“Inevitably, among cooperative groups, disagreements may occur. If playing the game with 3 or 5 players, any irreconcilable disagreement can be resolved with a simple majority vote. If playing with four players, the recommended number for optimal game balance, and there is a two-v-two split that cannot otherwise be resolved, the tiebreaker vote goes to the player who owns the game, or more specifically who owns the environment deck (excepting OblivAeon games, where it’s the owner of OblivAeon). Should the game’s owner not be playing, he or she still casts the tiebreaker vote unless contacting that person would be inordinately difficult or distracting to them, emin which case flip a coin.”
1 Like
I don’t know that players need that much hand-holding for a purely social function. If you can’t work out shared decision-making like adults, maybe don’t play co-op board games together.
3 Likes
Schools don’t teach social skills anymore, and a lot of parents can’t discipline their children. The sad truth is that we can no longer assume people are capable of amicably working out grievances. Just look at congress; whichever side of the aisle you’re on, your favorite congressman thinks the other party is absolute anathema and can never compromise one inch with them. So that kinda kills your theory right there.
I’m not sure that really clarifies things anymore beyond what the rulebook already has without coming across as at least slightly condescending.
2 Likes
I mean, that’s fair, I didn’t set out to condescend, but I didn’t make any conscious effort to not condescend either.
I would never play SotM with a congressperson on the opposite side of the aisle from me. For oh, so many reasons.
1 Like
I dunno man, it’d be a much more productive use of their time, and maybe just maybe they might actually learn something. Contrary to what the party leaders want us to think, we’re all still people and we have more in common than we think we do.