1. who likes taking orders cause none of my characters or me myself do.
2. sometimes you just know they are going to get your party screwed
so what do you do to let these kinds of players know they need to back down. Perhaps in a nice way....
Player 1: "Well, what do we do?"
Player 2: "Dunno."
Player 3: "Whatever."
Player 4: "I'll go with what you guys want to do."
In other words, it seems to me to be more likely that there needs to be someone who gets things rolling.
On the other hand, as a DM, if one player is always pushing the others around, a quick "Hey, maybe you ought to get some input from the rest of your team before charging ahead. What do the rest of you think you should do?" from the DM seems to work reasonably well in most cases. Mild suggestions/recommendations like these, if applied evenly and early, don't usually provoke ill will.
...Although this frequently just degenerates into the situation I described above. The DM should keep the players from forcing their will on each other, but if the players are okay with going along with whatever the "metagame leader" wants, then there isn't really a problem.
In game I may/may not listen to their "orders".
Alot of this is actually character dependant though. For ex; In our 3.5 game my elf will defer to one of the other PCs. But that players elf is A) my mentor, B) my superior socially (atm). We chose to play this relationship between our characters. Thus were she to actually issue me an instruction I'd likely follow it. Likewise, she can (and does) speak for me at times. There are limits & exceptions though.... I'm her student/bodyguard, not her slave.
Now were one of the humans in the party to attempt to order me around/speak for me? There'd be problems.
Out-of-character.....
I generally react very poorly to players who actually attempt to tell me how to play, what moves to make, etc. Both in RPGs & in miniture/board games. IE; use me to play my pieces/characters themselves.
Wether or not their advice is sound isn't even a consideration....
However, it's a two way street, if someone's being bossy then they need to be let known that they should also be listening to the rest of the group when the rest of the group feels so inclined as to chime in.
Personally, as a player and as a dm, I like it when someone takes on the natural roll of the party leader. As silent_stone mentioned, people tend to get into "I dunno what do you wanna do" situations if no one just says "okay I'm going this way who's following?". In the group I play in, I tend to be the one who attempts to lead, but I know which people dislike being given direct requests/orders and if anyone else ever wants to do something else I don't bulldoze over their opinions.
I really hate the people who think they know what's best for everybody and feel the need to tell them, so I mainly try to start discussions and direct those discussions productively rather than start barking orders. I'll offer suggestions if I think I can give helpful advice, and even jump in on a guy who's just staring blankly at his character sheet on his turn and say" look, you can either do this, or you can do this - pick one", but if people have their own ideas, I'm not going to try to shout them down just because they're not mine. (now, if their ideas are just really f'ing stupid, on the other hand...lol) I love a good debate, but I hate argueing.
I'm pefectly happy to go with somebody else's idea if it's better than what I've got - after my initial input it becomes the plan rather than my plan. A lot of times I'll actually go around the table and ask each of the other players about their opinions in order to force them to actually input something, even if it's just a "sounds good to me..." - I hate being the one in charge, but often find myself being the only one willing to fill the position.
(Ye gods, do I ever hate having the rest of the party just all turn and look at me when it's time to decide something, like they can all just sit on their asses and expect me to handle everything for them and tell them what they should do...
)as a player how do you feel about another player acting as a aleader of your party both in role play or meta gaming. Personally i take issue with it:
1. who likes taking orders cause none of my characters or me myself do.
This, then, is a communication issue. Also, something you (and your characters) are going to have to learn, as it's a fundamental skill everyone needs to learn, unless you're going to stab every city guard that demands you turn in your weapons, stop playing because the DM says you can't cast spells because you're a 3rd level Fighter, and quit your job because your boss thinks you should be doing work instead of going on internet forums.
2. sometimes you just know they are going to get your party screwed
so what do you do to let these kinds of players know they need to back down. Perhaps in a nice way....
If you "know they are going to get the party screwed," you explain that the plan won't work, and why, and open discussion as to what the party *should* do.
That said, I believe that parties should have a "leader" position who is the one who makes the little decisions (party order, who talks to the nice monster wearing human leather armor, where they stop to rest for a few minutes), while the major decisions such as whether or not, and how, to fight a particular set-piece battle or how the party is going to act inside a hostile town should be, more-or-less, a party decision. D&D is a team game, after all (4E even moreso, if I've read correctly), so the group is going to learn how to work together, and unless everyone has a good idea of tactics, and is capable of using his/her abilities to safeguard the party (something I know *I* have a problem with whenever I use spellcasters), then someone whose job is to keep everyone working toward a particular goal is needed.