Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8477815" data-attributes="member: 18">Just musing on the idea of how the group decides what is happening, I think a lot of the problem here is that many people in the West, especially in the US, are just not familiar with the concept of consensus as a way of making decisions, partly because it's so rarely modelled here.People are very familiar with strict hierarchies and dictatorial models, with limited decision-makers or just one, and there's a temptation to see things that way. People are very familiar with democracies (whether one-person one-vote or otherwise), and if you reject dictatorship there's a further temptation to see that as the model, and then of course some people reject it as "unfair" or whatever.Consensus is an alternative to voting or having a single leader, where you work together to agree a mutually acceptable outcome. It's used by some organisations. There are versions where people can be overruled, but there are also versions where they cannot. I think, informally, as I said, most groups do work this way, but if you wanted to understand a formal structure that could be used, there's some details here and lots on the internet:[URL unfurl="true"]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making[/URL]I'd particularly say the Quaker method is worth looking at (not for religious reasons obviously, just they have a pretty good way of working it - so long as you're not looking for snap decisions, but deciding what/how to run absolutely doesn't need to be snap).Honestly, this feels self-contradictory or confused to me. Yes, they're good things in any group activity, but they're more helpful and important in TT RPGs than many others, and you provide no rationale or explanation of why you think they "don't need to be codified in the rules". Obviously they can never be fully codified, but you can have a game where the rules, the language used, the explanations, and so on, all promote the idea of camaraderie and mutual respect and so on, or you can have ones where they don't, and I'm unclear on why you seem to think you should actively avoid promoting something you've yourself just painted as an unqualified good. Can you explain?It kinda looks like you're saying "The world would be a better place if everyone was kinder and more helpful to each other, but we definitely should not make any laws or engage in any education campaigns to encourage that!". Confusing.</blockquote>

Verification