[Axel]

As a result of writing up my campaign world, I've discovered more than one potential campaign idea has come of it. Now I may have, once again, put myself in a position of running a campaign without being fully prepared. I've got an interested player who may have other people looking, plus a friend who's running a beginners' campaign and wants to send her freshmen to me after it ends. There's the background for my position. Now, I have three different ideas in mind for the campaign, each has its own pros and cons.
1st setting: This is the one I've been setting up for since the start, the frontier. The players will begin as Imperial Marshals, get a series of missions that will eventually lead into the main story. While I like the rough plot I've got here, I fear it may lack some of the hack-n-slash my new players might want, and could become too intensive for them.
2nd setting: We'll go back in time a few decades from the previous setting, while keeping the PC's status as Marshals. In all likelihood they'll be the ones who start the frontier rush, and should end up becoming frontiersmen themselves. Much less serious than the last one, but also less thought out, lacks a decent plotline, and could potentially develop into an even more political game than the first one depending on what the players do.
3rd setting: Now let's just go back in time to the beginning of my world's recorded history. They get to be major players in the myths and legends I've already vaguely outlined. The plot is simple, but requires a great deal from the PC's. There's a lot of hack-n-slash, with what should be a good curve, and a preset group of villains for me to throw at them. The problem: It's a Stone/Bronze Age campaign (tech level varies by area). I worry about essentially eliminating everything that would be available to my potentially newbie players, added to my already well-known DM stinginess.

[Raven Bloodmoon]

At first glance, I'd recommend #2 for new players. If they choose to take a political route, that's their choice. But right now, simplicity may be the highest priority. Otherwise, #1. Option 3 is a dangerous one to hand newblets because they need to follow a certain path, and they're far more random than normal players tend to be, thus they are harder to stear from behind the scenes.

[RedSlayer]

I'd like to second Raven's opinion on this one. A lack of a decent plot-line will be far less notable to newblets, and one can develop later depending on what they choose.

[Raven Bloodmoon]

Someone mark thsi day on the calendar! Red agreed with me!

[Axel]

You think? I was concerned that the total lack of any real idea where the game was going (beyond kill a dragon eventually somehow for some reason and then head out West) would be more dangerous than the vague legend I had set up (Giants used to terrorize humanity, some heroes killed most of them off).

[Dthclaw]

Well, bear in mind that you don't need to have everything figured out completely ahead of time. Start small (local) and work your way outward as time and need demands. Hell, that's how my campaign got made... I started with a ripped map from Eberron, added my own thumbtacks to it and just rode from there.

Just come up with a reason to go kill said dragon and let the players guide you from there.

[Rintaran]

Actually, I like the first option. If the players want more hack'n'slash, they'll make it. They may come to use their positions as Imperial Marshalls as an open license to eliminate those that oppose their particular vision of how things are supposed to be developing on the frontier. With that "shield", they could easily bash the heck out of whatever they want to, making it a very hack'n'slash campaign, thus giving the players exactly what they want. Remember, no matter how political a game may get, at any point the players may get out their dice, roll'm, and say "I attack <insert character here>." The repercussions of this action could be far more exciting than you may have initially planned. Just roll with it Axel, and let us know how things run.