"All right, who's running this circus?"

[John Lance]

I wanted to ask for some input on something that has puzzled me since I started playing PFS back in late 2013.

The Pathfinder Society, as it exists within the game, is a loose collection of experts that have a semi-defined rank structure. You have the Ten, then the VCs, field agents, initiates, etc... However, the actual Pathfinder teams, the players who get together and execute whatever mission is contained within the scenario, have no leadership structure at all. Everyone pretty much has the same amount of authority as anyone else and can do just about anything they want, within the boundaries of the rules, of course.

There might be some informal deference to, say, the 3 or 4-star GMs who are playing with a bunch of fairly new players. But I've always wondered why there isn't some system or mechanic for determining who is the "team leader", so to speak. It could be random, based on level, whatever. It could involve an extra bennie (along with some extra cost to balance it out). There are all kinds of ways you could address the issue. As far as I can tell, however, Paizo completely ignores the issue, almost glaringly so.

For now, I just wanted to see if anyone else had the same thoughts. Do the PFS groups need team leaders? Why or why not? Is it even workable or just something better off left to groups in the "real world"? My curiosity finally got the better of me, so let me know if it's just me or if anyone else has even wondered about this.

[Ascalaphus]

I've rarely felt any need for this. Only occasionally when talking with an NPC, it'd be nice if the PCs pick a spokesman who doesn't get overshouted by eager other people while making a more cautious point.

[Andy Brown]

(obviously just my opinion)

Best left to the players to sort out.
Firstly, unless you're playing with the same people all the time, you don't know whether anybody at the table would make a good leader until you start the mission.
Secondly, the best leader for a mission will depend on the mission type. You don't want a city-focused socialite trying to lead an export explorer on a cross-country mission, or vice versa.
Thirdly, some people who really want to be in charge are the least suited to be making the final decisions.

Now, some of those things apply in character as well - the Society has a habit of grabbing the nearest 4/6 people instead of selecting those best suited for the job, and out of that group, at least 4 will be rugged individualists who don't take orders well.
Also, you can assume that in any group the Pathfinders will have similar levels of experience, so having a formal command structure is going to be difficult when everybody's pretty much the same rank.

[Eric Clingenpeel]

What I'll do when the VC gives a briefing is direct a lot of my comments to the highest level character. They're the one with the most experience so it feels fitting they are the ones the VC focuses on. Although sometimes after introductions I'll focus on the one who seems most reliable if the highest level seems iffy.

[Jessex]

It is stated flat out in descriptions of other teams that the VC or the Decemvirate does put someone in charge, see for instance Destiny of the Sands pt. 2.

How PC teams do things is I think best left up to the players.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

Even using 'highest levels' as a leadership rubric, as Eric noted, is an iffy proposition.

My -1, though he provides advice, is reasonably tactically sound, and is willing to think is also quite willing to defer to someone else if they REALLY have their hearts set on it.

Someone coming in to a group and going all *insert horrific CEO or politician of choice* and I'm in charge now, peons! either in a literal or figurative sense could potentially be disruptive and undermine the basic premise of *cooperate*.

Even if there's a mechanical benefit to it.

Or, alternatively, I work at a job that has a few people who are like that in RL and I'd like to avoid the RL in my gaming, please?

Or, second alternative, the reason I've stopped playing in a different 'living' campaign, because the stress of someone who does exactly the above and has a tantrum when they don't, and passive-aggressively snipes with detracting comments when they decide to not be in charge is really a mood-killer and migraine-inducer.

[BigNorseWolf]

Putting one character over another would be putting one player over another, probably to hurt feelings.

This should be situational depending on the encounter. if you have a critter problem, the druids in charge. If its smite nite, everyone follow the paladin. If it's a dinner party, everyone takes directions from the fop. As the DM i try to throw the spotlight around, depending.

We used to do the same thing at work when the boss wasn't around (and sometimes to his annoyance, when he was.)

[Wei Ji the Learner]

A good boss' job is 'keeping the trains running on time' and 'efficient balanced crisis management, utilizing the skills of their team'

A bad boss aspires to the above, but lacks the necessary skill-set to do so.

Unfortunately, the second example, for some reason, always wants to 'be in charge' but never around 'when things hit the fan' or immediately dumps the problem (no, not 'opportunity') off on someone else.

[BigNorseWolf]

"Hey, 5 foot tall guy that can't swim. I need you to hop in this 4 feet of icy cold water and clear the drain. here's the shovel. Big guy that's a member of the polar bear club, take this flag and stop traffic."

Pause. Pause Pause. Look at each other. Swap flag and shovel. Cannonball in.

[John Lance]

I agree that some people react poorly if given the choice of being in charge, they seem to get the impression that their job is to "order people around" and just be a petty dictator for the entire session. These are usually the folks who complain about all the group decisions as well, so it's not like they're better suited in a subordinate position, they're just painful whatever role they fill.

That said, some of the scenario writers seem to acknowledge this issue. Some scenarios (like Severing Ties) do require the party to pick a leader and the contrast with other scenarios is quite stark, in that there seems to be a more "realistic" feel to the group dynamic (again, IMHO).

Personally, I would like to see more scenarios like Severing Ties, in which the VC briefer at the beginning makes the party pick a leader, if only in terms of simplifying who speaks to certain NPCs as part of a cover. I've GMed Severing Ties on three different occasions and each time the group seemed to enjoy having a designated TL to interact with NPCs and talk for the entire party.

[thistledown]

On the other hand, I've seen a few scenarios that really want more than one person to do the talking. Giving your mid-game report in Slave Ships of Absalom comes to mind.

Leadership seems pretty situational in PFS. When I had a game that went to the Eye of Abendego and we knew we'd be doing underwater stuff, my Storm Kindler took charge and laid out everything that's a likely problem and how we'd counter it. I can't think of any other situation where she'd be a good choice to lead anything more complicated than "get on my back and hold on while I charge."

[FLite]

Technically, that is what Fame is for.

[RealAlchemy]

I agree that it's situational. Up by the Worldwound interacting with the Mendevian Crusade, my divine defender paladin will take the lead and stand as moral surety for the party when people question them. Put him on a boat in deep water, and he's going to follow the lead of characters who do that sort of thing, and try real hard to not drown.

Similarly, my Taldan nobleman investigator with a Lion Blade vanity will absolutely take the lead in dealing with high ranking nobles, but fade into the background in a more straigh-up combat mission until there's a trap to disable, a knowledge check to make, or an ambush to point out to the rest of the party.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

Huh.

During Severing Ties we actually didn't so much pick a leader as work it into our 'cover story' that our former leader was stupid...

Spoiler:

...and nearly got us killed by wildlife on the journey. So we took the initiative to remove 'dumb' from the organization. With sufficient rp, rolls, and other factors, the person we were meeting was... impressed.

[Gwen Smith]

It is also going to vary from character to character.

I have a diplomancer Holy Tactician paladin who gives out a ton of buffs to allies who follow her advice. She makes a great leader both in social situations and in combat.

I have an insufferable know-it-all Mindchemist with +18 in all Knowledge skills (at level 4) but -3 on all charisma checks: she makes a decent leader in anything but social situations.

I have a somewhat ditsy Zen Archer who has been known to wander off in the middle of briefing sessions to pet another player's animal companion. If anyone tried to make her the leader, she would laugh in their face.

Probably the best solution is to work it out in character. After the briefing, talk through the roles each character can play and decide who is going to be the spokesman/face, the tactician/combat leader, the scout, the science officer, etc.

You should be able to get a pretty decent feel from the party (in and out of character) for how rigid the "hierarchy" should be for each particular group. Adjust accordingly.

And if you want to have a character be a leader, build one. And during introductions, set your character up to the be the leader. You'll find out very quickly whether the rest of the group will respect the character, humor the character, or ignore the character.

For example, one player in our area runs a high-born noblewoman with lots of follower vanities as an entourage. The player tells the table, out of character, that the character believes she's in charge, and explains the various mechanical benefits of going along with what she says. Then in character, she character explicitly introduces herself as as the party leader, and describes what she expects from the group and how she can help them. Other players can then choose whether or not to follow along. But because they were pre-warned out of character and because the player in question doesn't take offense at the party's decision (even if the character might!), I've never seen it cause a problem.

[Finlanderboy]

I generally do not like the idea of a leader. In PFS. I play with one guy that gets annoying because he always claims he is the leader tries to give instructions to people. I would not mind but his ideas I find horribly poor.

I always like the idea of working together and hearing what everyone has to say. Verses giving orders.

I would enjoy playing with someone that thinks their character is the leader(and ooc character saying they are not).

I have never seen the need for a leader.

[Divvox2]

"I thought we were an autonomous collective..."

[John Lance]

Thanks for the replies, definitely giving me some food for thought.

This did bring to mind a follow-on question: Does the lack of a leadership mechanic/aspect in the game influence the fact that scenarios are completely scripted ("railroads" would be accurate as well)? When there is zero doubt about exactly what you need to do and how to do it, the need for a decisive leader would seem to be a lot less than a more fluid situation, such as an Adventure Path (example from AP play, my short-lived Rise of the Runelords game really could have used a team leader, there was way too much confusion with regards to goals and even basic strategy/tactics).

So that is one follow up question: Does PFS get away from the need for a Team Leader by putting everything on rails and forcing everyone towards the desired endstate?

[TriOmegaZero]

I have never seen the need for a leader in any scenario. The party makes decisions collectively.

[GM Lamplighter]

John Lance wrote:

So that is one follow up question: Does PFS get away from the need for a Team Leader by putting everything on rails and forcing everyone towards the desired endstate?

PFS needs to run in time slots for the most part, and so a lot of things that a home GM could deal with are just removed from PFS for the sake of standardization and time-saving. You might use the derisive term "railroad", but really it's the nature of an Organized Play campaign. If you want to do all that other stuff, home games may be the best bet.

For example, in "real life", Pathfinders probably spend a lot of time going out in twos or threes or even solo, following up on minor leads that never amount to anything or going where their whim takes them. Not fun to travel to a big con and spend a whole slot wandering in the woods never finding anything useful, and impractical to need 1 GM per player to simulate "reality".

The notion of having an in-game chain of command means that the players have to defer to that as well as the characters, and that removes free will from the people who choose to play. I'm already a peon who has to follow orders in real life, why would I spend my free time pretending to be the same thing except with a sword?

So, yeah - official leaders in PFS the campaign are not a good idea.

[quibblemuch]

"We regret to report losing another team leader."
"Boomerang weapons again?"
"Yes! All the wounds were on the opposite side of the body as the enemy forces. How did you know?"
"Just a hunch."

[WalterGM]

It's up to the players. Sometimes players arrive at the table with party dynamics already sorted out--who's in charge of the mission being part of that. Other times there isn't anyone that wants to step into that role. I'd advise running the table you have, not a different one. Meaning you GM for the players you have: if they have designated someone as their leader, play off that; if they haven't, don't focus on it. Easy as pie!

[nosig]

hmmm....

Lawful vs. Chaotic

[John Lance]

:-) I wondered when someone was going to mention alignment, so here's a (virtual) prize for Nosig.

I suppose some backstory might be illuminating. The best single session of PFS I have ever played, hands down, was the True Dragons of Absalom scenario I played at last year's GENCON. It was me, my buddy Jason and 4 enlisted guys from Ft. Benning in Georgia. Right off the bat, the Army guys made their high-ranking buddy the team leader and Jason and I heartily seconded that idea (we were playing lawful evil kobolds, after all) and joined in the fun.

It was awesome, like being on a well-oiled team of commandos setting up an ambush (which is pretty much what the first half of the scenario is). It helped that we had a really good GM from New Jersey, but honestly, it was the organized team dynamic from the start that made it so unique and cool. The GM could have easily increased the difficulty level by giving everything the advanced template and we still would have stomped it, it made that much of a difference.

After that game, I started paying more attention during the other scenarios I played, both at cons and at home, seeing if I could spot any interesting trends in terms of organization and leadership. While I have no definitive answers yet, this issue is interesting enough that I will continue asking questions and gathering data, just for my own enjoyment. Thanks to everyone for your input and keep the comments coming!

[Ascalaphus]

I can say for sure that the sessions where the teamwork really worked have been among my favourite. Where everyone is working together as a well-oiled adventure-stomping machine. Everyone stepping up to aid and cover.

Conversely, sometimes you play with people who constantly get in the way, or are eager to open another day while you want to take a second to sort out the previous one. While one player's excessive caution shouldn't hold a table hostage or slow it to a crawl, neither should another player constantly rob the rest of a chance to buff up or digest what the GM just told them.

So finding a good balance in which there's a bit of give and take and everyone is looking at how to really fit their characters together, it's glorious.

[Ms. Pleiades]

John Lance wrote:

:-) I wondered when someone was going to mention alignment, so here's a (virtual) prize for Nosig.

I suppose some backstory might be illuminating. The best single session of PFS I have ever played, hands down, was the True Dragons of Absalom scenario I played at last year's GENCON. It was me, my buddy Jason and 4 enlisted guys from Ft. Benning in Georgia. Right off the bat, the Army guys made their high-ranking buddy the team leader and Jason and I heartily seconded that idea (we were playing lawful evil kobolds, after all) and joined in the fun.

It was awesome, like being on a well-oiled team of commandos setting up an ambush (which is pretty much what the first half of the scenario is). It helped that we had a really good GM from New Jersey, but honestly, it was the organized team dynamic from the start that made it so unique and cool. The GM could have easily increased the difficulty level by giving everything the advanced template and we still would have stomped it, it made that much of a difference.

After that game, I started paying more attention during the other scenarios I played, both at cons and at home, seeing if I could spot any interesting trends in terms of organization and leadership. While I have no definitive answers yet, this issue is interesting enough that I will continue asking questions and gathering data, just for my own enjoyment. Thanks to everyone for your input and keep the comments coming!

That scenario was very well done to encourage teamwork.

James Anderson wrote:

On the other hand, I've seen a few scenarios that really want more than one person to do the talking. Giving your mid-game report in Slave Ships of Absalom comes to mind.

Leadership seems pretty situational in PFS. When I had a game that went to the Eye of Abendego and we knew we'd be doing underwater stuff, my Storm Kindler took charge and laid out everything that's a likely problem and how we'd counter it. I can't think of any other situation where she'd be a good choice to lead anything more complicated than "get on my back and hold on while I charge."

Slave Ships of Absalom:

I saw that fail dismally with our group. The scenario had already made the party extraordinarily paranoid with talk of divination shenanigans. So when the person we were giving the mid-game report to started pointedly trying to get information from another party member, they effectively ended up talking to a brick wall as our Pre-Gen Ezren (the player didn't have an in-tier character at the time) put on one of the best performances of senility and obtuseness we've seen. It made for a good roleplay, but in terms of encouraging more talking from others that were not party faces, it fell flat, horribly, horribly flat.

[Divvox2]

I find that for the most part the group as a whole making a call and the rule of thumb, "Don't split the party" tend to be more than good enough most of the time, specifically when everyone is respectful of each other's ideas and the team works together. Sometimes the party is split on actions, and splits up (usually to the amusement of the GM). However, sometimes someone does need to step forward to organize/make a call at a decision point for the party to be effective or prevent analysis paralysis. I often do that with my characters in different forms: sometimes actually building a plan of attack trying to use everyone's area of focus so everyone gets to participate, or by ending analysis paralysis by just opening the friggen door and waltzing in without anyone else (limited to the dumbest and hardiest of my characters and when we're running behind schedule).

I don't think there is any hard-line rule for team organization though. As long as everyone is good with the plan.