Loading...
Some people want to win, some want to take it easy, and some people always take on the same role. The rule is not to turn role conflict into a human fight.
The roles of tank/support/progress are always fixed.
It's easy to fix, but it becomes a sacrifice when accumulated.
Rotation: **“Today A, next B”** in public.
It feels like a directive, not a choice.
Games have strong tastes, so coercion quickly turns into emotion.
Suggest as a choice: **“Do you want to do A or B?”**
Blame the loss on just one person.
Team games have a structure that makes it easy to pass on responsibility.
Reviews are based on the team: **“Next time, let’s get the vision/timing right.”**
You may already be overburdened.
We are moving towards criticism rather than feedback.
Meeting continuity is reduced.
Don't let sacrifices accumulate.
Example: “Today A, next B”
Reduce coercion.
Example: “Would you like to do A/B?”
If you overdo it, it becomes emotional.
Example: “1 thing I liked, 1 thing I would change.”
Create room for mistakes.
Example: “The first two editions were adaptation editions.”
Try saying: “I also want to try different roles sometimes. Let’s rotate next game.”
Try saying: “Would you like to play A or B this time?”
Try saying: “Let’s organize this so that we can align our movements with the team rather than blaming individuals.”
A. So, you can divide the mode into ‘Practice version/Entrepreneurship version’. Both can be saved.
If one person falters, the tone of the entire team is ruined. I'm not trying to eliminate anger, but I've put together the minimum rules to prevent it from spreading.
It's a meeting that says it's 'possible at any time', but in reality no one can meet it. How to resolve time agreements with structure, not emotion.
Items, rewards, points, and contributions may seem small, but they convey emotions. How to organize your feelings of unfairness with rules before they build up.
Those who are good at it will feel frustrated, beginners will feel intimidated, and eventually the fun will diminish for both. How to resolve skill differences through ‘structure’ rather than ‘consideration’.