forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

I'm wondering if anyone has created a mechanism for handling the vote at the Folk-Moot? In thinking of either having the Folk-Moot at the end of an adventure or as part of a Fellowship Phase but I'm not sure how I should run this to determine how the Woodmen respond to the three proposals. I know that player-heroes can speak in support or against any of the proposals to rally opinion but how should I adjudicate the actual vote?

Any ideas? Thanks in advance for your thoughts!

You could do something to simulate the randomness of the council's decision. A roll of the feat die determines the result, something like: Black Tarn's request only fails on a Sauron roll, Mogdred only succeeds on a 9+, and Ceawin succeeds on a 5+. If the party argues for/against a particular party, modify by +2 (or +highest relavent standing, whichever you see fit). I wish I would have done something like this when I ran this part, could have added a different moment to the result. Seems to make enough sense to me, though.

Dreyton wrote:You could do something to simulate the randomness of the council's decision. A roll of the feat die determines the result, something like: Black Tarn's request only fails on a Sauron roll, Mogdred only succeeds on a 9+, and Ceawin succeeds on a 5+. If the party argues for/against a particular party, modify by +2 (or +highest relavent standing, whichever you see fit). I wish I would have done something like this when I ran this part, could have added a different moment to the result. Seems to make enough sense to me, though.

How did you run it?

They already state the dispositions towards each proposal under "The Debate." I would say that if the PCs don't get involved then that is how the votes go down.

beckett wrote:

Dreyton wrote:You could do something to simulate the randomness of the council's decision. A roll of the feat die determines the result, something like: Black Tarn's request only fails on a Sauron roll, Mogdred only succeeds on a 9+, and Ceawin succeeds on a 5+. If the party argues for/against a particular party, modify by +2 (or +highest relavent standing, whichever you see fit). I wish I would have done something like this when I ran this part, could have added a different moment to the result. Seems to make enough sense to me, though.

How did you run it?

The PCs took a stance on each topic, all were for, then rolled to try to plead their case. All rolls were successful so the moot accepted all three offers. Played at the same either way for the PCs probably, but i would have liked to have done it differently.

I'm thinking about skipping the whole thing and using it as background in my PbP game. I have two new Woodmen players, and as such they are low standing individuals. So, I don't really see them being given to much lee way in things to say. The other players are complete outsiders. I'm thinking about doing something else entirely.

The fact they're low standing individuals shouldn't necessarily matter - they can still sway things by persuading their neighbours and friends, lobbying with higher-standing figures and so on. Giving the players influence over the outcome of the moot pays off in the long run, as they'll be more invested in what happens later.

For those who have run The Folk-Moot ftf, I'm curious. How long did it take you to get through the scenario? It seems to me that if your group is very immersive you could have long in character dicussions and debates about the merits and flaws of each choice. However, if your group isn't quite so immersive then you could end up having to gloss over the whole situation pretty quickly and have to move on to other things.

Beran wrote:For those who have run The Folk-Moot ftf, I'm curious. How long did it take you to get through the scenario? It seems to me that if your group is very immersive you could have long in character dicussions and debates about the merits and flaws of each choice. However, if your group isn't quite so immersive then you could end up having to gloss over the whole situation pretty quickly and have to move on to other things.

My group took half session.
We play pretty immersively, but the PCs aren't Woodmen, "just" renowned heroes and friends of the Woodmen.
So my players felt they ought to express their opinions, but they didn't try to persuade the woodmen leaders: in other words they offered their insights, but refrained from contradicting/discussing the elders out of respect.

I agree with Gareth on this which is why I asked for opinions on how to adjudicate the actual vote at the Folk-Moot.

Giving the players influence over the outcome of the moot pays off in the long run, as they'll be more invested in what happens later.

Reading through the book again, I think I will use something similar to the mechanic found for the Election of the War-Leader. That seems to make the most sense to me. I'll report back to this thread regarding how that went for my group if anyone is interested.

We took a short break and return to the campaign in a few weeks... I'm hoping the hardcopy shows up in time.