Wolfpack
02-10-2004, 02:49 PM
(RTTWH is "Road to the White House" for those unfamiliar)
I'm kicking around the notion of trying to GM or solo-play a game of RTTWH and posting the resulting play on the Dynasty board. There would be some rules modifications to make it somewhat more realistic.
What I am curious about is whether there are individuals willing to spend a bit of time trying to play as one of the campaigns (as candidate or manager). I'd do all the physical piece movement and die rolling and card play, while the players would inform as to what they wanted to do during their turns. In turn, I'd post headlines to the Dynasty thread indicating what's going on with the candidates and events of the world.
Other questions:
--If no interest in actually playing the game, then interest in me handling it all myself and posting it?
--In either case, should I use real people (figuring out how to cull game-equivalent positions from real-life ones would be a bit of work and I'd probably need a little help), candidates that the game makers created for use in the game, or completely new, somewhat random candidates (or, if players are willing to play, designed candidates representing themselves)?
--The setting: should it be a campaign in the 90s or 2000s? This will affect votes in various cities (I have adjusted numbers for the 2000 census) as well as perhaps updating headlines to suit the times. (For instance, "Japanese land on Mars, Space becomes active issue" could become "US probe successfully lands on Mars, Space becomes active issue".) Also, if it's a campaign set in 2004, I'm considering modifying the issues rules to allow for two permanent issue slots, one for the economy (Finance, Jobs), and one for foreign issues (Defense, Foreign Relations) and having two other slots for issues to live and die as they do in normal games, so there could be up to four issues in play at one time instead of three. It would be an attempt to reflect the dominance of the economic issues and the War on Terror in the real world. Also, a game set in 2004 would use the new apportionment of seats rather than what would be used in 1992, 1996, or 2000.
--Should there be a primary season for both parties (run simultaneously with events occuring to both primary campaigns at the same time) or should there be an incumbent president or VP for the primary winner to run against? Remember, this probably will not be like the real world in that early wins in Iowa or New Hampshire will result in a sudden and rapid shift of votes to one candidate and thus trigger what has happened in real life where it becomes nearly impossible to stop the winning candidate. (Granted, I could introduce a rule or two that could make it more likely....)
Thoughts?
I'm kicking around the notion of trying to GM or solo-play a game of RTTWH and posting the resulting play on the Dynasty board. There would be some rules modifications to make it somewhat more realistic.
What I am curious about is whether there are individuals willing to spend a bit of time trying to play as one of the campaigns (as candidate or manager). I'd do all the physical piece movement and die rolling and card play, while the players would inform as to what they wanted to do during their turns. In turn, I'd post headlines to the Dynasty thread indicating what's going on with the candidates and events of the world.
Other questions:
--If no interest in actually playing the game, then interest in me handling it all myself and posting it?
--In either case, should I use real people (figuring out how to cull game-equivalent positions from real-life ones would be a bit of work and I'd probably need a little help), candidates that the game makers created for use in the game, or completely new, somewhat random candidates (or, if players are willing to play, designed candidates representing themselves)?
--The setting: should it be a campaign in the 90s or 2000s? This will affect votes in various cities (I have adjusted numbers for the 2000 census) as well as perhaps updating headlines to suit the times. (For instance, "Japanese land on Mars, Space becomes active issue" could become "US probe successfully lands on Mars, Space becomes active issue".) Also, if it's a campaign set in 2004, I'm considering modifying the issues rules to allow for two permanent issue slots, one for the economy (Finance, Jobs), and one for foreign issues (Defense, Foreign Relations) and having two other slots for issues to live and die as they do in normal games, so there could be up to four issues in play at one time instead of three. It would be an attempt to reflect the dominance of the economic issues and the War on Terror in the real world. Also, a game set in 2004 would use the new apportionment of seats rather than what would be used in 1992, 1996, or 2000.
--Should there be a primary season for both parties (run simultaneously with events occuring to both primary campaigns at the same time) or should there be an incumbent president or VP for the primary winner to run against? Remember, this probably will not be like the real world in that early wins in Iowa or New Hampshire will result in a sudden and rapid shift of votes to one candidate and thus trigger what has happened in real life where it becomes nearly impossible to stop the winning candidate. (Granted, I could introduce a rule or two that could make it more likely....)
Thoughts?