Political Nightmare

[Malachi Lemont]

Introduction

I've always wanted to do a game of pure politics, where players are running for president, trying to attract the most voters. I was going to set it in modern-day America, but in order to avoid controversy, I decided to remove it slightly from real life.

The game will take place in a fictional country called the Dossic Federation, a fantasy parallel of America. It is in modern times, but with fantasy races like elves, dwarves, gnomes, and orcs, as well as humans of course. Magic might be part of it.

Maybe instead of debating "gun control" it could be "magic regulation" or "wand control." Rather than having humans be the oppressive majority, they could be a struggling minority trying to make it in an elf- and dwarf-run world. Immigration, healthcare, and the like would still be issues, but they would have new twists on them. Imagine what kind of political outcry would result from the necromancy of a loved one?
I have yet to decide on political parties, but I'm sure they'll fall into place eventually. I'd love to have some help on this project!

Dossica Demographics (subject to change)

42% Elves
27% Dwarves
17% Humans
11% Orcs
3% Gnomes

Gender:
50% Male
50% Female


Income (Household)
20% Upper class (100K +)
20% Upper Middle (62-100K)
20% Middle (38-62K)
20% Lower Middle (20-38K)
20% Poor (less than 20K)

[JoshuaZ]

This looks like it could easily run afoul of forum rules here. Instead of using the US, maybe use some made up country with madeup ethnic groups and political alignments?

[Malachi Lemont]

This looks like it could easily run afoul of forum rules here. Instead of using the US, maybe use some made up country with madeup ethnic groups and political alignments?

You're right. I realized this violated the rules, so I've already got a plan B. The game will take place in a fictional country called the Dossic Federation, a fantasy parallel of America. It is in modern times, but with fantasy races like elves, dwarves, gnomes, and orcs, as well as humans of course. Magic might be part of it.
Maybe instead of debating "gun control" it could be "magic regulation" or "wand control." Rather than having humans be the oppressive majority, they could be a struggling minority trying to make it in an elf- and dwarf-run world. Immigration, healthcare, and the like would still be issues, but they would have new twists on them. Imagine what kind of political outcry would result from the necromancy of a loved one?
I have yet to decide on political parties, but I'm sure they'll fall into place eventually. I'd love to have some help on this project!

As for the new racial groups, I'm going with:
42% Elves
27% Dwarves
17% Humans
11% Orcs
3% Gnomes



.....And perhaps 1% Magicians, distributed equally?

Each race will also have ethnic groups within it, but for game purposes, that doesn't really matter. The premise will still be the same as in America: You try to win everyone's votes, but you usually end up focusing on a particular group or "swing state."

How's that sound?

[Malachi Lemont]

At the beginning of each turn the GM would post a description of what's going on in the nation. Then the characters would each have to give a campaign speech telling their response to the event. They would also budget their money, choosing where to campaign and what kind of ads to run.

I was also thinking the Federation could be divided up into several republics, like the US states. There would not be as many as 50, but maybe 10-15 would work? Even with 6 or 8 players, we would still have most of the districts covered, but a few of them would be NPC wild cards.

What do you all think about magitech in this game? Should we keep it to a minimum or go all-out with the technomancy?

[Zireael]

I second making it the fantasy alternate. You might want to replace the content of your first post with the revised version.

I suggest going with technomancy and adding more racial/social groups.

[Malachi Lemont]

I second making it the fantasy alternate. You might want to replace the content of your first post with the revised version.

I suggest going with technomancy and adding more racial/social groups.

I will indeed. More than 5 races you say?
I'd like to keep them pretty close to human, so no lizard-people and the like. But I guess we could have some troll-like people and some slightly monkey-like people. I know nothing about the D&D races, but I'll look into it and see what might work.

[Iferus]

Is this supposed to be a long-running RPG game, or just something to play for an evening?

In the first case, you have to think about what characters can affect en how time flows. Will it take in-game years to finish the campaign and have one of the players become president? And how long will this take in the real world?

[Malachi Lemont]

1 turn will equal 1 month in-game. Out of game it will be about 2-3 days per turn. The game will hopefully last at least 12 turns, making 1 in-game year and about a month out of game. I'm still not quite sure that I want to GM this, since I tried GMing once and I did not quite have the organizing skills to handle it all. The GM for this will have to be experienced and organized. But if I could establish the game rules, maybe his job will be slightly easier.

Do you have any ideas for world-building, gameplay, or character rules? Let me know. I want to keep this fun but not too silly.

[Malachi Lemont]

Do you all still think having elves and dwarves is a good idea? Should I create homebrew races or make up new variations to old ones. What ideas do you have for the different races?

[SamBurke]

It sounds like you're basically homebrewing a game for yourself...

Which is pretty AWESOME.

What's the goal, though? What do you want the experience to feel like?

[Bling Cat]

If you want to make it interesting, I would suggest a kind of Traits/Flaws mechanic, possibly rolled on a table or selected by the GM. Each player starts with, say three traits and three flaws, and they can take more traits to get more flaws. The traits increase their ability to campaign, for example making them charismatic, or giving them a loving wife, while the flaws are the dirty secrets they desperately try to keep from the opposition, like an orc mistress or secretly being part of a cult.

You also probably need a mechanic for the media, presumably run by the GM, assuming he's unbiased, because in real life elections knowing how to win over the media can make or break a campaign, and I think it's an important thing to bring over into any political game.

[Malachi Lemont]

If you want to make it interesting, I would suggest a kind of Traits/Flaws mechanic, possibly rolled on a table or selected by the GM. Each player starts with, say three traits and three flaws, and they can take more traits to get more flaws. The traits increase their ability to campaign, for example making them charismatic, or giving them a loving wife, while the flaws are the dirty secrets they desperately try to keep from the opposition, like an orc mistress or secretly being part of a cult.

You also probably need a mechanic for the media, presumably run by the GM, assuming he's unbiased, because in real life elections knowing how to win over the media can make or break a campaign, and I think it's an important thing to bring over into any political game.

All of this sounds great. I especially agree with the media idea. Maybe there could be two GMs - one for "random events" like a stock market collapse or a terrorist attack, and one to act as the voice of the media. Or, one GM could do all the fluff and another could do all the crunch.

If this game ever gets off the ground, would you be willing to play or perhaps GM or co-GM with me? That would be really nice.

My goal in making this game is to explore the intrigues of the American political system in a lighthearted, sort of exaggerated way. (It could be any democracy, really, but I'm most familiar with America.) Players will debate with each other over various political issues - but hopefully people will role-play characters with very different views than their own. I intend for this to be an entertaining mix of the real world with the absurd.

More World-building fluff:

Religions:
There are two competing monotheistic religions, one with a God and one with a Goddess. The Goddess, or "Great Mother" is the favored deity of humans, as well as many Elves and Dwarves. She is characterized as proud, lawful, and dutiful.
The male God is characterized as chaotic and whimsical, but forgiving. He is worshiped mainly by the Orcs, but some of the Elves have adopted the faith.
Many Dwarves follow a polytheistic religion that non-Dwarves see as barbaric, but is actually quite philosophical. Gnomes are predominately atheist but have been known to adopt either of the monotheistic faiths. Small cults and minor religions also exist in isolated pockets.

[Sir_Mopalot]

Running a game more or less exactly like this has been a dream of mine for a very long time.

If we're starting from ground up, then perhaps a Political Machine-style amount of energy for each turn, allowing them to give speeches, run ads, and so on. I think that while elections should of course be marquee events, it'd be a shame to ignore the actual law-making component of it, as winning elections, even the Presidency, is only the beginning.

[Bling Cat]

Running a game more or less exactly like this has been a dream of mine for a very long time.

If we're starting from ground up, then perhaps a Political Machine-style amount of energy for each turn, allowing them to give speeches, run ads, and so on. I think that while elections should of course be marquee events, it'd be a shame to ignore the actual law-making component of it, as winning elections, even the Presidency, is only the beginning.

Actually, surely you could have every election be the end of a 'round', so to speak, and in between rounds there's a shorter period where the winner of the first round acts as the president, and tries to keep opinion polls up, while the other players attempt to paint his decisions and reactions in a bad light.

As for being involved, that sounds great, Though if other people really want to run I'm not that bothered. I just like the idea of this style of game and have lots of things rattling around in my head about it.

[Malachi Lemont]

Actually, surely you could have every election be the end of a 'round', so to speak, and in between rounds there's a shorter period where the winner of the first round acts as the president, and tries to keep opinion polls up, while the other players attempt to paint his decisions and reactions in a bad light.


I agree. That was not how I originally intended the turns to go, but this sounds much better. Instead of a 4-year election cycle for President, they could have a 1-year cycle so everyone is in constant campaign mode, but has to make laws all the while.
Each in-game year would be one turn, while allowing a good while out of game (4-7 days) per turn for sufficient roleplaying.

Do you think Presidents will have any chance of reelection in this game or will everyone just gang up on them as soon as they are elected the first time?

[Sir_Mopalot]

really depends on how many players you have, and what their roles are. You could run a game where each player is essentially representing a political party, or one where everyone is one politician. I dunno, for the most part when I think about political intrigue in terms of the US, it's less about elections and more about governing. Wheeling and dealing to get bills passed, dealing with crises. The West Wing is a great example of how to take that setup and make it interesting. At least in modern elections, winning the election is about raising the most money and saying as few stupid things as possible, thanks to how evenly split most of the country is. But not to fall into Real World stuff, we'll need to figure out what the major parties are in this country, and what their core platform is.

[Malachi Lemont]

Yeah. I have a feeling the political parties will have something to do with magic, if magic exists at all. Here's an overview of what the magic might be like:


I think magic should be minimal, so that wizards/mages/"gifted people" are a small minority who are viewed with fear and suspicion. Sometimes they live in isolated communities, sometimes they blend in with the public. "Coming out" as a magician is a big social taboo and requires quite a lot of bravery.
No magicians have been elected to public office. However, in some ancient empires, wizards were given high status and acted as chief advisors to the Kings, if not Kings themselves. Many wizarding folk look to the past for inspiration, wishing to be accepted once more.
Despite the discrimination against mages, their skills are often exploited by people in desperate need. Fortune telling is the most common talent, and for this reason businesses will often employ a magician to work behind the scenes. (Some trade unions have placed rules against corporations from hiring magicians, saying it hurts the economy.)
There is also considerable debate over the status of magicians in the military. Currently they are employed for intelligence operations, but never allowed near the front line, because magic is dangerous and can sometimes backfire. However, some believe magicians have the same rights to defend their country as everyone else does.
Finally, necromancy has always been a controversial issue. Some magicians have claimed to bring people back from the dead using willpower alone, although doctors will debate this. Some religions frown upon necromancy as a violation of the divine will, while others see it as a second chance to live. Either way, necromancy is extremely rare, yet it happens often enough to be a national issue.
Some scientific extremists deny the existence of magic entirely, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Other scientists believe magic is simply a realm of science they have yet to comprehend. Most people accept the paradox that magic is unpredictable and limitless, yet must be contained.

Any suggestions about magic and/or politics?

[Bling Cat]

Hmm. A thought. No election happens in a vacuum. Surely at the beginning of the game there is an incumbent? Possibly played by the GM. I'll have to think about that.

Depending on how long we want it to run, do you think there should be an option to change characters? Possibly have it forced onto players who have won two elections, as they're politician is no longer viable to be elected.

Also, what do we want the fluff/crunch balance to be? Do we want full on +/- modifiers from everything, and lots of dice rolls and rules for things? Or do we want it to be closer to a dice-less game, where things happen based primarily on how the players roleplay their characters? The first one is more complicated to make, but less tricky to run, while the reverse is true of the fluff based model.

I'm personally in favour of players playing individual politicians, rather than entire parties. It allows people to play characters from the same party who hold similar beliefs but differ in some key respects, much like candidates in real world primaries.

I like the idea of magic being a fringe population, it gives us more political issues to work with. It also allows for more interesting flaws, such as one of the candidates actually being a mage, or having a mage in the family.

Hmm. I'm having far more complex idea for the traits/flaws system. Maybe some traits which are also a flaw? Like being a mage gives you magic, but also means you have to hide it from the press. That could also work with paired traits and flaws, like loving wife/mage in the family, where you have the option to take that pair instead of rolling on the table. That possibly has more merit in a crunch based system, but I guess people trying to build a character around a theme would appreciate being able to choose their traits and flaws.

Hmm. More thought required.

[Malachi Lemont]

I agree that we should start out with an incumbent leader. However, I don't think he should be played by the GM. Maybe one of the players will be picked at random to be the President (or Chancellor?) and the rest would start at lower positions. Lawmaking would be a big part of it, as would campaigning. Two turns per election cycle or just one? I haven't decided yet.

I also agree that there could be multiple players within the same party.
As far as parties go, I was thinking of maybe 3 main ones with several fringe movements.

Here are the main political parties of Dossica, ranked by voting percentage.

The Coalition (36%)
A diverse party that draws voters from all five races and from various religions. The Coalition has been around for about 200 years, and has always supported free capitalism and civil rights. They boast their low taxes, as well as their success in lifting the elven segregation laws against humans some 80 years ago. However, in recent years, they have been criticized for doing nothing about poverty, and for leaving Dossica's borders undefended. The Coalition is the most pacifist of all parties, wishing for only a minimal armed force. They are wary about magic but do not believe in restricting it.

The Enlightened (28%)
This party was formed about 40 years ago, is a proud supporter of scientific research. They have achieved moderate success in the vaccination of diseases, as well as the use of magic healing rituals. They are closely tied to the Faith of the Mother, however, and some have criticized them as religious zealots. Enlightened politicians subscribe to a theory of social welfare, believing that redistributing wealth will strengthen the economy. They are also proud supporters of the military, and have been criticized as warmongers. The Enlightened are unpopular among Dwarves and Orcs.

The Foundation (25%)
An ancient party founded on ideals of honor, respect, and military duty. They were once a party of only Elves, but have recently gained popularity among Dwarves, Orcs, and Gnomes. Humans show little support for the Foundation, often criticizing them as racist and old-fashioned. Foundationists believe in the adamant pursuit of justice and the defense of the nation, but not imperialistic ventures overseas, like the Enlightened insist on.

The Independents (11%)
These unaffiliated people sometimes share beliefs of different parties, or are sometimes extremists who have been cast out from one of the mainstream parties. Fringe groups include the Solution, a semi-violent militia intent on the elimination of magic, as well as its opposition, the Blessing, which claims supremacy for magicians.

[General Patton]

Some scientific extremists deny the existence of magic entirely, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Other scientists believe magic is simply a realm of science they have yet to comprehend.

Wat? :smallconfused: I'm sorry, but the science vs. magic dichotomy is completely absurd. The laws that govern reality do not have some dividing line that separates natural forces/phenomena based on our arbitrary definition of technology and magic. Science is nothing more than a method of understanding reality, so everything is within the realm of science.


Most people accept the paradox that magic is unpredictable and limitless, yet must be contained.

As for magic being unpredictable, it's probably a pretty solid match for quantum mechanics. Just a matter of some self-interacting field equations based on localized conditions, resulting in a probability distribution for the non-deterministic outcomes.

Let's say that some tiny fraction of fireballs cast in high-energy environments during a full moon transmute the caster into a potted plant (unless there is a solar flare, in which case you become a whale). Well, every moment there is an incomprehensibly small chance that a proton or neutron will actually quantum tunnel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling) outside of the nucleus, causing the whole thing to break apart, which is actually the cause of radioactive decay. We can even crunch the numbers to figure out decay rates without measuring a sample's decay. Neither one of these phenomenon follows classical concepts of determinism. The very concept of knowing beforehand exactly what will happen, when and where, is fundamentally invalid, but we can still understand it and come up with guidelines on what to expect.

To end with something a bit more constructive and less preachy, I think scientists should instead be divided more along the lines of which hypothesis they expect will be most accurate for explaining magic. If the actual fundamentals of magic are far more intricate than anything we've ever modeled, it may be possible to have a decent amount of evidence for and against each hypothesis. Then it will be much more reasonable for them to have differing opinions and no one right answer until they manage to compromise, just like the rest of politics.

Possibilities for imperfect hypotheses include:
-The standard universe/timeline splitting into infinitely many parallel versions of itself every time a matter of "choice" occurs. In sci-fi or fantasy, frequently paired up with assumption that consciousness can "choose" which version of the universe it experiences, as an explanation for psionics or similar.
-Sufficiently complex, organized structures like brains or computers manage to pack so much classical determinism into such a small space that it makes a probability distortion field to affect events.
-If souls, spirits, or some other consciousness-bearing energy body exist in parallel with the organic body, then use some kind of energy field physics with mana flowing around like heat or particles in a solution and have means for mana to interact with or be converted into more conventional types of energy. Souls forcing mana to do stuff is then similar to the body using its muscles to make matter do stuff.

[Malachi Lemont]

Thank you. You are right that in worlds with laws of nature different from our own, you can't really draw the line between science and magic. There's simply "the way things are" and people's best guess how to explain it. That being said, I'd really like this game to be more about politics than about science/magic, but I definitely appreciate you helping to work out the magic question, since it will certainly be an important one.

[General Patton]

Well, if each flawed interpretation of magic lends itself to different useful applications and different philosophical/religious implications, then it can serve as yet another set of opposed factions/ideologies from whom you can gain different benefits by siding with them, at the cost of changing people's opinion of your policies. Universe/timeline splitting is probably better for manipulating distant events in secret over a long time frame, but it implies some pretty major anthropic principle and extremists might fall into solipsism. It might also make quantum immortality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality) valid and/or revolutionize morality if people decide to start caring about risky actions that endanger parallel versions of people. The brain/computer probability thing might be better suited to the first implementation of magitek via carefully programmed supercomputers under controlled conditions. But there might be concerns about whether everyone is polluting reality with their uncontrolled thoughts, leading to a pseudo-eco movement. Souls interacting with the energy around them (and vice-versa) gives you more conventional D&D Sorcerers, but can easily polarize religious factions in either direction. What if the capital punishment people want to invent something worse than the death penalty? What if euthanasia can be replaced with full body transplants, but now there is a threat of an immortal upper class?

The way I see it, having to pick a political party and make choices on how to side on issues of race, economics, magician equality, religion, morals/ethics/justice/liberty, and your favorite flavor of magi-science should give the game an immense amount of depth and replayability without making it too complex.

[Bling Cat]

A player beginning as President is interesting. Possibly rolling to determine everyone's starting placements?

I feel like a good system for turns would be looking at years and going from there. So possibly we begin in an election year, and the players campaign for the first section of the game. Then there are three years where the presidential player makes laws and reacts to issues that come up, while the other players make deals and try to build up a campaign chest while reacting to the presidents reactions to issues. Hmm. Possibly becoming too complex.

I'm actually not sure about the idea of starting with an incumbent at this point. How about we start with a president who just finished his second term, and therefore can no longer run. If a player begins as the president, it means they have that character cut short either through losing the first election, or only having a single term to serve.

I also started putting together a table of traits and flaws (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AnctuWTccGISdDVnSzRmbUZBWXBYS0NVYi1LMGNxN FE#gid=0), though it's still pretty barebones and I haven't given that much thought to the effects of each trait or flaw in play, so very much a work in progress. I've enabled editing for anyone with the link, so you guys can change stuff up if you have ideas.

[Sir_Mopalot]

The problem with being as focused on the presidency as it seems you're leaning, in my opinion, is that under a pseudo-US system, the President has extremely curtailed powers, in terms of acting unilaterally. The President only really has sovereign power in terms of deciding how to go about prosecuting a war (i.e. authorizing a Locate City bomb rather than a ground invasion or what have you), and procedural power in directing the various federal agencies that execute the laws (hence, executive branch). While a setup with a much stronger President is certainly possible, it's something that you'd have to take a look at, because it means not just filing the serial numbers off the Constitution. With most issues, it's the job of the Legislative branch to decide what needs to be done about something. The Executive can say "no", with the veto, but for most issues that aren't involving the military, the President's job is to use the bully pulpit to pull the legislature around to his position, not to decide by decree what will be done.

Think of it less as "Issue -> President makes a decision -> Legislators/other players react and spin/argue over it" and more "Issue -> Huge cluster as the legislature argues over it -> President adds his voice to the argument -> Hopefully some sort of decision is made -> Everybody (President and legislators) spin/continue to argue". While the President has a lot more power during a crisis, I think that an extended game that's supposed to be about politicking loses a lot when you make it simple one crisis after another. You could do a game where each turn a fighter pilot may or may not have defected to fantasy Russia, or violence is breaking out as Dwarves expand their tunnels under the border with another country, or a bunch of suicidal Gnome cultists have locked themselves inside a compound and are threatening to kill hostages, but that game is going to get a little monotonous, and the impact of the crises is going to lessen with each one. When do I get to put my bill before the House in an attempt to ban Elven-Human marriage? When do I get to deal with the Alchemist's Union, who are proposing new tort reform laws to limit liability for the producers of healing potions?

It may just be an issue of vision rather than problems with the game you're proposing. I'm imagining Fantasy West Wing or House of Cards, whereas a crisis-focused game seems to me to be more like Fantasy Tom Clancy, which is also an intriguing idea, but very different.

[Malachi Lemont]

I agree with Sir Mopalot completely. The President definitely does not have absolute power in this game. However, I think the US system of government should be simplified for the gov't of Dossica. There should only be one legislative chamber - the Senate. All players who are not the President are Senators. The President can propose an issue each turn, but the Senate has to vote whether or not to pass it. The President has supreme power over the military, so if a state rebels, he can send troops to put them down. However, the national budget must be run by the Senate. The President can veto one law during his entire career.

Does this system sound good? It might be over-simplifying, since state governments should also matter, but unless we have something like 20 players, I don't think we'll be able to manage more than the federal government.

Sometime soon I'll make a map showing all the different republics (states) within the Federation. I'm thinking there should be 10 republics plus a federal district. Not all of them have to be playable factions. Also, it's okay for 2 or more players to be from the same republic. This creates extra drama. I don't know how many players we'll have, but more than 10 would be difficult for a GM to handle.

Bling Cat, I like your table so far. Keep working on it. Thanks.

As for the magitech (or is it "-tek"?) I want to keep it as a central issue, but I don't want to get too bogged down in metaphysics that would keep the game from progressing. Ok?

Thanks for all the input, everyone. I really appreciate your help in putting this together.

[Bling Cat]

My ideas are nowhere near final, I'm more throwing them out there for consideration as they come to me. I would prefer a political intrigue game as well, my mind was just on international crises at the time, and so that's what I threw out. Weakening the presidential player can only be a good thing, at least as far as I see it. It prevents one player from having too much power over the others.

I'm also focused on the presidency just because that's the section of the game currently in my head. Ideas for other sections haven't jumped out at me just yet, but if you guys want to talk about the ideas behind tat, that sounds great.

The table can't really progress beyond a collection of words that suggest something about the character until we get an idea for how the basic interactions are going to work however. I put a possible effect of one flaw i, but I don't know if we're going to have a game primarily resolved by dice rolls, or affected by how the players play their characters. If it's the first, then things can give bonuses to dice rolls. If it's the second, then we're going to need to get more creative, but it's not impossible.

[Malachi Lemont]

Yes. I think the player who starts out as the incumbent president should have to be a lame-duck. They can suggest laws but nothing's going to get passed until they're out of office. I suggest we do a lot of dice-rolling, but still leave room for role-play...speeches and whatnot.

[Malachi Lemont]

Here's the map I've been working on. It should give you a basic idea of the 10 states within the federation.

Small Image:
http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/conworld/images/1/10/Smalldossica.jpg

Large Image:
http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/conworld/images/a/a8/Dossica.jpg

[GnomeGninjas]

Are you going to use an electoral college?

[Malachi Lemont]

Are you going to use an electoral college?

I might, or we could just do a general election. Depends on how stat-heavy I want to make this game and how many calculations I feel like doing.

[Omnicrat]

This thread has inspired me to make my own political campaign (pretty different from what you are currently trying to do) so I thought I might be able to chip in on yours a little bit.

Here are some ideas you might be able to use, and some problems.


You can have the initial players represent the founder fathers of the country, or something like that, so they write up the constitution themselves.
If you want your game to be realistic, anything lasting more than a few 4 year terms would have incredible changes in the technology level. You might want to do something about that. If not, maybe the game is just going through alternative versions of the same few elections over and over.
You could let the players stat up parties at the beginning, either by picking from a "grab bag" of issues and stances via a draft system or in a more free-form way. This will increase replayability.
You seem to not be sure how rules-focused you want this to be. I recommend very. People have widely different political beliefs and expectations of what other political beliefs may represent. Even if you do not mean to, by not having strict, neutral, agreed upon mechanics going in, you will upset people for an "unrealistic" result.

[Malachi Lemont]

I completely agree that the rule system should be strict and well-planned, even if it takes a while to design. I might consider the idea of having players create custom parties - and provide them with 5-10 issues to take a stance on. However, I don't think I'll do the progressing technology though. It might come up at some point as a tossup issue - but it won't be a recurring theme. I want this game to feel "modern" not "futuristic" despite the magic and such.

Thanks for the feedback. What do you think of the map and the rules so far?

[Omnicrat]

The map is fine. I would have preferred a bit more varied terrain, rather than mostly green hills, but it looks realistic enough.

As for mechanics, as far as I can tell, you don't really have anything. You've got my suggestion of drafting parties, maybe. And then you have that there are turns. But that's it.

Edit: A note, what type of segregation is there? There should be separate schools, at least. Just look at the age categories...