It seems a given in the gaming community that more interaction between players is better, however it is precisely too much interaction that is the root of leader bashing. I use interaction to mean the ability of one player to affect the fortunes of another player. I am not suggesting the removal of interaction, merely that it needs to be carefully tempered so that there is plenty of fun interaction without leader bashing becoming a major problem. This can be achieved by appreciating that there are several dimensions to interaction, and that only if interaction within a game is too much in several dimensions will leader bashing be a problem. Hit low - the type of interaction Interaction between players or coalitions comes in three main flavours.
Positive interaction is less prone to causing leader bashing problems than is negative interaction.
Positive interaction has the added benefit of speeding towards a close those games with an endpoint defined by victory conditions. Leader bashing by attrition is more likely in games that allow binding deals so that the coalition members can be confident that none will shirk their duty. Leader bashing is strongly dependent on its opportunity cost to the coalition. If the cost or risk involved in hitting the leader is high, the coalition will find it hard to get someone to throw the first stone. The frequency of interaction is how easily and how often a coalition can act against the leader.