Dungeons and Dragons RP

[*FacePalm*]

I like xxxxkill's idea. It could be me and Mulch, because I'm the only one who has actually gotten votes, but Mulch is plausable for leadership.

[Ad Bot]

[masterockets]

If you have a leader you are still allowed to think. It only means that your idea may not be the one that is necessarily put into action.

yes, but it's more of a "he decides everything" move

[Mulch]

yes, but it's more of a "he decides everything" move

No good leader ever makes a move without the input of his followers.

[Kill All]

Vote now :D
1 is

Let's have a democratical decision making system :P
Each person presents an idea (or not if they dont want to) and we vote on the best one.
Although if the idea is terribly handicapped we may have to scrap it.

2 is

Two people lead then.
That'll make sense, they both make a decision, the better of which will be used.
If they agree upon the same thing, it will take effect.
There are flaws, but it's better than going leaderless.

If so, nominate 2 people, NOT yourself
3 is one leader (if so, nominate someone, NOT yourself)
4 (Another idea of mine) Everyone does their own seperate thing, allowing splits in decisions and multiple actions.

Gogogogo

[xxxxkill]

yes, but it's more of a "he decides everything" move

Two people idea. If an idea a too unreasonable or dangerous, the other leader can veto it. This can be overidden by the other members of the group if 2 out of 3 vote against the veto.

No good leader ever makes a move without the input of his followers.

And also this.

[*FacePalm*]

2.

[Mulch]

Having two leaders is a bad idea. That means that both will have to agree to the same plan and in the case of a stalemate the game can not move forward.

If you guys are really so worried about one person making horrible decisions there can be a majority veto where all players vote and since we have an odd number of players there will never be a stalemate.

[masterockets]

Having two leaders is a bad idea. That means that both will have to agree to the same plan and in the case of a stalemate the game can not move forward.

What about three?

[Kill All]

4.

[Vegetarian Zombie]

2

[SirLancelot7]

The DM has appointed Mulch as leader.  He will keep us on track, but he will still allow for fun. 

Trust me, you can be fun.  When I play DnD as a player I'm the one who is goofing off.  I will allow fun.

[Mulch]

What about three?

It would take to long to make decisions. Three people would have to be on at one time.

My suggestion:

If you guys are really so worried about one person making horrible decisions there can be a majority veto where all players vote and since we have an odd number of players there will never be a stalemate.

[masterockets]

I will now SIT DOWN IN A NORMAL MANNER

[xxxxkill]

Having two leaders is a bad idea. That means that both will have to agree to the same plan and in the case of a stalemate the game can not move forward.

If you guys are really so worried about one person making horrible decisions there can be a majority veto where all players vote and since we have an odd number of players there will never be a stalemate.

One leader can veto the other's decision while the group can over ride the veto, thus putting the previous plan into effect.

The DM has appointed Mulch as leader.  He will keep us on track, but he will still allow for fun.  

Trust me, you can be fun.  When I play DnD as a player I'm the one who is goofing off.  I will allow fun.

What.

[*FacePalm*]

Well, I feel somewhat dissapointed.
:/