I work in an industry were consent is important, but few would realize it as it's always phrased as "buy in."
If we don't buy in on said system/process/technology/solution it is bound to fail regardless of how good it is is a pretty well accepted truth in my day to day world.
So I've always approached my game with the same thought in mind. If anyone at the table doesn't buy in the game is going to fail. Now I could just always put the onus on the player to leave when they don't buy in, but I don't see a lot of value in that. Sometimes it will be necessary for the player to leave, but it's too heavy handed of an approach to most cases. EDIT: likewise it is sometimes appropriate to terminate someones employment, but it would be extremely costly to do so in the case of every disagreement./EDIT. I think a lighter touch and being a more approachable and adaptable DM will lead to more fun at my table in the long term, probably short term too.
Maybe I am off base here but looking at all this brings just one thought to mind.
If a person actually needs this book to tell them how to act then I do not want that person in my gaming group.
You are probably right.
But I can't help but think about the inconsiderate Jerk (probably not a strong enough word) I used to be and how glad I am that people were patient with me an helped me realize that if I cared more about other peoples happiness I would be happier too.
If this book helps someone make a change for the better then I'm happy it was made.
So, this is terrible, and horrible, but also kind of ... funny?
I know, I'm going to go to hell.
I'd be joining you in hell then.
Also I have only now just realized what an opportunity I have missed not throwing some clown villains at my party from time to time.
I suppose IT is about time I do