I dislike being in charge in games.. I don't want to be Archmagester, Inquisitor.. whatever..

I was wondering what the masses felt..

What say you? Do you like being in charge?

Voted no.

I′m a one man army. That means I have no one above me and no one beneath me

Is this pool about single player games only, or should we consider online multiplayer too?

In singleplayer games the position of "leader", or some kind of a grand hero, doesn't work in a believable way most of the time. So, I've freed the land form danger, became demi-god and rule couple of factions? Suppose it's the time to go on the streets, do some errands and get abused by drunkards.

On the other hand, playing online can give a real sense of leadership - at least when you play with friends or in a clan/squad, not with some so called "randoms". I've been playing combat-oriented flight simulators for several years, and I've realised that my habits somewhat changed. I used to fly as as a wingman or escort most of the time, just following the leader, but as the time passed, as I've learned more about the simulation and got to know the team better, I've started volunteering as a flight leader more and more often. There's something intriguing in that role, you need to do a briefing before the mission, fly it and make sure your friend don't get shoot down, and hen debrief after the mission. Considering that in the community or realistic flight sims people actually DO listen to the leader, even if it's going to e very risky action, you can feel the burden of leadership during the mission, and a relief after it's completed.

Generally not, but sometimes yes, so, I didn't vote.

It's awful and boring at the top in games, and the devs know it. The lower ranks get work from the top and are expected to do things, and doing things takes writing+programming. Better to push the player upstairs where they do nothing but sit on their hands, or play repetitive management minigames. This gives closer while keeping the organization the player is in alive.

Depends on the game, but in TES games? No.

No, I hate it. What, I'm suddenly head of the Mages Guild and Fighters Guild a few weeks after being a nobody who was ejected from gaol for being too useless? Even though I'm frankly rubbish at magic and fighting respectively? I really hate that sort of thing, not so much for the lack of realism (though that is a big thing in itself) but because it just makes the world feel smaller. I want to be a part of a bigger world whose machinations I can't necessarily see; I don't want the world to revolve around me and for it to be a rather empty-looking place.

If they could find a fun way of actually running a guild, I might would feel differently, but as the system is now (become Guildmaster, get tribute chest, have underlings follow you around) I couldn't care less about being leader.

No. I play roleplaying games to be an adventurer, not a bureaucrat.

What if you are rp-ing a bureaucrat?

We still have the choice not to become Arch-whatever.

This is true.

I wouldn't. I hate bureaucracy and would never roleplay a bureaucrat. I've roleplayed merchants, but never a bureaucrat.

Now if someone else wants to roleplay a pencil-pusher, that's great. I think a good roleplaying game should accommodate that. What I would like to see in future Bethesda games is an in-game dialogue option to decline the position for all guilds in which it is possible to rise to the top. NPCs can run the Fighters Guild or Mages Guild, ect, if we choose that option.

I think that would be an excellent solution

I like city builders and grand strategy, what do you think?


Talking specifically about RPGs, depends on how it's done. If it's a fortress I acquired or built from the ground up, then yes, sure, it's only reasonable. I feel responsible for my home and my people. But I don't like being in charge of organizations. I prefer the advisory role or small team management (party-based RPGs!) with someone else responsible for the strategic vision. I'm the same in real life.

Same here, but I thought this was the coffee line

Usually, "being in charge" limits what a player can do in a game (or should). I generally do not enjoy being in charge of NPCs. Many times, it boils down to guessing what the developers want you to do, not always logical.

Now, some games are made for being in charge, like RTS (real time strategy) and TBS (turn based strategy) games.

Added option .

Voted!

By the way, how many voted "no" but are using one or several followers?

In real life I am hot headed and protective.. I think someone in charge should be more even tempered and focused.. Less mother hen .. -chuckle- That's me anyway..

I got rid of Nick Valentine because I did not like the way my female spoke to him.. He seems the type one would not speak to as such "hey" or "look alive"

With Strong it was different because he is challenged and curious.. And surprisingly protective.."Get away from there Human! NOW!" just before an explosion . or "Stay away from glow." .

Codsworth is loyal to his dying breath.. He being serving as his basic need.. So that was different too.

-edit-

With Strong it was frustrating for me because he had questions that I would have liked to answer.. Such as wanting to know what the words said and such..

Many questions.. ST being very frustrated at the lack of being able to teach/tell Him..I would like a quest to give him milk and teach him that "human kindness" was inside him all along.. -s-

Not me. Though I did try out having Lucy West (mod) as a companion. I thought it would be fun but I soon found out I really am The Lone Wanderer and thus she got fired

In the case of FO4, having been with various cohorts, of those I experienced, I was most comfortable with Piper and Curie as they seemed the closest to equal team-mates: I'd just let them do their own thing (but stop standing in the bloody doorways!) whereas with the likes of Danse, Valentine etc there was a different dynamic going on that I didn't care for. Though I admit that the dynamic in question was probably somewhat augmented by my imagination.

I think I preferred the likes of Inquisition's approach where it wasn't so much subordinates but a team, mostly on the basis that I could switch characters at will, I guess.

Depends on the game and what exactly you're in charge of. In team-based RPGs, it makes sense that your character should be in charge of the party. You decide who does what in the heat of combat, you decide what choices should be made, and you need to juggle your teammates wants and responsibilities to make sure everyone continues to act as a cohesive unit. I got no problems with the way things are done in games like Shadowrun: Dragonfall, Dragon Age: Origins, Baldur's Gate II, and so on where you're the leader of a relatively small group of people.

Bigger than that, though, and I think things are just kind of silly. I hate how the Elder Scrolls games allow you to become head of any of the guilds for a lot of reasons. One, because it ruins the integrity of the world. These are large organizations run by people who have been working with them for many years; there's no way in hell some random nobody is going to rise to the top in a few weeks (or days as is the case in Skyrim). And second, because the games cannot and do not emulate the feeling of being a leader. Being the head of the Fighers/Mages/Thieves/Angry Clowns Guild is not something you do on the side of your spelunking; it's a full-time job that requires you to sit behind a desk, enforce guild policy, delegate responsibility, and administer tasks to your underlings, among other things.

Ditto for being the leader of an army, as is the case of Dragon Age: Inquisition and Awakening. The general should not be going into the field, he needs to stay in the base plotting his people's next move. And hell, I'd say even Mass Effect, which puts you in charge of a ship is pushing it. In an RPG where you play as a person who runs into the heart of danger killing stuff, you should either be independent of any sizable organizations, or a low-ranking member.

Strategy games that are all about controlling a nation, empire, army, or whatever, like Civilization or Master of Orion? No problems being in charge whatsoever.

Depends. If it's a single player game, I can't stand followers or being in charge of stuff. I've played through NWN and NWN2 without a single follower, and am currently a third of the way through Divinity Original Sin and I haven't recruited a single person it's just the original two you start with.

On the other hand, if it's an MMO, I usually dislike how guilds or whatever that particular game calls it are run. It's rare to find one that I like the structure of, and usually if I do find one I like, it's a gigantic guild and has virtually no room for advancement and a waiting list a mile long even to join. So I usually tend to make my own guild and run it myself, sometimes with a co-leader but more often then not without. They do tend to do well though, I'm very goal-oriented and won't stop until I achieve what I wanted to get done, and if I'm making a guild it's usually to get X pieces of gear for everyone in the guild and to beat X bosses.

Bow before and weep at my beauty .