Question: I think the most natural party organization for a group of friends that are playing a game is a flat one, in which no one has authority over another, and decisions are made by consensus (and if that fails, with votes).

But there are times when the setting implies that the party should have a leader. In theory that shouldn't be a problem, as roleplaying is about portraying people who are not yourself, be they a noble or a servant, but in practice not everyone is okay being subordinate to another even if it's fictitious.

I have been in games in which leadership went smoothly, because everyone accepted the leader. But I have been in others in which players had a hard time accepting the leader, and every decision and step was an argument.

What are the keys to successfully including a leadership role in a party? How should the leader lead and the followers follow?

Answer: 
I have extensive experience with this style, having been the GM, "party leader", and under a "party leader". I will describe the situation where the "party leader" player makes real game decisions for the group.

We first came to the idea of having party leaders as a way of managing large games. It can be extremely difficult for a group of 12+ players to work together and come to a timely decision; in this case a party leader may help the situation.

The foremost thing that has to be said about having a party leader is that the **player must be a good leader** in and *out* of RPGs. Every time I've seen this be successful the player has had some prior leadership experience such as business executive, technical lead, or non commissioned officer. The skills that are required to be a good leader in a game are the same as in most other situations: giving clear direction, motivating others, listening to those you work with. I'm not going to try to write a book on leadership here, there are many many books written on the subject already.

The party leader should not be a tyrant at the table, even if the character might be. The player should give general direction and resolve the questions that need immediate answers such as *do we go left or right*, but should not micromanage other players. He needs to trust their competence and allow them to make mechanical and roleplaying decisions for themselves. If the party leader sends the rogue to scout the enemy stronghold, the rogue still gets to decide how he does that. He also needs to take good ideas from other players. When making a big decisions he should poll the group before making decisions.

It is OK to have RP conflicts if you have a party leader, in fact it can be one of the more entertaining aspects of the style as long as people can separate their character's emotions from their own. In one game where we played a mercenary adventuring company there was the often good-natured conflict between characters and leadership, which was countered with "This is not a democracy!", which was in our social contract and company charter.

**Being on the same page is critically important.** The leader should know his limits and the players should know theirs. An explicit social contract can be a great tool for this, as has been written about here and elsewhere often enough.

The party leader should also be a help to the GM at the table. Duties such as maintaining the initiative order and calling the table to attention often fall to the party leader, freeing up the GM to focus on the NPCs and other matters.

All this said, it can go wrong, and people can get their feelings hurt. Everyone needs to sign on to the style of game, and have the emotional maturity to follow leadership. Both the GM and the party leader should keep a close eye on the player's attitudes and act quickly out of character to defuse any conflicts. There are also some players who naturally chafe at leadership, and are likely never to be comfortable in this style of game.
I find that a related problem is that players are a lot smarter than their characters. They will also take 15 minutes in Real Life to debate whether to open the chest. And so you have to decide: are you playing to min/max and get the loot or are you there to focus on fun and roleplaying? (Neither is right nor wrong, but I find when it comes to Monty Hauling, good tactics is always the leader and there's no problem.)

So if you're focusing on role-playing style and a leader...

I have found the solution to this problem (over analyzing in the meta) is arrived at through good role-playing. Make the party leader the Paladin and give the Paladin to "that guy" in the group (you know the one I mean) who leads by his station. Encourage the players to respect his social position, but talk behind his back. Make sure they make decisions in a game-timely-manner. In short, make the *characters* experience interpersonal conflict and not the players.

It takes a little effort to switch gears, but some of the most hilarious moments I have had were when the *characters* bickered. Once, I (as DM) said, "In the middle of the room is a pillar with a giant chest on top, laden with gold. A mysterious magical light casts a luminous glow around it from above—" The impulsive rogue, interrupting my description of the room, picked up his 20 sider. Player #2 yelled (in character) "DUCK!" and he was so into the game he almost threw player #3 out of his chair onto the floor out of instinct. 

So long as the DM honors the unwritten contract "try not to kill the players," not going along with the group can add to the experience. I find most players start to understand the unwritten code of things, like "If I run off in this direction, we separate the party and then it's half as fun for everybody." So they stop doing that. Most people can find the right way to be just rebellious enough to not ruin it.

Another time the party was getting wrecked by this Hydra growing heads. So the Sorcerer said, "I'm dropping lightning bolt." I pointed out the old school lightning bolt+water=fireball rule and warned him the entire party (which foolishly charged into the water) would also get zapped. The whole table held its breathe as he considered it briefly and said "we gotta kill this thing." He literally saved the entire party from a wipe, but no character ever forgot that Mork thought they were expendable, even when that's not the truth of the situation. That's Epic story right there.

The best part is I didn't plan a second of it. They rush in, made a bad situation worse, and he pulled it off—and they never forgave him. Ah the memories.