubborn to those who want to be jerks.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, if he's a teen, that's...more understandable. After all, they haven't finished developing their prefrontal cortex and are pretty much incomplete humans at that point. ;-)
Although I have vehemently hated teens since I was one and typically avoid them like a curmudgeonly man double to triple my age.
|
|
@bookrat:
I am sorry, but I resent this particular statement of yours so much, I have to address it:
"D&D was a game of the nerds. A game for the social outcasts and awkward kids who needed to escape in a world of fantasy rather than deal with the harsh realities of their world."
I hope you are not suggesting this is the totality of D&D gamers, or that only an insignificant amount of players are outside this cliche'.
no more followers than their Leadership allowsQuestion for you. If the king of a nation doesn't have the Leadership feat, does that mean he can't even command his own royal guard, much less his armies?
Speaking of armies, if a king's Leadership feat does limit that nation's army, then how do you deal with the fact that a decently optimized mid-level party with decent tactics can essentially completely overthrow the entire military might of any conceivable nation?
If a party invades Hell with the express purpose of killing an archdevil, does only that archdevil's personal summons get to engage the party?
For certain individuals, a strict adherence to WBL or number of followers makes no sense. If you are the king of a nation, a being of vast power in the multiverse, or even the head of government for a decent-sized city, you have "followers" that don't depend on your (possibly non-existent) Leadership feat, and you should basically ignore WBL.
Amusing, but I never bought the idea that the party can overthrow a nation and its military.
After all, a king can always call upon other adventurer parties of his own, or assassins, or spellcaster guilds, or five orders of knights, or two faiths under his sway and eager for the king to owe them one.
I agree with you on leadership and I find it a bit silly. There is more to leadership than a feat.