Disagree

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Chris Camfield at 2001-10-16 12:46:58
Converted from Phorums BB System

I have to disagree. So, I think, would Alexander the Great.

Why would fighters only gain experience in strategy and tactics first-hand? No colleges of war anywhere? No generals to whom they can act as adjutants?

I'm not sure it would generally be a good idea to look for leadership in rogues/thieves. If one sticks to the stereotype, a shifty-eyed backstabber isn't a very inspiring role model. :-)

Hmm. Next time I play D&D, I think I'll create a charismatic fighter.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Blackbird at 2001-10-16 14:35:58
Converted from Phorums BB System

The thing about this essay (aside from apparently being semi-satirical), is that it's not taking into account the fact that (theoretically) D&D takes place in the heroic fantasy genre, in which, regardless of what personal skills or business theory might indicate, fighters are quite often leaders, with mages and multiclass fighter/mages coming in second. (Rogues are invariably too self-interested and clerics are content to serve).

If we were talking about a more realistic game that would be a different matter... but then in most more realistic games character classes either aren't present or aren't as rigid.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Redhan at 2001-10-16 22:18:21
Converted from Phorums BB System

More realistic than, say, Napoleon, Alexader the Great or Genghis Khan, for example?

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by The_Lone_Cleric at 2001-10-17 09:22:49
Converted from Phorums BB System

Your forgetting. That yes while they did conquer quiet a lot, they didn't keep it.

All died and had their empires crumble beneath them...to some extent. (Yes, France is doing quiet well, but not Napoleonic France.)

For lasting results among minions you need postive social development.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by TrapperQ at 2001-10-17 11:35:19
Converted from Phorums BB System

For a purely rogue based leadership system look at organised crime. Better still look at Tony Soprano. He has leadership skills, is a motivator and does not fit in with the 'shifty-eyed backstabber' archetype.

The problem of rogue led organisations is that of law. In this case the difference between rogue and criminal. A rogue who continually uses voilence and commits crimes on his way to the top is going to attract an awful lot of pressure when he gets there, so much so that much of his effort is going to be spent covering his ass and defending his position.

Whereas a rogue who doesn't actually break the law but uses his 'interpersonal' skills to intimidate, bluff, bully and spread lies is going to go much further.

It's the difference between Tony Soprano and a shyster lawyer.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Hehaw at 2001-10-17 21:25:02
Converted from Phorums BB System

Actually, Ghenghis and Alexander died pretty much at the top. Their empires went down after they kicked the metaphorical bucket. Empires rise and fall, it's the course of history.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Orhpeus at 2002-05-08 19:10:24
Converted from Phorums BB System

I don't think your analogy is anywhere near apt.

Napoleon was the only one whose empire crumbled while he was alive, and whose bid to create an empire failed.

On top of that, the other two are incompetent because they only conquered the known world? Every empire crumbles, but it takes a leader to build one.