And this will be a time of social crisis. I mean, if nothing else, Sulla's more-extensive (in this game world) proscriptions cleared out a lot of space. "485 of 600 Senators are dead or banished. I guess we need some more."

So the PCs will have their chance. But starting off higher-up is still an advantage, and starting off lower-down is still a disadvantage. It's easier to make your second million bucks than it was to make your first, and it's easier to start high and go higher, than to start from the bottom.

I mean, if one of my players really wants to play a character who begins as a privvy-cleaning slave and ends up Emperor, I say good luck to 'em. But the idea is that they begin as the lowly-but-only-relatively clients of their patron, Vestinus. And as they associate with him and others in the chaotic events of the Fall or Renaissance of the Republic, they fall or rise themselves.

should probably just let this drop but...

Patrician/Plebeian is not a social status.  It is a birth status.  Early in the Republic, centuries before the time you are setting the game in, these had been social statuses--but not in the 1st Century BC.  The original benefits of patrician birth had been nearly completely obliterated--patricians had a monopoly on a few priesthoods and on service as interrex, which was not a significant office. I'm afraid that you are reading that diagram incorrectly--if you look carefully there are no offices in the cursus honorum that plebeians can't hold--one track there is offices open to both birth groups and the other to plebeians only.  So plebeians had offices open only to them (tribunate and plebeian aediles) but they could also serve as quaestors and curule aediles--and, of course, as any of the higher magistrates.  So for a political career, plebeian birth was actually preferable.  As Cicero remarked in a speech about Clodius's adoption into a plebeian family for political reasons:

Quote from: On His House, 14 38Only approve of this sort of adoption, and in a moment the sacred ceremonies of every family, of which you ought to be the guardians, will be abolished, and not one patrician will be left. For why should any one be willing to be incapable of being made a tribune of the people? to have his power of standing for the consulship narrowed?

Or, if you don't believe me (and why should you?) this is what Mary Beard and Michael Crawford, both specialists in Roman history, have to say on the subject:

Quote from: Rome in the Late Republic, pp. 48-49By the late Republic the distinction between the categories (patrician vs. plebeian) was merely vestigial.  A small group of patrician families survived—maybe no more than 30 in the 50s B.C. but they were not necessarily wealthy nor influential and their particular privileges barely extended beyond the monopoly of one or two priesthoods.  Indeed, the rich and powerful plebeians of the first century B.C. (Cicero, Crassus, or Pompey, for example) would have laughed at any notion that the plebeians as a group were second-class citizens in the last centuries of the Republic, as they had been earlier.

This is not a question of short-term social mobility.  I'm not claiming that it was at all common for someone to rise up from the lower social classes of Rome to a magistracy and membership in the Senate.  The point I'm trying to make is that the wealthy ruling elite by the period that you are interested in contained more plebeian families than patrician ones--and had done so for quite a while.  Indeed, it's for precisely this reason that sources in the last centuries of the Republic stop talking about the ruling class as patricians and instead start calling them the nobiles.  Simply being a patrician was not  necessarily enough to get you into this group.  Indeed, if we switch from talking about social class to talking about census classification, not all patrician families would necessarily make it into top rung of the census ladder--the equestrians.

Of course, it's true since there were vast numbers of people of plebeian birth, that statistically speaking a plebeian was much more likely to be a member of the lower social orders than he/she was to be one of the nobiles.  But among the nobiles, I would bet that plebeians outnumbered patricians.

Your argument is technically right. Its also stupid and irrelevant.

RPGPundit

Fair enough.  I'll shut up about it.

Edit:  On a more positive note, it seems to me that you can get some gaming mileage out of Vestinus's age.  He's actually a bit old for an aedile--you could hold the office at 36 and there was considerable competition to get any office as young as possible--'in your own year' as it was known.  Not everybody did, of course, and there's nothing unrealistic about having a 54-year old aedile.  But his age could be an issue during the campaign, and if elected you could have interesting complications in his perhaps rocky relationship with younger colleagues, who see him as rather old for his position.

You know, I think this thread illustrates precisely what I think is the problem with playing historical RPGs, as discussed in a recent thread: we don't all have the same conception of the level of detail necessary to provide a good experience.  You really have to make sure everyone around the table has compatible expectations.

That's a good point.  It goes well beyond historical gaming, though.  The same issue can come up in any sort of gaming as some SF campaigns I've been in with mathematicians, scientists, and M.D.s have shown me.  And experts in weapons and combat can nitpick just about any system.

In practice, though, I suspect that JimBobOz and his players are on the same page and will have a great time.  It certainly looks like a cool idea for a game.

For the record, if I were lucky enough to play in JBO's Rome campaign, I certainly wouldn't nitpick or argue about Roman history with him.  As gm his approach would be law to me.

Jimbobs approch sits well with me ,as someone whos done a fair bit of reading round the period, and considers himself a qualified armchair historian as a a result.

I like the fact that he's deliberately setting out to make a gameble setting out it, and is wiling to take others opinions, especially his players, ideas into the his grand design, which can only become stronger as a result.

Quick question though. I'm a big fan of Steven Saylor's Roma Sub Rosa series. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roma_Sub_Rosa) in which the main character Gordius the Finder investigates various crimes in the late Republic, bumping into the various movers and shakers (Sulla, Cicero, Pomepy, Caesar etc) as he goes. You said in your original post that you didn't want to include any of such figures. Is that because you want to present a Rome where the pcs can take on the roles/position they would fill or is it because you don't wan't to deal with historical anachronism that may result because of you including these characters in your games?

Quote from: AnemoneYou know, I think this thread illustrates precisely what I think is the problem with playing historical RPGs, as discussed in a recent thread: we don't all have the same conception of the level of detail necessary to provide a good experience.  

I would say rather that this thread allows me to see who at therpgsite I'd play an historical setting with. The nitpickers focusing on irrelevant details and debating the GM are people I wouldn't play it with. We're not taking Late Roman Republican History 202, we're playing a game. It's the same as with television series or movies which the same sorts of people complain are not documentaries.

The question is not whether the thing is perfectly historical or not, but whether it's interesting and fun. I can certainly buy the argument that in many cases the real history would be more interesting and fun than the stuff presented in the game/book/movie/tv series; but it does not follow that the real history will always be more interesting and fun.

In any endeavour, you have to think about, "what am I trying to do here? What's my end goal?" In a documentary or university course your end goal is to achieve an understanding of real history. In an rpg or tv series or movie, your end goal is to have something interesting and fun. It's quite possible that the two goals will complement; but in the case of an rpg with most gamers, the two goals will clash. That's because with most gamers you'd need to give them lots of books to read and long lectures from the GM, and some players would debate you - since after all, professional historians don't agree on all these things.

So you have to choose one goal to focus on, either education or entertainment. Because I am a Cheetoist, I choose "entertainment." Therefore I would not game with most of these debaters - not an historical game, anyway. But not all gamers are like them.  

Quote from: AnemoneYou really have to make sure everyone around the table has compatible expectations.

Absolutely, and as always. In this case, I know that three of them do. The fourth I'm not sure of, as he's one of the players' friends, and I've not met him, nor has he replied to emails about it as yet. But if he doesn't have some sort of character idea for me by Sunday afternoon, I won't let him into the campaign - it starts on Monday evening. I'm not sure if he's really that keen or if it's just his buddy dragging him in.

Quote from: NewtYou said in your original post that you didn't want to include any of such [historical] figures. Is that because you want to present a Rome where the pcs can take on the roles/position they would fill or is it because you don't wan't to deal with historical anachronism that may result because of you including these characters in your games?

I want them to be able to do stuff that matters.

PCs should be able to do things. Over in the Game Design forum right now there's a guy talking about his Holocaust rpg. The PCs will be powerless, their only choices being Sophie's Choice. To me that is the absolute opposite of what rpgs are about. The PCs should always have a chance to make a difference. Escape from Sobibor or Uprising could be interesting rpgs about the Holocaust; Auschwitz Chimneys could not be. The difference is whether PCs can make a difference. PCs should not have to be passive observers of their fates. That doesn't mean they should always succeed, but just that their success or failure should be obviously at least partly affected by their decisions and actions. They should not be powerless and irrelevant.

Historical figures as scenery I think is entertaining. Historical figures as the main story, with the PCs just sidekicks, is not. Ever see the DM of the Rings webcomic? The authour presents us with Lord of the Rings as a D&D campaign. The players are pissed off all the time because nothing they do matters - they're just spectators to the grand history of the true heroes, Gandalf &c. The players respond by having their characters just kill the bad guys in mid-sentence, trying to force their will onto the world. "We will be important whether you like it or not, you bastard."

An historical campaign worried about finicky details and filled with historical figures would not necessarily, but would tend to, make the PCs irrelevant. Th stream is flowing in a certain direction, and the PCs are in a boat floating downstream. The more details and historical characters, the stronger the current the PCs are rowing against. I want them to be able to do stuff that matters.

Quote from: FritzefFor the record, if I were lucky enough to play in JBO's Rome campaign, I certainly wouldn't nitpick or argue about Roman history with him.  As gm his approach would be law to me.

That's not how I GM. I try for what I like to call the Jean-Luc Picard style of leadership, after a certain bald-headed starship captain. Consult with everyone, make a decision based on what they say - and then stick to that decision. Consulting all the time is very democratic but nothing gets done. Simply making decisions keeps things moving but not necessarily in the direction anyone wants. And so, a wise course is to ask everyone what they want in a campaign, and then try to give it to them.

It's the same with rules. During a game session, I stick to the rules as best we can. If the players think those rules are stupid for some reason, then we can discuss it at length - between game sessions. We might find ourselves agreeing on a house rule - and then that house rule will be the one we stick to for the next session at least.

Before the first session, and between the other sessions, is the time for consultation. Session time is time for action! It's a bit like the Romans with their Dictatorship, except instead of six months it's three or four hours of game session. I have complete authority then, but it's subject to review afterwards, and if they don't like what I did with it I might not get my escort of lictors carrying fasces next time, someone else might get the job

Quote from: JimBobOzClash, you should spend less tiome being pedantic and more time answering your emails!

HI Kyle!

I haven't seen any emails from you recently - Did you send to the flyingmice address or the yahoo account? Anyway, please resend!

-clash

Quote from: JimBobOzThat's not how I GM. I try for what I like to call the Jean-Luc Picard style of leadership, after a certain bald-headed starship captain. Consult with everyone, make a decision based on what they say - and then stick to that decision.

That's my own favorite approach as well.  I didn't mean to imply that you were authoritarian.  I was just responding to what Anemone said about the difficulties of historical gaming and trying to point out that what I (or anybody, I'd guess) would say on an internet chatboard about a setting is not the same way that I'd approach the topic at the gaming table.  I definitely agree that RPGing is about entertainment, not education, for me anyway.

Sorry if I've wasted your time, but since you quite rightly corrected my mistake on Machiavelli I thought you might be interested in the historical details. In my defense, I think I'm the only person who provided any of the links you requested in the OP, though perhaps the ones I suggested weren't useful to you.

You are quite right that only you gave me any links, and for that I thank you. The rest of you lot can stick your patricians up your plebian!

Quote from: JimBobOzYou are quite right that only you gave me any links, and for that I thank you. The rest of you lot can stick your patricians up your plebian!

I only gave you one but I did honor your request.

Bill

We had our first session last night. It was quite good.

I'd said that I might run something else pretty lightweight to see how everyone got along. The issue was that this campaign is gong to be a LOT of work, I wanted to make sure the group played together well, and to see their style of play, to see if the work was going to be worth it, and also where I should direct my efforts - for example, no use preparing lots of detailed NPCs if these guys are going to just smash stuff, and no use figuring out combat stats if they'll only talk to people.

Basically they finished off their characters and I ran them through a practice combat to give them a feel of the system. We had Tyberious Funk, Chris and Matt - this bloke Mark (whom I don't know, he's only recommended through Matt) was crook and couldn't come, though he just now sent me his character background three times so he must actually be keen....

After the practice combat, I just said that their patron came along and gave the winner his old legionary helmet from the African wars, and we kind of accidentally slid into a session.

Chris is playing a young man, Calidus, who wanted to be an athlete but was a klutz (DX 9), then turned to soldiering but while he could swing a sword and so on, simply couldn't get salutes and day-to-day work life right (Incompetent: Soldier skill). He ended up as a physician with an obsesssion for hygiene. Calidus has the main NPC Vestinus as neither a Patron nor a Duty, he comes and goes as he pleases. He spent his points on being Comfortably Wealthy, as one might expect of a physician.

Matt played Quintus, a staunch legionary with a Secret and a Debt. Quintus has known Vestinus for some years and fought under him in the Civil War. He also fancies Vestinus' daughter but she's a bit above him besides which she's already married - "but a quick thrust with the gladius and a shove in the Tiber River while nobody's looking could fix that." He has both Vestinus both as a Duty and a Patron, but the Duty appears on 9 or less, and the Patron on 6 or less; so he will more often be asked to do things than be offered any help.

Tyberious Funk played Falco, a young man who was the second son, but the first son fell under one of Vestinus' horses. Falco insists he had nothing to do with it. Out of guilt, Vestinus said he would take on Falco and help him. The second son then became the first son, and was renamed "Primus". He had been studying to be a priest and wasn't impressed at being thrust forward like this. He like Calidus is a bit clumsy (DX 9), and so as a young officer, couldn't fight well. What do you do with a young soldier who's a bit useless as a fighter? You promote him! He found his place as a leader. So Falco has Vestinus as a strong Patron (appears on 9 or less), as strong as his Duty to him (same). Falco has, amazingly for Tyberious Funk, both a Soldier's Code of Honour and Honesty (control roll 12, so he can resist minor things on 12 or less). Also Sense of Duty to the Legion. Hmmm, that's a bit much, lots of overlap, I'd better look into that. Anyway...

So they had their practice bout. Falco fought Calidus, and Calidus crippled his leg, downing him. The Quintus fought Calidus, and copped a jab in the 'nads, and fell over gasping. Old Vestinus came aong and rewarded Calidus with his old legionary helmet from the African wars. He then told them he was having a feast that night for family and friends and clients and invited them along. They went off to the baths to clean up, and there met the grotesquely fat Senator Andronicus, who questioned them as to what their master was up to. They said nothing.

That evening, they went to the feast, dressed as well as they could manage, Quintus taking it on himself to arrange security for the place, and thus getting in the way of slaves trying to serve dinner and clean up. They had a chat with Marius, freedman client of Andronicus, and then with Andronicus himself. Andronics professed to having no political ambitions, himself. "I am a man of but humble desires," he said, taking a swig of Greek wine and a handful of grapes from a passing slave. "I only wish for a simple life in my villa." They were then treated to the sight of a troupe of Armenian dancing girls, which everyone enjoyed immensely. Soon Vestinus gathered his family and clients around him. Falco found himself on the inner circle, and the plebeian Calidus on the outer, with debt-ridden Quintus in the middle. Silence fell across the room, Andronicus strolling in after a private session with two of the Armenian dancing girls.

After an eloquent speech about his services to Rome, and the many gifts Rome had given him, Vestinus announced that he was running for the position of curule aedile - these are the people responsible for organising public works, including games. After this speech, he called the PCs to him, and said that he wished as part of his campaign to hold a small games in one of the forums of the city. "You're holding games to hope to win the right to... hold games?" they asked in confusion. "Certainly - and to be able to do public works. But this is just the first of many steps." Vestinus said he wanted a troupe of gladiators to fight, and told the PCs they could spend up to 10,000 denari.

The next day they went off to Prospero the gladiator trainer. They found that 10,000 denari was not enough to buy slaves, but they could hire some for a week. "We see you have them in pairs. Can't we get this one to fight the other one instead?"
"No, because they're not used to fighting each-other. Put them in different pairs and they may get seriously injured."
"So if we break it, we have to buy it?"
"Exacty."
They promised Prospero 6,000 denari for a dozen slaves for a week, and wandered off to see what else they could find.

They made contact with Hippolus, the owner of the troupe of Armenian dancing girls, and secured their services for a performance for the minor sum of 3,000 denari. The Quintus said, "Wild beasts! We need wild beasts!"
"Won't wild beasts harm the gladiators?"
"True. Perhaps we could find some unwanted slaves for them to fight?"
"That's expensive, too. Isn't there some unpopular troublemaking religious minority we could throw to the lions?"
"Unfortunately not."
"Damn. Well, let's look for wild beasts anyway."

They went looking and could find only one geriatric lion with scraggly fur and a dead rhinocerous. A magnificent beasts which unfortunately had caught a fever and perished. Quintus became fixated on the beast's horn, and insisted on buying it. He had to borrow money from Calidus, and got the horn for 200 denari. They also bought the lion for 700, but are unclear on exactly what they'll do with it.

They returned to Vestinus and reported on their day.
"You bought a geriatric lion?"
"Not geriatric, tame! Domesticated."
"What use is that?"
"Well, he won't hurt the gladiators."
"Why will anyone come to watch a lion not hurt anybody?"
"I was thinking of putting this horn on the lion's head. A new beast! Unheard of before!"
"There is a reason you weren't promoted beyond decurion, isn't there?"
"Um..."
"Never mind, I shall no doubt be able to give the beast to someone as a gift. Someone I dislike."

And there the impromptu session ended. It was fun, and can get more serious as time goes on

Sounds like a fun session.  Falco, eh?  Lindsey Davis strikes again!

Speaking of Roman mystery novels, you might find John Roberts SPQR series interesting. They are set in roughly your period--a decade or two later--and have as the main character a young senator on the rise.  In SPQR VI, The Tribune's Curse, the hero is standing for aedile, in VII, The River God's Vengeance, he is serving and having difficulties with his duties--investigating the collapse of an insula.  They're relatively short and easy reads and might have some useful ideas for plot hooks.  They could also be a fairly painless way to pick up background information.