NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gorgon Zee" data-source="post: 8174205" data-attributes="member: 75787">A somewhat tangential note here: Politically, I think that for small groups (maybe up to about 12 people) anarchy is the best organization; things are decided by consensus and hard  rules should be very rare. If one person is against something, it does depend on how strong their feelings are, but there's no rule. This does have the "popularity problem" but I am fundamentally an optimist and think that, for small groups, people will generally be aware enough to counter this tendency. Yes, it may not work always, but for me, it works better than any other structure. Once past a handful of people, anarchies become harder as they depend on trust and respect, and for groups of size 100, say, you simply cannot know people well enough. So for gaming, we don't have a gaming contract. We don't have lines we draw. We get together, we talk things out and we come to a resolution. The scenarios you mention -- a player continuously vetoing; as player hiding an aspect of their character that they know will make the game unfunny for others; a player vetoing another after playing a bit -- yes, these would be serious problems. But less procedural problems, than people problems. My thought would not be "what rules can we introduce to fix this?" but rather "why is Chris acting like this and how can we fix the situation so they re OK and so is everyone else".I realize this might not be terrible helpful and feel very loose, but as the points you bring up indicate, it's hard to come up with solid rules. So we run with no rules, no hierarchy, just an expectation that people will follow Bill and Ted's dictum</blockquote>

Verification