Now that the election is over...
-
Once every six months
-
I agree with People, with the caveat that I think time between elections should depend on how much power the Chancellor has. If the Chancellor's got a ton of power, and not many checks to said power, then I think that elections should be frequent. On the flip side, having a bit of a gap between elections means there's a chance for stability (and for players to adjust to the new status-quo is) so it doesn't end up being constant upheaval.
Whatever the case, I'm pretty confident that the DM team can nail the balance here given enough time.
(Also, maybe a dedicated thread or something for NPC/citizenry reactions to Political Stuff? Keeps it apart from Rumors but easy to access.)
-
The elections seemed to go on forever? What, was it a week? I logged in like five times during the whole process.
The debate was such a short notice that I didn't even learn about it until 8 hours after it started.
If anything, it felt rushed.No complaints, really, we have RL elections here, so I didn't quite long for another one.
But I didn't feel like I could interact with this any way (except accepting a bribe, which I, shamefully, didn't).
I wouldn't mind if Arabel came up with ways of supporting low-playtime players, elections surely have some potential in that regard but quick elections is a move to the other direction. -
Well, next time will certainly feel less jammed together, but a week is actually plenty of time. I don't get to play as much as I would like either, and I miss a lot because of that, but that's just part of the game. Can't hold up everyone else because I got other things to do.
-
6 months is waaaay too long. I would actually prefer a month (with a little longer for the first time while we sort through the speedbumps) but a lot of people think two months is good. The thing to remember is that the current Chancellor can run and win again, so its not like its a limit on how long one person can be in power. Just a limit on how long a bad leader can be in power lol.
-
I know you lot want a full sandbox, but from what I have learned, and based on your original post CF, setting some limits, making a faction write up of what a Chancellor really is (and add other positions as you expand this test run), would likely make reacting to it a lot easier. I know you Dms are all for "figure it out yourselves", but some structure IMO is needed for this to work in the future.
Also, Id not expand the term period more than 2 months. And I like alot some of the ideas posted regarding npcs.
-
NPCs can still do things, even after the election is complete, so it's not FULL SANDBOX with zero interference, the setting does still exist.
But we did try to keep to the original statement of intent this time, which was to make sure players were the key in the decision.
-
@o-louth There are lots of NPCs who can give advice, there are lots of DMs who can give advise. Its not "players figure it all out" and entirely willy-nilly. DMs are figuring out some things ourselves as this goes forward.
-
The reason I said six months is I thought it would be a deterrent from people rolling flash-pan characters and having them die a week after the election. While that could be interesting, i think it would result in more people being butt-hurt instead of intrigued or entertained. Just my opinion. Discovering and creating a line of succession after the chancellor diez may sound fun to some but my love for sims has it's limits. :)
-
Six months is....alot. Even for longwinded PC's, it's a long time. My go to says 2 months, but... even that seems along time. A month, maybe? Perhaps in the middle at six weeks?
Its hard trying to balance reasonable time lengths IC with what we don't get bored with OOC, and there's an important balance to be had there. Change is good, and even if you're all about "Everything IC never OOC", you're probably going to get bored if the chancellor is around for a proper term, because...it'd just be the same shit. For a long time.
Whatever you do, I don't think it should go over 2 months. I personally think six weeks would be best, and as low as a month wouldn't hurt.
-
Well, we had DM's doing all that ruler stuff for us for years. Player government will require a culture change. I hope I'm not rambling. I don't think 2 months is too short, but I think players will eventually see that two month mark and realize their characters have a lot of life left. I don't mean to argue @MrPenguin-Phil that's just how I see it. Characters last longer than two months. I'd gamble and say they last 4+ months.
-
Losing the next election doesn't mean the end of the character. Presumably.
-
Six weeks is probably ideal.
I would be all for all of the politicians being dumped in the arena at the end of term to cannibalize one another though!
-
-
I would be for a month personally, because I think players should really be testing the limits of their power and they will be more likely to do so if it is limited by a shortened window of time. However, I'm fine with 6 weeks or 2 months as well. 6 Months is a definite no, as I don't think I've ever even had a PC last 3...
-
@bowser Maybe one month terms but you can serve unlimited terms in a row? If you were popular or could consolidate power you could stay in office... until you get so popular you declare yourself queen and secede from Cormyr?
-
Yes I like that actually Nikko. I see no reason why the incumbent can't serve multiple terms and run again.