Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8804881" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think it's interesting. I also think it reflects a certain approach to thinking about groups. For instance, imagine if instead of leadership we had governance structure - democratic voting, members-as-management (eg like some coops), plural voting of various forms (eg most for-profit corporations), autocratic (many organisations can look like this).Another example: in our design of these rules, do we assume that leaders control groups, or groups control leaders?I guess what I'm saying is that different sorts of group attributes reflect different approaches to the sociology of organisations/groups, and so a game might take different approaches depending on what it wants to say.To come at the same idea from a slightly different angle: when we think about PC stats there's no "best list" - compare the well-known D&D list, to the slightly different Traveller list (no WIS or CHA, instead EDUcation and SOCial standing) or the very different In A Wicked Age list (For myself, For others, Direct, Covert, With violence, With love).Just as changing the game attributes for an individual reflects a particular conception of how this game conceives of people and what matters about them, I think the same is true of organisations/groups.</blockquote>