2 hours ago, Bitterman said:Sorry - who are those people, if they're not your group? 😕
I'm honestly confused by what you're talking about here. You're saying "our group can't cooperate", so I suggest "maybe the problem is your group rather than IA as a cooperative game", and you reply with "our group is just fine, it's this imaginary other group of people who may not even exist that I'm concerned about".
Who, exactly, do you think has "left the game with the idea that it's a bad game" because they were unable to cooperate? And why do you think rules that enable and empower alpha gamers to take charge is a solution to that problem?
There was a time, I was supervising people playing one random mission as introduction to the game. The purpose was to create campaign groups and have a stable community of players in town. I wasn't imperial or rebel, so other than rules most of the effort was to prevent the alpha gamers to destroy game experience to everyone. Well, when an alpha gamer was at the table I knew already someone else in the party would have refused to join a campaign group. In most of the cases motivation was "I believe the game isn't enough fun" or similar reason.
I believe a game that opens to such situations can be improved to consider the issue and prevent/attenuate it.
Now going back to the rule. Having the chance of asking advice to 1-2 people is great, having 1-2 people discussing every possible choice that isn't inline with their opinion is bad. A rule that says "rebels can cooperate, if the owner of the current activation asks for it" makes a huge difference. Do you want to be a lone wolf? You can. Do you want help? You ask. Are you an alpha-guy? You shut up until someone asks you and if you talk the imperial will get a bonus or something.
Not saying this is the way to go. Just saying that not taking into account alpha gaming into mechanics design is as bad as ignoring color-blind people into design of game components. In both cases you lost part of the audience.
Edited by Trevize84