How Would You Feel About This Game Setup?

[Amphetryon]

The root concept is for a primarily social, rather than dungeon-crawling, game. The party of 1st level characters comprises four of the five members of a small hamlet's town council. They are just beginning their 10 year terms as elected council members. Each was elected via relative majority, but each of the PCs received only 15% of the vote, while the fifth council member - an NPC - received 12%; these represent the highest percentages of votes for any given candidate, as the hamlet's citizens could cast but one vote each.

In addition to the normal character's background, upon completion of the characters, each player was asked to draw randomly from a stack of note cards; there were more note cards than players/characters. These cards contained information on issues important to the voters who elected that particular PC to office, such as dealing with a threat to commerce, opening up negotiations with another region, or honoring a particular fallen war hero by retrieving his body. The players were also told that the hamlet observes a two year grace period before anyone could call for a 'Vote of No Confidence' on an elected official.

Would you find this setup to be too railroaded? Would you object on other grounds, aside from the 'social' versus 'dungeon-crawling' aspect?

[BWR]

Did you assume that lots of us would object because of 'social vs. dungeon-crawling'? Seriously?

Is this just 'local politics: the RPG'? If so you could probably find a better system than d20 for it. I play d20 when I want to have a combat be a significant part of the game. If I wanted this sort of politicking game I'd probably use Ars Magica or possibly L5R. You might also make sure your players are on board with this.

Those issues aside, we don't really have enough information to work with. Will the entire game be nothing but politics, will the issues lead to combat for the PCs, what sort of mechanics are you going to use to support your game, will the PCs get to be involved in bigger stuff than their little village, what sort of character advancement are we looking at. etc. etc.

Most anything can work if the DM and players all agree on what's fun. Most anything can fail miserably if people can't agree on the same goal.

[Amphetryon]

Did you assume that lots of us would object because of 'social vs. dungeon-crawling'? Seriously?

I've been on forums long enough to recognize that folks might choose any aspect of a given concept with which to take issue. For example, it appears you've taken issue with the fact that I listed something that was a given for the campaign as 'not up for debate.' And, yes, my players were on-board with this aspect of the concept when it was pitched to them.


Those issues aside, we don't really have enough information to work with. Will the entire game be nothing but politics, will the issues lead to combat for the PCs, what sort of mechanics are you going to use to support your game, will the PCs get to be involved in bigger stuff than their little village, what sort of character advancement are we looking at. etc. etc.As I specified 'aside from normal character background,' I presumed that was clearly an indication that the PCs would have their individual goals and motivations aside from the single card which they drew; apparently I was in error in this presumption. Yes, PCs are expected to have additional motivations, goals, and wishes for advancement which may well lead them beyond the hamlet, just as I presume they would in other games.

Whether combat is involved will depend entirely upon the PCs choices, which I cannot accurately predict.

I'd like some clarification on what your 'what sort of mechanics are you going to use' question means, as I don't wish to flippantly respond with 'those of the 3.X system on which this post is found, obviously.'

I am loathe to attempt an accurate prediction of character advancement, as the realities of the game and the fickleness of the dice can TPK the best-laid plans. I am almost always open to the idea that a game can progress all the way to 20th level, whether it works out that way or not.

[Coidzor]

The root concept is for a primarily social, rather than dungeon-crawling, game. The party of 1st level characters comprises four of the five members of a small hamlet's town council. They are just beginning their 10 year terms as elected council members. Each was elected via relative majority, but each of the PCs received only 15% of the vote, while the fifth council member - an NPC - received 12%; these represent the highest percentages of votes for any given candidate, as the hamlet's citizens could cast but one vote each.

In addition to the normal character's background, upon completion of the characters, each player was asked to draw randomly from a stack of note cards; there were more note cards than players/characters. These cards contained information on issues important to the voters who elected that particular PC to office, such as dealing with a threat to commerce, opening up negotiations with another region, or honoring a particular fallen war hero by retrieving his body. The players were also told that the hamlet observes a two year grace period before anyone could call for a 'Vote of No Confidence' on an elected official.

Would you find this setup to be too railroaded? Would you object on other grounds, aside from the 'social' versus 'dungeon-crawling' aspect?

If I hadn't been given any expectation that it would be a social game and I created a Kill-barian I'd certainly be a bit miffed that the DM hadn't told me sooner, like during char gen, I suppose.

No real potential objections spring to mind other than that sort of discourtesy, though. :smallconfused:

One potentially neat thing that comes to mind is that various different character types would have various different interest groups that would align with them, which could give more tailored pools of plot/quest hooks through what their base wants of them. Possibly even some play between what their base wants and what the broader constituency wants, or, even, in some cases, what's actually in the best interests of the community (in the long run). Though that'd be extra work that'd probably require knowing the character with more time in advance than otherwise.

[molten_dragon]

My biggest issue would be that this doesn't sound like the sort of game that is best run as D&D/Pathfinder.

[Amphetryon]

If I hadn't been given any expectation that it would be a social game and I created a Kill-barian I'd certainly be a bit miffed that the DM hadn't told me sooner, like during char gen, I suppose.

No real potential objections spring to mind other than that sort of discourtesy, though. :smallconfused:

One potentially neat thing that comes to mind is that various different character types would have various different interest groups that would align with them, which could give more tailored pools of plot/quest hooks through what their base wants of them. Possibly even some play between what their base wants and what the broader constituency wants, or, even, in some cases, what's actually in the best interests of the community (in the long run). Though that'd be extra work that'd probably require knowing the character with more time in advance than otherwise.

One of the first things my players noted upon hearing this concept pitched (before character generation, incidentally) was that, in order to get a clear majority, they're likely to all need to be in agreement on their course of action, whether it was for directly addressing one of the concerns of their constituents, or helping the community in some other way. . . including expansion or other 'adventuring' hooks.