Exchange of Realities

Party leader. It’s an oft-coveted position, probably because of what it signifies for the character who holds it—first among equals, competent, respected. The one who’s going to get the lion’s share of the credit when it’s hard to tell who did what. The hero.

But there are a lot of mistakes I see made all the time regarding leadership. Often I hear about games in which a fight between players or their characters over the position makes a hash of things in the long term. And it’s not that hard to find stories in which someone is described at length as a great leader, but I can’t for the life of me figure out why anyone would want to follow them.

Leadership isn’t just a quality that synergizes well with being shown and not told. It depends on it. This is particularly true in situations—like a role-playing party dynamic—in which the leader needs to be chosen by those within the group.

So what makes a good leader?

In designing my Arthchwyl, I found three different approaches to leadership, and while I would not say that it requires all three of these, I don’t think someone could reasonably be chosen leader from within a party without at least one.

The first approach is leadership by inspiration. This kind is usually the face of the group. He doesn’t have to be in charge, though; as likely as not, he was chosen not by qualifications, but by bloodline or photogenic qualities or flashy skills. Destiny sometimes sticks its nose in as well, or sometimes people claim Destiny is sticking its nose in, but… well, I’ve already explained why I avoid that. This is the most common form of “leader” I tend to see in fantasy, as they are the easiest to write; on the other hand, they’re not a very good sell in game groups, and I have a hard time believing them even in fiction.

The second is leadership by delegation. While this can be difficult to get across, it is a strong sign of a truly good leader, and will be the most likely to convince the audience, whether they’re readers or other players. This sort of leader knows the strengths and weaknesses of those around her, possibly better even than they do themselves; when the situation requires it, she’ll find something useful for everyone to do that plays to their individual strengths. Unlike the inspirational leader, she probably isn’t “the best” at many of the tasks the group has to accomplish—her gift is knowing who is and how to use them, and being able to defer to those who are more skilled in a given area when their skills are most needed.

The third is leadership by communication. This one seems to work best in synergy with the other two, but can be found on its own. In essence, it is leading by knowledge of who the rest of the group are and what they need, and keeping the group moving in the same direction and the arguments to a minimum through that understanding. Oftentimes, a communication-leader isn’t even a leader in name; one of my favorite examples is the title character of Sherwood Smith’s Inda during his time at the academy, cheerfully agreeing that the one who wants to be a leader is in charge even as he suggests courses of action to cover for said leader’s weaknesses. The important quality of a communication-leader is being able to listen; even if he isn’t actually a good leader in the other respects, those under him will follow him because they trust him not to throw his weight around.

For both those who want to write leaders and those who want to be leaders, getting at least one of those qualities across is the first and most important step.