Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="77IM" data-source="post: 7337425" data-attributes="member: 12377">As Nevvur pointed out, if you assume that the undecideds vote totally at random, or abstain, then the candidate the PCs back is statistically likely to win even if the PCs talk to no one at all. I think that's totally fine -- it makes it an easy victory, but I suspect that the players won't realize it's an easy victory, at least not until they've gotten a bunch of interactions. Plus, if the undecideds vote at random, it could be risky; the only guarantee of victory is to secure enough votes.One way to get around this is to introduce a contrarian block that is opposed to the PCs and determined to vote AGAINST their candidate out of spite, which evens out the numbers before the PCs get to schmoozing. That seems kind of lame, though, and probably unnecessary unless your players are really good at math and willing to take risks.Another mechanism is to have no set voting time, and instead say &quot;first candidate to get 12 declarations of support, wins.&quot; Thus the undecideds won't ever help determine the majority, but they aren't really abstaining, either; it's like there isn't a quorum. Of course in a one-shot you'll need a time limit of some kind, so maybe if there's no clear winner after a while, they use trial-by-combat or they let the oracles decide or something. In this case, an undecided vote is kind of like voting for that fallback strategy.I'm probably overthinking this, because if your players are engaged with the scenario, they are going to start hustling at their first opportunity. With 12 undecideds, it's highly unlikely that the PCs will alienate so many of them that it's impossible to get the 4 or 7 votes they need to be certain of victory.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="77IM, post: 7337425, member: 12377"] As Nevvur pointed out, if you assume that the undecideds vote totally at random, or abstain, then the candidate the PCs back is statistically likely to win [I]even if the PCs talk to no one at all.[/I] I think that's totally fine -- it makes it an easy victory, but I suspect that the players won't realize it's an easy victory, at least not until they've gotten a bunch of interactions. Plus, if the undecideds vote at random, it could be risky; the only guarantee of victory is to secure enough votes. One way to get around this is to introduce a contrarian block that is opposed to the PCs and determined to vote AGAINST their candidate out of spite, which evens out the numbers before the PCs get to schmoozing. That seems kind of lame, though, and probably unnecessary unless your players are really good at math and willing to take risks. Another mechanism is to have no set voting time, and instead say "first candidate to get 12 declarations of support, wins." Thus the undecideds won't ever help determine the majority, but they aren't really abstaining, either; it's like there isn't a quorum. Of course in a one-shot you'll need a time limit of some kind, so maybe if there's no clear winner after a while, they use trial-by-combat or they let the oracles decide or something. In this case, an undecided vote is kind of like voting for that fallback strategy. I'm probably overthinking this, because if your players are engaged with the scenario, they are going to start hustling at their first opportunity. With 12 undecideds, it's highly unlikely that the PCs will alienate so many of them that it's impossible to get the 4 or 7 votes they need to be certain of victory. [/QUOTE]

Verification